As reported by Hindustan Times, speaking at a women’s empowerment event in Lakhipur, Cachar district, on October 25, the Chief Minister said, “The parents of the male accused in love-jihad cases will also be liable for arrest under the new law. We want to save our women from traps where they become victims of love-jihad and polygamy. We are bringing stringent laws.”

Under the proposed legislation, if a minor girl is lured into an interfaith marriage, both the man and his parents could face multi-year imprisonment. This provision — introducing familial culpability — is unprecedented in any existing anti-conversion law enacted by other states.

According to Times of India, addressing another gathering in Silchar on October 24, Sarma also announced a ban on polygamy, warning that those who “marry more than one woman” would face up to seven years’ imprisonment. “Many men cause immense harm to women by marrying multiple times,” Sarma said, adding that the move sought to “protect the dignity of women and ensure uniformity of law.”

Earlier, on October 22, speaking to reporters in Nagaon, the Chief Minister described the upcoming Assembly session as “historic”, confirming that the government will table several “important and transformative bills” — including those on “love jihad”, polygamy, preservation of Satras (Vaishnavite monasteries), and land rights for tea tribes, as reported by Indian Express. He said that the detailed provisions would be disclosed after Cabinet approval.

Cultural preservation and legislative agenda

Alongside the anti-conversion and polygamy bills, the government will also introduce the Assam Satra Preservation and Development Board Bill, 2025, which was approved by the Cabinet on October 16. The bill aims to protect Vaishnavite monasteries (Satras) — the spiritual and cultural institutions established by the 15th-century saint Srimanta Sankardeva — from alleged encroachment and ensure state-supported preservation, as per LawBeat.

Sarma’s proposed package comes ahead of the 2026 state elections and is seen as part of his government’s broader agenda to “institutionalise” an Assam-centric, almost “majoritarian” cultural and moral order. The Chief Minister has previously said that banning polygamy and “deceitful religious conversions” is part of Assam’s move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)-like framework, echoing the recommendations of the Justice (Retd.) Rumi Kumari Phukan Committee, which examined the legal viability of such a measure.

In recent speeches, Sarma has also linked population control to welfare eligibility, stating, “Some people say that Allah gives them children, so they cannot stop giving birth. I say, give birth as many as you wish, but do not expect government help to raise them or to send them to government schools,” as per Hindustan Times.

The Chief Minister also reacted sharply to comments by activist Medha Patkar, who had criticised the state’s eviction drives and questioned the investigation into singer Zubeen Garg’s death, saying: “Outsiders do not understand the suffering of the indigenous people of Assam. One community is trying to grab our land and take away our sisters through tricks like love-jihad. If Medha Patkar comes here to protest against evictions, we will take strict action.”
(Hindustan Times)

The ‘Love Jihad’ narrative and legal concerns

The term “love jihad” first appeared in 2009 in publications of the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, before being amplified by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). It gained political traction after 2014, when several BJP-ruled states — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana — enacted laws criminalizing religious conversions through marriage or deception.

However, Assam’s proposal represents a radical expansion of this framework. By extending culpability to the accused’s parents, it effectively criminalizes familial relationships and transforms allegations of interfaith marriage into matters of collective criminal liability.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, who is also a lead petitioner in challenging the said state anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, have warned that such laws are susceptible to misuse, enabling police overreach, community vigilantism, and communal profiling. As The Wire reported, there is no official data to substantiate claims of organized “love jihad” conspiracies, and in several states, arrests under such laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim men in consensual relationships.

The November 25 Assembly session, which Sarma has called “historic,” will be the last major sitting before the 2026 elections. Observers view it as a defining moment that could reshape Assam’s social and legal order — intertwining morality, religion, and state power under the banner of “protecting women” and “preserving indigenous identity.”

If passed, Assam’s “love jihad” and polygamy bills could become among the most far-reaching personal law interventions in independent India, setting a precedent for family liability in interfaith and marital cases, and testing the boundaries between individual freedom, faith, and the expanding reach of the state.

Related:

Gujarat High Court Widened Anti-Conversion Law: ‘Victims’ can be prosecuted as offenders

Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

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

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This came after the Calcutta High Court had quashed the deportation orders against six persons — including eight-month pregnant Sunali (Sonali) Khatun, her husband Danish Sheikh, and their eight-year-old son Sabir — and directed that all six be brought back to India within four weeks. The deadline expired on October 24, 2025, but the Union government moved the Supreme Court on October 22, just two days before the compliance period ended. Reports indicate that the families of the deported persons were preparing to seek contempt proceedings in the High Court to ensure the order’s enforcement.

Detailed report of the Calcutta High Court order may be read here.

In its plea before the apex court, the Union government has reportedly questioned the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to hear the case, arguing that similar matters were already pending before the Delhi High Court. As per TOI, appearing for the Union, Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakrabarti contended that the petitioner, Bhodu Sheikh — Sunali’s father and resident of Birbhum — had suppressed this fact when filing the habeas corpus petition.

In brief: Calcultta HC order of repatriation

Earlier, in response to the Calcutta High Court’s direction to disclose the details of the deportation process, the Union had maintained that the six detainees were Bangladeshi nationals. However, the affidavit failed to clarify from which location or under whose authority the pushback occurred.

The High Court had taken a stern view of this omission. In its September 26 judgment in Bhodu Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., a Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the deportation had been carried out in “hot haste,” in complete disregard of the Ministry of Home Affairs memo dated May 2, 2025, which mandates that no deportation can occur without a 30-day verification process through the home State.

Rejecting the Union’s claim that the deportees had “confessed” to being Bangladeshi nationals, the Court held that such statements made before police officers “without any procedural safeguards” violated Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution. The Bench noted that Sunali’s Aadhaar and PAN cards proved she was born in 2000 — making it factually impossible for her to have “entered India illegally in 1998,” as claimed by authorities.

Emphasising that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof,” the judges declared the deportation and detention orders of June 24 and 26, 2025, unconstitutional. They ruled that the executive’s conduct had “crippled the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness” and ordered the Union government, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the six persons within four weeks via the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. A plea by the Union government to stay the order was rejected outright, with the Bench observing that “liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.”

Bangladesh Court recognition of the six victims as Indian Citizens

In a parallel and extraordinary development, a Bangladeshi court also ruled in favour of the deported families. On September 30, 2025, the Senior Judicial Magistrate of the Sadar Court in Chapainawabganj declared that all six persons — Sunali Khatun, Danish Sheikh, their minor son Sabir, Sweety Bibi (32), and her two sons aged six and sixteen — were Indian citizens, not Bangladeshis.

Citing their Aadhaar numbers and residential proof from Birbhum, the Magistrate concluded that they were “wrongfully pushed across the border” by Indian authorities. The court directed that the order be transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for “appropriate diplomatic action,” effectively placing the onus on New Delhi to initiate their repatriation.

Detailed report may be read here.

Political Reactions: Trinamool Congress accuses Union of defiance

As the Union’s deadline to comply with the High Court’s order expired on October 24, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) accused the Union government of “brazenly defying” a judicial directive and “abandoning” its own citizens.

On October 24, according to the report of The Hindu, TMC alleged that the BJP-led Union government had “flouted the Calcutta High Court’s order with arrogance and indifference.” The party questioned: “Does being in power give BJP the licence to flout a High Court order? To ignore the suffering of women and children? To turn ordinary citizens into bargaining chips in a vindictive, performative game of power?”

According to The Hindu, the statement further said: “First these hapless people were branded Bangladeshis and dumped across the border. Then, after a long legal battle, the court found otherwise and ordered their repatriation. But the Centre has shown no urgency, no humanity, and no basic decency to bring them home.”

TMC leaders Sashi Panja (Minister for Women and Child Development) and Samirul Islam (Rajya Sabha MP and Chairman, Migrant Workers Welfare Board) condemned the Union’s inaction. As per The Hindu, Ms. Panja said that “The deportation was wrong. The Trinamool fought this battle. The central government did not take a single step to bring them back. They continued to label them as Bangladeshis so that they remain in Bangladesh.”

Mr. Islam told The Hindu that the government’s failure to act was “unconstitutional and inhuman,” noting that the Bangladesh court had already recognised the deportees as Indian citizens. He added that the West Bengal government was struggling to establish any communication with the six persons stranded across the border and that Sunali Bibi had not yet delivered her child.

Broader Context: Crackdown on Bengali-Speaking Workers

This controversy unfolds amid reports that thousands of Bengali-speaking migrant workers have been detained, interrogated, or expelled from BJP-ruled states since May 2025, under suspicion of being undocumented immigrants. As Citizens for Justice and Peace has noted, several workers were declared “foreigners” within days of their detention and pushed across the Bangladesh border, often without inquiry or notice to their home States. Human rights groups and lawyers have described these deportations as “undocumented, unconstitutional, and xenophobic.”

The Sunali Khatun deportation case — now at the centre of legal and diplomatic tensions between India and Bangladesh — has come to symbolise the dangers of executive overreach and ethnic profiling, raising critical questions about citizenship, due process, and accountability under India’s constitutional framework.

Detailed reports on such illegal deportations may be read here, here and here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

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

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Union government challenges Calcutta High Court repatriation order, moves Supreme Court instead even as Bangladesh declares six deported Bengalis Indian citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Context and allegations

According to the complaint filed by Eshwari Padmunja of Puttur taluk, Bhat’s address to the gathering contained statements that were inflammatory, derogatory toward women, and targeted religious minorities, especially Muslim women, in a way alleged to incite communal disharmony. The complaint says that in the speech, Bhat stated that Hindu women who had more than two children were derided for “giving birth like dogs”, whereas Muslim women having larger families apparently were not subject to the same remarks. He reportedly urged Hindu women to have at least three children, rhetorically asking: “If we don’t have children, who will go to the temples?” He also cited a supposed “survey” in which a Muslim woman aged 46-47 had borne 13 children and was pregnant again—this apparently to invoke fear of demographic threat. He additionally made reference to voter demographics and comparative fertility of communities in a manner the complainant argues was calculated to provoke communal tension.

In consequence of the complaint, the Puttur Rural Police registered a case (FIR) on 25 October under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — namely Sections 79 (insult to the modesty of a woman), 196 (promoting enmity between groups on religious/linguistic grounds and prejudicial to harmony), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 302 (deliberate wounding of religious feelings) and 3(5) (criminal act by several persons in furtherance of a common intention). The registration of the FIR followed media reports of a video of the event being circulated, in particular via the YouTube channel “Kahale News”.

Legal developments and court order

In reaction to the FIR and the consequent police notice summoning Bhat for questioning, Bhat filed a petition before the Puttur Sessions Court. He argued that the FIR is motivated by malice, politically influenced, and lacks genuine merit. He claimed the case is a tool to silence his freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and to stifle the ideological work of the RSS.

On October 28, the Court accepted his petition at the interim stage and directed no coercive action against him until the next hearing on October 29; it also issued notice to the police, asking them to respond to Bhat’s petition and the allegations in the FIR. In effect, the court has placed a stay on arrests or detentions relating to the case until further order.

Political and institutional reactions

Following the case, the Karnataka Government, through its Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Minister Priyank Kharge, publicly criticised Bhat’s remarks and questioned whether any individual is “above the law or the Constitution.” He specifically referenced the RSS’s plan to hold a “padayatra” (march) on November 2 in Chittapur, stating that permission from the court is required and that any attempt to proceed without lawful approval will invite action under law. He emphasised that people who disturb communal peace through public speeches will face FIRs under existing law.

On the other side, leaders of the BJP and RSS have accused the Congress-led state government of using state machinery to intimidate Hindu organisations and single out Hindu activists under the guise of “hate speech” policing. Some have alleged the FIR and summons against Bhat reflect “appeasement politics” and a selective targeting of Hindu voices in coastal Karnataka.

Historical Pattern and Background

This is not the first FIR registered against Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat. The present case builds on a pattern of complaints and FIRs involving Bhat and the RSS in the coastal Karnataka region, raising larger questions about law-enforcement, freedom of speech, communal harmony and political discourse.

Over the past decade, Bhat has been named in multiple police complaints and FIRs across Dakshina Kannada, often for statements made at public rallies, religious gatherings, and Sangh Parivar events. His speeches—typically invoking themes of Hindu unity against “anti-national” or “communal” forces—have repeatedly crossed into language that demonises Muslims, Christians, and women.

• 2018: Civil society groups filed complaints after Bhat’s inflammatory address during a Hindu Samajotsava in Mangaluru, where he allegedly said that Hindus must “teach a lesson” to those who “betray the nation.” The speech triggered widespread criticism and a petition before the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission. No prosecution followed.
• 2019: Another complaint was filed in Udupi after Bhat referred to Muslim traders as “enemies of dharma.” The police acknowledged receiving the complaint but cited lack of “direct incitement” to justify inaction.
• 2022: Following the Udupi hijab controversy, Bhat addressed several rallies supporting uniform restrictions, where he allegedly described the hijab as a “symbol of separatism.” A complaint under Sections 153A and 295A IPC was filed by a local activist collective, but the FIR was not registered.
• 2023: In the wake of communal tensions in Belthangady, video clips of Bhat’s speeches circulated online, showing him calling for a “strong Hindu response” to “love jihad.” Again, while fact-checking portals verified the authenticity of the clips, the local police treated the speech as “political expression,” and no FIR was lodged.
• February 2024: Following a speech in Bantwal, where Bhat allegedly said that “those opposing the Ram Mandir should not live in India,” local organisations filed complaints before the Puttur and Sullia police stations. Both complaints were acknowledged, but no arrests were made.

Across these incidents, a clear procedural pattern emerges: FIRs are delayed or not registered, magistrate cognizance is deferred, and when cases are filed, they tend to stagnate without charge-sheets. No case has yet resulted in prosecution or conviction.

Conclusion

Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat’s record illustrates how hate speech prosecutions in India often collapse at the intersection of political patronage, institutional hesitation, and legal ambiguity. The recurring cycle of complaint, delay, and deflection has allowed incendiary speech to thrive unchecked — particularly when uttered under the banner of “religious mobilisation.” As the Puttur FIR inches forward under judicial scrutiny, the question remains whether Karnataka’s justice system will finally break that cycle, or replay the familiar pattern of rhetorical accountability without consequence.

Related:

Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat booked for Babri Masjid demolition play in school

Karnataka Police’s massive crackdown on habitual hate offenders in Dakshina Kannada region

Can majoritarian societal pressure re-write the rulebook? The illegality behind forced non-veg shutdowns during festivals

CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown

From Words to Bulldozers: How a Chief Minister’s rhetoric triggered and normalised punitive policing in Bareilly

The post Court stays proceedings against RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat over alleged derogatory remarks targeting Muslim women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His family said he had dinner the previous night and went to sleep as usual. The next morning, he was discovered dead in his room. A diary recovered from the scene contained a suicide note that “NRC is responsible for my death.”

Pradip had been deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports

According to Dainik Bhaskar, Barrackpore Police Commissioner Murlidhar Sharma confirmed that the note was written in Bengali and made specific reference to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

“The family told us that Pradip had been deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports. After the announcement of the SIR on Monday, he appeared restless, but his family thought he was unwell. He had dinner and went to bed as usual, but did not respond the next morning,” Sharma said.

The officer added that there was no sign of foul play. The body was sent for post-mortem examination, and an investigation is underway, as reported

Kar’s elder sister told reporters, “My brother was very scared about the implementation of the NRC. He used to tell us that he would be taken away in the name of NRC” as per a report in the New Indian Express reported.

SIR rollout triggers fresh anxiety

The suicide came barely 24 hours after the Election Commission announced a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across 12 states and union territories, including West Bengal. The exercise, which begins enumeration immediately, was meant to simplify document verification after widespread anxiety during Bihar’s earlier SIR.

However, in Bengal—where fears of an NRC-like process have periodically surfaced—the announcement appears to have reignited old apprehensions.

Mamata Banerjee blames BJP’s “politics of fear”

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sharply criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), accusing it of exploiting the contentious issue of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) for political gain, which she termed the “politics of fear.”

Taking to X (formerly Twitter), she said “57-year-old Pradeep Kar from 4 Mahajyoti Nagar, Panihati, Khardaha (Ward No. 9) has taken his own life, leaving behind a note that says, “NRC is responsible for my death.” What greater indictment can there be of the BJP’s politics of fear and division? It shakes me to the very core to imagine how, for years, BJP has tormented innocent citizens with the threat of NRC, spreading lies, stoking panic and weaponising insecurity for votes. They have turned constitutional democracy into a draconian law-regime, where people are made to doubt their own right to exist. This tragic death is the direct consequence of BJP’s venomous propaganda. Those who sit in Delhi and preach nationalism have pushed ordinary Indians to such despair that they are dying in their own land, fearing they will be declared ‘FOREIGNERS’”

“Bengal will resist, Bengal will protect, Bengal will prevail: Mamta Banerjee

Banerjee issued a demand for the Central Government to “stop this heartless game once and for all,” demonstrating her government’s opposed stance against the implementation of the NRC in the state.

She declared, “Bengal will never allow NRC, and never allow anyone to strip our people of their dignity or belonging.” She said that the soil of Bengal belongs to “Maa, Mati, Manush” (Mother, Motherland, People), not to those “who thrive on hate.”

“In a final, defiant message directed at the central leadership” she proclaimed,

She further added that “Let the Delhi Zamindars hear this loud and clear: Bengal will resist, Bengal will protect and Bengal will prevail.”

57-year-old Pradeep Kar from 4 Mahajyoti Nagar, Panihati, Khardaha (Ward No. 9) has taken his own life, leaving behind a note that says, “NRC is responsible for my death.” What greater indictment can there be of the BJP’s politics of fear and division?

It shakes me to the very…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) October 28, 2025

BJP calls CM’s remarks “lies and theatrics”

Within hours, BJP leaders hit back, accusing Mamata Banerjee of “politicising a personal tragedy.”

BJP IT cell Chief Amit Malviya wrote on X, “The tragic death of Pradeep Kar must be investigated thoroughly — the cause of suicide can and must be determined only by the law and investigating agencies, not through political rhetoric.”

He dismissed Banerjee’s charge, saying, “Let’s also get the facts right — there is NO NRC anywhere in the country. Mamata Banerjee is lying and deliberately spreading panic to stoke fear among people for political gain.”

Malviya further alleged that it was the Trinamool Congress, not the BJP that had historically “weaponised fear” for electoral purposes.

“The same fear was used to loot, assault, and suppress voices, as seen in Sandeshkhali and during the riots in Malda and Murshidabad,” he wrote, claiming that the TMC’s narrative sought to protect “illegal infiltrators” who formed its “vote bank.”

He concluded, “Truth and accountability will prevail — not fear mongering.”

The tragic death of Pradeep Kar must be investigated thoroughly — the cause of suicide can and must be determined only by the law and investigating agencies, not through political rhetoric.

Let’s also get the facts right — there is NO NRC anywhere in the country. Mamata Banerjee… https://t.co/uKZLQlUxI6

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) October 28, 2025

Learn Bengali before commenting, says Abhishek Banerjee

Responding to Malviya’s remarks, Trinamool Congress national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee was caustic. “Amit Malviya has no understanding of the Bengali language. The suicide note is written in Bangla. Let him learn the language first and then he can make his comments,” he said, as reported in the Indian Express.

Later, Abhishek demanded criminal accountability for the incident. “An FIR should be filed against Union Home Minister Amit Shah and senior official Gyanesh Kumar for creating the panic that led to this death. The political answer to this death will come through the ballot,” he declared.

Kolkata youth’s death over CAA fear mirrors citizenship anxiety

According to Sabrang India, in a similar incident earlier this year, 31-year-old Debashish Sengupta from Kolkata reportedly took his own life, allegedly driven by panic over the recently notified Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules, 2019. Sengupta, who was visiting his maternal grandparents in Subhashgram, South 24 Parganas, was found hanging on the night of March 20, 2024. His family claimed he had been under immense anxiety that his ailing father — a migrant from Bangladesh — would be denied citizenship for lacking proper documents.

Related:

ECI’s announced nationwide SIR, will cover 12 States and UTs with a reduced documentary burden

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

ECI’s nationwide SIR plan: a ‘unified’ push, applied differentially across states

The post Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A manufactured crisis to justify privatisation?

Six major BMC hospitals are currently being handed over to private companies through public–private partnership (PPP) arrangements. According to the views expressed by this coalition, this move will replace free public services with paid care, hitting Mumbai’s poor and marginalised the hardest. Simultaneously, the BMC has been steadily reducing regular health staff, replacing permanent positions with outsourced and contractual workers, eroding both service quality and workers’ security.

Despite mass retirements of BMC health staff, there has been no serious effort to fill and expand regular posts. This is a deliberate strategy: weaken the public system through neglect, then hand it over to private operators under long-term contracts. The result is restricting access to free care, worsening working conditions, and compromised service quality.

Problematic record of PPPs in BMC health services

Providing details to justify their accusations, in a press release issued Monday, October 7, citizens said that over 20 PPP projects already operate within Mumbai’s municipal health system, covering ICUs, diagnostic centres, dialysis units, and entire maternity homes and hospitals. Yet there is no independent evidence that these PPP arrangements have improved quality or accountability of health services. Many PPPs have been deeply problematic but despite such experiences, new moves for privatisation continue without any comprehensive evaluation of existing projects.

A recent study of healthcare PPPs in Mumbai and Pune has revealed alarming problems:

• Outsourced ICUs are staffed with underqualified doctors, even run by homeopathy practitioners, leading to compromised patient safety and preventable deaths. One ICU contract worth several crores was cancelled after 149 deaths were exposed.
• Diagnostic centres under PPPs frequently charge patients three to fifteen times higher than public hospitals, making them inaccessible to low-income communities.
• Monitoring mechanisms are very weak, allowing non-compliance with contracts, underqualified staff, and erratic service delivery. Some PPP hospitals remain grossly underutilised despite substantial infrastructure, due to lack of full-time doctors, essential equipment, or basic services.
• Political influence pervades the contracting process, with corporators or ex-corporators floating companies or favouring bidders to secure contracts, turning healthcare provisioning into a political-business venture.

Overall, rates charged to patients under various Municipal PPPs were found to be two to twenty-five times higher than comparable public hospital rates. The study concludes that PPPs have largely become vehicles for private profit rather than instruments of public good.

The real issue: Deliberate understaffing

The push for privatisation is justified by claims of inadequate capacity in public hospitals. In reality, the BMC has created an artificial shortage through chronic understaffing of its health services. According to Praja Foundation’s 2024 report, municipal hospitals face massive vacancy rates of 46% among doctors, 26% among nurses and paramedical staff, and 42% among labour staff, with an overall vacancy level of 36% in the health department. Rather than investing in recruitment and better working conditions, the BMC is diverting resources to PPPs—benefiting private operators while bypassing public accountability.

What needs to be emphasised is that there is no shortage of doctors and health workers in Mumbai, the available pool could be readily employed and all vacant posts in BMC could be promptly filled. For example, the number of vacant medical posts in BMC is around 975, while the annual output of MBBS doctors just from government medical colleges in Mumbai is around 1200, and number of graduating MD / MS doctors from these colleges is around 1000 per year. Enough doctors, nurses and health workers are available to fill all vacant posts.

Communities, Health workers and Public health experts raise their voices

Social movements and community organisations in various parts of Mumbai, especially in bastis and informal settlements are opposing user-fee-based PPPs which will deny them life-saving care. One major example of this resistance is the movement by “Aspatal Bachao, Nijikaran Hatao Kriti Samiti” active among residents of M-East ward (Mankhurd and Govandi areas). This is a coalition of over 25 organisations who have organised a series of major protests since July, demanding a halt to the privatisation of Shatabdi Hospital and Lallubhai Compound Super-Speciality Hospital. This mobilization is a powerful, grassroots rejection of BMC’s proposal to hand over key public hospitals to private players under the deeply problematic Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model.

Municipal health worker unions have also joined this movement, highlighting that outsourcing and PPPs cut down of secure employment for health workers. Contractual staff face much lower pay, total job insecurity and lack of social security. Privatisation also replaces teams of experienced regular health staff with precarious contract workers, thus affecting the quality of patient care. All unions belonging to this coalition, who represent thousands of health workers in Mumbai demand that all forms of privatisation under BMC must be halted, and that the huge number of vacancies must be filled promptly through regular recruitment, along with creation of additional posts to meet the city’s health needs. This will majorly reduce work overload on the existing BMC health staff. The vital role played by public health systems and their staff during the COVID pandemic underscores the urgency of this demand.

Public health professionals are also questioning handing over of public hospitals—built with public funds—to private players without robust evidence or accountability mechanisms. The entry of politically connected, non-medical operators undermines healthcare quality and ethics, especially in critical areas like ICUs and maternity care. What Mumbai urgently needs is a robust, publicly funded health system—not privatised services that exclude large numbers of people who are most in need.

Joint demands of the coalition

The coalition demands the BMC to retract its pernicious policy of privatisation and contractualisation, which only benefits contractors, corrupt officials and politicians. Instead BMC must now act decisively and promptly in public interest by taking the following steps:

• Immediately halt and cancel all PPP-based privatisation proposals for public hospitals and health services in Mumbai, and conduct an independent review of existing PPPs with a plan to return them to public management.
• Launch urgent recruitment drives to fill all staff vacancies—doctors, nurses, paramedics, sanitation, support staff—through regular appointments, while phasing out outsourcing.
• Develop a comprehensive plan to strengthen public health services through regular recruitment, increased budgets proportional to population needs, and improved management. This should be linked with assured, quality provision of various levels of health services and essential medicines. 
• Ensure systems for transparency and social accountability, including community-based monitoring of BMC health services and participatory governance mechanisms involving communities, civil society groups as well as health workers.

Joint Plan of Action – Aspatal Bachao Neejikaran Hatao Kruti Samiti and Unions 

– A more extensive public campaign will be launched to against privatisation of hospitals that have been tendered for PPP.

– A massive campaign will be launched in collaboration with health workers’ unions demanding full social security and rights of workers in public healthcare facilities and services. The right to health cannot be fulfilled without workers’ rights.”

– Jan sunvayi’s will be held across the city to address the current state of public health facilities and services.

– All political parties and their candidates will be asked to clarify their positions on these two issues: “transformation of public healthfavilties and services to serve people and opposition to any form of privatization of health services.” Those parties or candidates who unconditionally agree on this issue will be labeled “supporters of public health,” while those who do not will be labeled “enemies of public health,” and the public will teach them a lesson in upcoming elections.

– A massive state-level conference will be held by civil society organizations, unions and other organizations against privatisation and contractualisation of health services in Mumbai on November 30th.

We call upon every Mumbaikar to stand up and speak out today against ongoing privatisation of health services, which is a betrayal of public trust. It is surprising that existing BMC officials, who do not have any democratic mandate to take major policy decisions in the absence of an elected corporation, are trying to push through large scale privatisation of health services. Finally, the coalition stated in a press conference held today that Mumbai deserves a public health system that is equitable, transparent, accountable, and ensures that healthcare is strengthened as a public right, not being turned into a commodity for private profit.

Related:

Citizens and experts rally to save Mumbai’s BEST buses from privatisation pitfalls

Maharashtra: Free speech has remained on the line of fire of the current regime, democracy on trial as state goes for election

BEST strike over Diwali bonus shakes Mumbai’s Bus Service, reveals growing transit strain

Samsung workers end strike but the core issue of recognition of unions’ remains

The post Citizens move to stop privatisation of Mumbai’s Public Hospitals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rupesh Kumar Singh, a freelance journalist from Jharkhand, has been in jail since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, or UAPA. His arrest followed years of harassment after he reported on land acquisition, mining displacement, Adivasi rights, and human rights violations in eastern India.

The arrest that changed everything

On the morning of July 17, 2022, police arrived at Rupesh Kumar Singh’s home in Ramgarh. For nearly nine hours, they searched every corner, seizing his laptop, phone, and documents.
“He had only one tool — his pen,” wrote his wife, Ipsa Shatakshi. “But they treated it as a weapon.”

The police later alleged Maoist links, though Rupesh’s name was not in the original FIR. The charges were later expanded under UAPA, making bail nearly impossible.

We could finally talk today

Ipsa described the rare moment when she managed to speak to her husband after weeks of silence:

“Today, October 24, 2025, around 10 a.m., I finally spoke to Rupesh through the STD line at Patna’s Beur Jail. The line had been out of order for weeks. The STD has finally been repaired, and we could talk properly today.”

She wrote that Rupesh had been brought back to Beur Jail on September 23, after nearly two years at Bhagalpur Jail, where he had been sent as punishment on arbitrary and baseless charges.
“The transfer was said to be for six months,” she wrote, “but he was kept there for twenty months.”

He was sent to Bhagalpur as punishment

Her letter details how Rupesh’s health deteriorated sharply during that period. She mentioned that “At Bhagalpur Jail, Rupesh’s health deteriorated badly. His triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol reached dangerous levels, and a spinal nerve got compressed. We filed a petition in court, and under court orders, he received treatment. For a while, his reports improved. The doctors advised regular check-ups and a proper diet.”

But since his transfer back to Patna, she said, even the basic medical care ordered by the court has been denied.

He has been locked in a cell without reason

“Since Rupesh’s return to Beur Jail, he has been kept locked in a cell for no reason,” she wrote.
“Earlier, before being sent to Bhagalpur, he was in the normal ward.”

Eepsa described the neglect bluntly that “He needs a medically suitable diet, but even food according to the jail manual is not being provided. Special diet or care is out of the question. No medical examination has been conducted regarding his earlier condition, even though his health problems had reached a dangerous level.”

During their last video call, she noticed him looking thinner and physically weaker. “But someone who has learned to live with courage will always appear spirited — he tries to stay strong. Yet his health condition cannot be ignored” she mentioned

 This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit

Ipsa’s words move from description to defiance that “We all know that when this cruel system cannot break the morale of a popular and pro-people individual, it resorts to mental torture. It tries to weaken him through his health.”

She wrote that the same game is being played with Rupesh. She added that “If he resists these arbitrary rules or demands his rights, they will again accuse him of disturbing jail discipline and transfer him elsewhere — as they have done before.”

Her tone is both calm and cutting.

Ipsa further added that “There is nothing here except an effort to mentally harass him. A pro-people journalist and writer has already been imprisoned for over three years on false charges. Now they are trying to crush him physically and psychologically.”

Even food is being used as punishment: Ipsa

After describing the mental and physical toll, Ipsa wrote that even daily deprivation has become a form of punishment.

She counted that “At Beur Jail, which ranks among the most corrupt in Bihar, the attitude of the authorities shows clear intent to harm. They are deliberately ignoring his medical needs and dietary requirements.”

And then, with quiet anger, she added “This is no longer about law; it is about vengeance.”

Three years of waiting

Multiple bail pleas have been rejected. Even senior lawyers representing the Singh have questioned the handling of his case. “Every date is another delay. Every rejection is another silence. But silence does not mean acceptance.”

We may need to move the High Court

Her latest note ends not in despair but determination. She mentioned “Looking at the behaviour of Beur Jail — notorious for corruption — it seems we must now file a writ petition in the High Court. What is being done to Rupesh’s health is unacceptable. It is an assault on the rights of a man who has written, spoken, and fought for human rights.”

She signed it simply, “— Ipsa Shatakshi (Life partner of journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh), October 24, 2025.”

Beyond one family’s struggle

The story of Rupesh Kumar Singh is more than a case file. It is a mirror to the shrinking space for independent journalism — and to the quiet resilience of those left behind.

Background of the Case

Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly maintaining links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed years of ground reporting on Adivasi displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged police excesses — issues that many believe provoked official retaliation against his journalism.

Though Singh was not initially named in the FIR, he was later implicated based on electronic data allegedly recovered from a co-accused’s device. His defence maintains that no incriminating material was found from his residence, and that the digital evidence is unreliable. Singh had earlier faced a 2019 UAPA arrest, where he was released on default bail after police failed to file a chargesheet in time.

Singh’s detention came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, heightening concerns about surveillance and intimidation of critical journalists. His case echoes that of other individuals — from Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi to the late Father Stan Swamy — facing prolonged incarceration under UAPA.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal of bail, stating it was “not inclined to interfere.” The Court offered no detailed reasoning, effectively prolonging Singh’s incarceration without trial.

We had then pointed out that in the ruling exemplifies judicial deference and inconsistency in UAPA bail jurisprudence — where the presumption of guilt replaces the presumption of innocence, and journalists’ constitutional rights are eclipsed by the state’s sweeping claims of national security.

Related:

SC’s bail denial to journalist Rupesh Singh highlights inconsistent approach to UAPA cases

Delhi High Court dismisses bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case

How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated

The post “This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit” — Ipsa Shatakshi on her jailed husband, journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by The Telegraph, it was Giriraj Singh, the BJP’s MP from Begusarai, who told a poll rally in Arwal district on Saturday that “citizens who accept government welfare have a moral obligation to vote for the ruling party.” Twisting perversely the very fundamentals of republican democratic governance, he clearly appeared to use the term for Muslims who are beneficiaries of the schemes declared by the current regime at the Centre but do not support the BJP.

In a video of the speech, Singh recounted a reported conversation with a cleric. “So I told him that one who doesn’t acknowledge help is called a namak haram,” the minister is heard saying.

“I told him, ‘Maulvi Saheb, I don’t want the votes of the namak haram’,” he said.

Despite facing criticism on Sunday (October 19), Singh stood by his remarks, telling reporters he meant only to highlight that government welfare schemes were non-discriminatory.

The comments drew strong and immediate criticism.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut demanded the minister’s removal, asking, “If someone doesn’t vote for you, does that make them namak haram?” The Bihar Congress called Singh “mentally unstable.”

The BJP’s main ally in Bihar, the Janata Dal (United), was more cautious in its response. Spokesperson Rajeev Ranjan said voters “make decisions beyond such comments,” while another party leader defended Singh.

The minister’s provocative statement was the most high-profile of several communally charged incidents involving BJP leaders over the weekend. In Pune, on Sunday, Rajya Sabha MP Medha Kulkarni led a protest organised by the Patit Pavan Sanghatna and other Hindu outfits at the historic Shaniwarwada fort, reported The Indian Express.

After a video showed Muslim women offering prayers at the site, Kulkarni and activists “purified” the spot with cow urine and performed a Hindu ritual. “We will not allow ‘namaz’ in Shaniwarwada, Hindu community has now become awakened,” she tweeted before the protest. She later defended the action, stating, “It is a symbol of Hindavi Swaraj… We cannot allow anyone to offer namaz here. It is not a mosque.”

The move was slammed by political opponents as an attempt to polarise voters ahead of local civic polls. Sachin Sawant of the Maharashtra Congress noted the fort’s diverse history, adding, “The BJP MP is also protesting against the ‘dargah’ outside Shaniwarwada. When the Peshwas had no problem, what is her problem?”

Separately, a video showed BJP leader Pragya Thakur urging parents to use violence to control their daughters, reported The Financial Express. She warned that girls welcomed as “Lakshmi or Saraswati” grow up to become “mianin” (a derogatory term for a Muslim man’s wife).

“Strengthen your mind, and make it so strong that if our daughter does not obey us, if she goes to a non-believer’s house, leave no stone unturned in considering breaking her legs,” Thakur said.

She added that parents should not “step back” from beating their children for their own good! These incidents come as Bihar prepares for elections, with the first phase of polling on November 6, the second on November 11, and counting on November 14.

Related:

Unifying cultural celebration weaponised: Ganesh processions turned into stages for hate speech & moral policing

India’s Hate Speech Crisis: 1,165 cases recorded in 2024, up 74.4% from 2023

CJP files three complaints against pro-right-wing leader and BJP Minister Nitesh Rane over alleged hate speech in Maharashtra

The post Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant declared the couple’s detention by police as ‘illegal’ and a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ordered their immediate release and safe escort to Aligarh, and further directed that they be allowed to proceed to Bareilly under continued police protection.

Court steps in after couple disappears post-hearing

The couple had appeared before the Allahabad High Court on October 15, 2025, in connection with three pending writ petitions—one of them seeking police protection, previously granted by the Court on September 3. During the hearing, Rashmi made a voluntary statement affirming that she was a major, had married Shane Alam, and wished to live with him out of her own free will.

However, soon after the hearing, the couple reportedly went missing. A habeas corpus petition [Tehseem and Another vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others] was immediately filed by Shane’s brother, Tehseem, claiming that the couple had been abducted with the involvement of Rashmi’s father and some unknown individuals, with police assistance.

On October 17, the Bench, terming the case urgent, ordered police and respondents—including Rashmi’s father and top officials of Aligarh and Prayagraj—to produce the couple in court by 12 PM on October 18. The urgency of the matter led the Court to conduct proceedings on a Saturday, a non-working day.

The order of Allahabad HC dated October 18, 2025 may be read here:

‘No justification for illegal detention’: HC

According to Live Law, on October 18, a Sub-Inspector from Aligarh police produced Shane Alam and Rashmi before the Court. The Government Advocate informed the Bench that the girl had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate in Aligarh on October 17, who confirmed her age and recorded her voluntary statement. She had clearly expressed her wish to go with Shane, and was ordered to be released.

The Court recorded her statements made both before the Magistrate and again during an in-camera interaction. Rashmi stated that she was 21 years old, had married Shane, and wished to live with him. She categorically denied any coercion, as reported

Despite her clear consent and legal age, the couple alleged that they had been abducted by Rashmi’s father and others with police support after leaving the court on October 15. Shane was kept at a police station, and Rashmi was sent to a ‘One Stop Centre’ until they were produced before the Magistrate two days later, as the Live Law reported

Reviewing the case diary and the girl’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench noted that she had voluntarily left with Shane. Yet, the Investigating Officer had continued to probe issues related to the inter-faith nature of their relationship and the alleged failure to inform the District Magistrate about the marriage—investigations which the Court held were unwarranted.

As per Live Law, rejecting the state’s argument that ‘social tension’ justified the couple’s detention, the Court observed:

“The plea that the girl had to be kept at ‘One Stop Centre’ and the petitioner no. 2 was detained at the police station because of the social tension in the area due to the different religions of the parties is not acceptable and cannot justify the detention… A person can be detained by the police or other state authorities only under law.”

The Court further added:

“A detention under social pressure but without authority of law does not make the detention legal but only increases the illegality… In a democratic country governed by Rule of Law, the State Government and its law-enforcement machinery are expected to protect the liberty of a citizen and not to succumb to social pressures” as reported

Police officers may face action

The Bench ruled that the detention of both individuals from October 15 to 18 was illegal. It directed the Investigating Officer to escort the couple safely to their desired location and ordered the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, along with SSPs of Aligarh and Bareilly, to ensure continued protection and prevent any interference in their companionship.

The Court also directed the SSP, Aligarh, to conduct an inquiry into the entire episode and submit a detailed report by November 28, 2025. His personal presence has also been ordered on the next date of hearing.

Background of the case

According to the petition, Rashmi and Shane had been in a consensual relationship and began living together on July 30, 2025. Her father filed an abduction FIR two months later, which the petitioner claimed was motivated by mala fide intent.

Despite the High Court’s earlier order granting police protection, local police allegedly failed to act and even harassed Shane’s family. The October 15 hearing was meant to resolve ongoing petitions related to the FIR and protection orders.

However, after their testimony affirming their relationship, the couple vanished from the court premises around 5 PM. It was alleged that Rashmi’s father, accompanied by unknown persons, was seen in the court complex and had intimidated the couple. Despite immediate court directions, no FIR was registered regarding their disappearance, prompting the habeas corpus plea.

Court keeps matter open

While the couple has been set free and declared safe, the High Court has kept the matter open in view of the serious questions raised—about police inaction, misuse of law, and suppression of individual liberty in inter-faith relationships.

Related:

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 Allahabad High Court directs UP Police to ensure safe return of inter-faith to their desired destination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

ADR has issued a clarification in response, presenting its version of events and reiterating its stated commitment to accuracy, transparency, and non-partisan public interest work

Background

During the hearing on October 9, 2025, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, alleged that ADR submitted incorrect and unverified information in its plea. Specifically, he pointed out a case where the person cited by ADR as having been excluded from the final voter list was not even included in the draft electoral roll. Further complicating matters, the details provided appeared to correspond to a different individual—a woman—raising questions about the accuracy of the information presented.

The Supreme Court Bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed significant concern over ADR’s conduct, remarking, “We wonder if such a person even exists.”

Defending the submissions, ADR’s counsel Prashant Bhushan stated that the information had been provided by a “very responsible person” and suggested that the District Legal Service Authority could assist in verifying the claims. Despite this, the court remained unconvinced and declined to issue any blanket relief based on the affidavits, given their questionable nature.

Not filed, but shared on request, nature of the document clarified

On October 11, ADR clarified that the affidavit in question was not formally filed as part of court proceedings. Rather, it was tendered across the bar—a standard legal practice—only in response to a specific question from the Court.

The organisation emphasised that this distinction is important to prevent the mischaracterisation of its actions and intent during the hearing.

Verifiable details: voter information was accurate and public

The voter whose details were shared in the affidavit is a resident of 115, Shaheed Sthal Road, Gulzarbagh, Patna – 800007, with EPIC No. YHX3046307. His details appear at Serial No. 653 in Part No. 52 of the 184 Patna Sahib constituency, as recorded in the publicly available electoral roll on the ECI’s official website.

ADR asserts that every single detail furnished in the affidavit was accurate and verifiable through official ECI records—contradicting the claim that the elector was “fake” or improperly identified.

Draft roll confusion: same link, multiple versions

ADR further explained the likely source of the confusion. The elector or someone assisting him had probably checked his name in the “Draft Roll – 2025”, published by the ECI in January 2025, where his name was clearly listed.

The issue arose, ADR says, because the “Draft Roll – 2025” and the “SIR Draft 2025” are both hosted on the same webpage and dropdown menu on the ECI’s website. This technical overlap may have led to misunderstanding or misinterpretation in the courtroom.

“That with regard to the elector’s statement that his name appeared in the draft roll, it is clarified that the elector/someone on his behalf had possibly checked his name on the “Draft Roll – 2025” of January 2025 on which his name was duly mentioned.  It is to be noted that both the “Draft Roll- 2025” and “SIR Draft 2025” have been published by the ECI on the same web link and same drop-down menu (as shown in the image below) available at https://voters.eci.gov.in/download-eroll?stateCode=S04. His details are available on the Draft Roll – 2025 for AC 184 Part No. 52 at Serial No. 653, and every detail furnished in the affidavit matches that record” ADR stated

Screenshots of the elector’s name on Draft Roll – 2025, Final Roll – 2025, SIR Deleted List, and his current status

The records clearly show that the voter was listed in the Draft Roll and subsequently excluded—pointing to a possible procedural lapse, not misrepresentation.

Shahid Voter Status

Misleading allegations: ADR refutes claim of falsification

ADR called the ECI counsel’s claim—that the EPIC number belonged to another person or that the voter was non-existent—misleading and avoidable. The organisation pointed out that a simple EPIC number lookup on the ECI portal would have verified the details without ambiguity.

Instead, ADR says, an inaccurate assertion was made in court, which risked damaging its credibility and caused undue distress to the elector involved.

Voter under duress

ADR expressed serious concern over the treatment of the elector, who has allegedly been summoned, hounded, and threatened by officials following the court hearing.

Such action, the organisation warns, could discourage voters from speaking up about their deletion from rolls or from seeking redress when proper procedures—like speaking orders—are not followed by the authorities.

⁠”It is highly unfortunate that the said elector is being hounded, summoned, and threatened by the officials since the Supreme Court’s hearing dated 07.10.2025. This will further create more distrust, fear, and reluctance on the part of electors to come forward in case of their deletion from the electoral rolls or in case speaking orders have not been given to them” ADR said

We continue to stand by fact-based, non-partisan work: ADR

ADR concluded its statement by reaffirming its commitment to fact-based, non-partisan work. For over 25 years, the organisation has built trust among voters, civil society, and institutions by providing accurate, data-driven insights into electoral and governance issues.

ADR in its statement assured the Courts, lawyers, and voters that we continue to stand by fact-based, non-partisan work.

Related

The Erased Record: A constitutional challenge to the election commission’s 45-day data destruction mandate

India’s election system is being weaponised, will the Opposition act?

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

The post ADR refutes allegation of giving false voter affidavit in SC hearing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The core of this legal battle rests on the historical injustice faced by the Tharu community, a Scheduled Tribe residing in the village of Kajaria, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. This is the story of Santari Ram Rana and Sadai, two representatives of the ancient Tharu Scheduled Tribe, who brought the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the High Court of Allahabad in 2025. Their petition is a meticulously documented protest against what they describe as the arbitrary, illegal, and mechanical denial of their fundamental rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. It is a desperate legal appeal to halt the continuous, systematic erasure of a forest community’s identity and livelihood. Notably, the said petition was filed through Advocate Rajat Srivastava and Advocate Nandini Verma and also involved local activist Rajnish Gambhir. The matter remains sub-judice in the Allahabad High Court.

The Tharu’s have deep, recognised roots in the forest lands:

• Official recognition: The Tharu community was officially recognised and notified as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India on June 24, 1967.
• Vested rights: Their village, Kajaria, was included in the 1982 Action Plan of the Wildlife Conservation Organization, acknowledging it as a village inhabited by the Tharu community. Furthermore, the land was granted or reaffirmed as a revenue village in 1975 and 1976 through two different Government Orders. The petition argues the community has been living in these forests for more than a century.

The Legal Framework: The Forest Rights Act

The petitioners base their claim on the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). This Act was enacted to recognise and vest forest rights for forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, like the Tharu, who were subjected to “historical injustice”.

The FRA is more than a statute; it is a restorative justice measure. The petition meticulously details how the District Level Committee (DLC) vitiated the very spirit and procedure of the Act. The FRA mandates a strict, three-tier democratic process to verify and vest rights:

1. Village Level (Gram Sabha/FRC): The community, the initial authority, verified and accepted the Tharu claim in 2013.
2. Sub-Divisional Level (SDLC): This tier is tasked with resolving disputes and forwarding verified claims.
3. District Level (DLC): The final legal authority for granting the title.

The Eight-Year Ordeal: Claiming community rights

The petitioners’ journey to secure their Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights—which include collecting firewood (jalauni lakdi), phoos, and cattle grazing—began over a decade ago and was marred by years of official inaction:

• 2013: The Village Level FRC, constituted by the Gram Sabha of Kajaria, accepted the petitioners’ claims under the prescribed Form C.
• 2013-2020: The seven-year stalling: The verified claims were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) on July 31, 2013. For the next seven years, the SDLC allegedly failed to decide the claims due to “repeated objections” and “baseless and frivolous technical and procedural objections” consistently raised by the Forest Department. The petitioners assert that this was a deliberate attempt to deny their rightful claims.
• December 26, 2020: Conditional approval: Finally, the SDLC approved the claims and forwarded them to the District Level Committee (DLC) for the final decision.

The arbitrary rejection

The climax of the ordeal came with the decision of the highest administrative body:

• March 15, 2021: Impugned order: The District Level Committee (DLC), the final authority, rejected the community’s claims in an order the petition deems “illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires”. The rejection order was a stereotyped and mechanical rejection, similar to those passed for approximately 20 other Tharu villages on the same grounds.
• Violation of due process: The rejection was passed unilaterally, without granting the petitioners a mandatory opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the due process established by the FRA and its accompanying Rules.
• Flawed grounds for rejection: The DLC is accused of basing its rejection on “extraneous and irrelevant material”. For instance, it considered that the village had been granted revenue status and was receiving government welfare benefits, ignoring the fact that the FRA explicitly confers forest rights regardless of the revenue status of the village. The rejection also relies on a misinterpreted interim order of the Supreme Court (Thirumal Kapad v. Union of India), which the petitioners argue cannot override their statutory rights under the FRA.

A plea for justice and protection

The petition details the petitioners’ desperate attempts to seek justice post-rejection:

• Lack of redressal: The petitioners submitted multiple representations (e.g., on August 15, 2021, and November 25, 2021) to the DLC, SDLC, and the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC). The SLMC, whose statutory function is to monitor the recognition process, failed to act on the grievances.
• Ongoing harassment: The non-recognition of their vested rights is causing the petitioners to face “continuous harassment and threats from forest officials”. They allege they are subject to adversity and even forged FIRs when attempting to exercise their basic rights, such as collecting firewood.
• Failure of the monitoring body: The petitioners’ repeated appeals to the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC)—the statutory body created to oversee and correct the FRA implementation—were ignored. The SLMC’s failure to perform its duty is highlighted as a further example of the State’s abdication of responsibility.

The petition concludes that the non-conferment of forest rights is a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights (Article 21) and a continuation of the historical injustice that the FRA was specifically designed to remedy.

The relief sought

The petition is, therefore, a fervent appeal to the High Court to restore the sanctity of the FRA and the fundamental rights of the community. They seek:

1. Quash the impugned order: Issue a writ of Certiorari to set aside the arbitrary rejection order of the District Level Committee dated March 15, 2021.
2. Order reconsideration: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the District Level Committee to reconsider and decide the claims afresh in a time-bound and legal manner, in full accordance with the FRA.
3. Ensure oversight: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the State Level Monitoring Committee to perform its statutory monitoring functions.
4. Grant interim relief: Allow the petitioners to immediately exercise their community forest rights (for jalauni lakdi, phoos, and grazing) during the pendency of the writ petition.

This writ petition is a powerful judicial attempt to dismantle bureaucratic tyranny and ensure that the “historical injustice” recognised by Parliament is finally undone for the Tharu people of Kajaria.

Related:

MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups

Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC

Destruction of forest in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana violation of Congress party manifesto: CCG Statement

AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo

Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act

The post The Fight for Ancestral Forest Rights: Tharu tribe challenges seven-year administrative blockade appeared first on SabrangIndia.