According to the minister, between 2022-23 and 2024-25, Pune, Mumbai, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nagpur, Amravati, Akola and Yavatmal districts collectively reported 14,526 child deaths. This high figure includes infants and children under five admitted to government facilities, as well as cases of severe malnutrition. The minister also said that 138 infant deaths have been recorded in the tribal-dominated Palghar district. Palghar has always been high on hunger, deprivation and infant mortality figures.

Speaking in the assembly in response to a question and citing from the state health department’s data as of November 2025, Abitkar said 203 children were identified as suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) and 2,666 from Moderate Acute Malnutrition. The proportion of underweight children was recorded at 0.23 per cent, while 1.48 per cent fell in the moderately underweight category.

The minister also referred to the Sample Registration System 2022, released by the Registrar General of India, which estimated Maharashtra’s neonatal mortality rate at 11 per 1,000 live births, lower than the national average of 23. In defence, Abitkar said the state government has adopted multiple measures under the Integrated Child Development Services programme to reduce malnutrition. These include regular health examinations, the Dr A P J Abdul Kalam Amrut Aahar Yojana for pregnant women, targeted interventions for SAM children, the Nutrition Campaign, the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana and the ‘Suposhit Maharashtra’ initiative.

(This is based on a report by PTI)

Related:

India ranks first in child deaths under 5 years of age: UNICEF report

5% rise in infant and child deaths in Mumbai

BRD hospital records 433 child deaths in a month. Should Kerala still follow UP?

The post Maharashtra: Seven districts saw 14,526 child deaths in three years says Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The study’s findings–published by the World Inequality Lab–also found that this wealth inequality in India has shown no signs of reduction in recent years. The richest 10% hold about 65% of the total wealth, and the top 1% about 40%, the report said.

In terms of income inequality, the top 10% of earners receive about 58% of national income, it said. The bottom 50% get only 15%. The income gap between the top 10% and the bottom 50% remained stable between 2014 and 2024, according to the report.

The average annual income in India was about 6,200 euros, or Rs 6.49 lakh approximately, per capita on a purchasing power parity basis. Purchasing power parity is an economic tool that compares the value of different currencies by measuring what the same amount of money can buy in different countries. The average wealth stands at about 28,000 euros on a purchasing power parity basis.

The female labour participation was “very low” at 15.7% and had shown no improvement over the past decade, the report said.

“Overall, inequality in India remains deeply entrenched across income, wealth and gender dimensions, highlighting persistent structural divides within the economy,” it added.

Inequality outlook for India. Source: World Inequality Report 2026

Global trends

Globally, wealth has reached historic highs, but remains, like India, “very unevenly distributed”, the report said. The report noted that the top 0.001%, which is fewer than 60,000 multimillionaires, owns three times more wealth than the entire bottom 50% of humans put together.

Within almost every region of the world, the top 1% alone hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it added. The report added that the global financial system continues to be rigged in favour of the rich countries. Ricardo Gómez-Carrera, the lead author of the report, stated that inequality is “silent until it becomes scandalous”.

“This report gives voice to inequality – and to the billions of people whose opportunities are frustrated by today’s unequal social and economic structures,” Gómez-Carrera added.

The World Inequality Report was launched in 2018. Third edition, published on Wednesday, was released in the context of South Africa’s presidency of the Group of 20 in November, which highlighted two crises: the explosion of global inequalities and the weakening of multilateralism, the analysis said.

The report explores the new dimensions of inequality defining the 21st century, such as climate, gender inequalities, unequal access to human capital, asymmetries in the global financial system and territorial divides that are reshaping democracies.

Figure 2.7 provides a geographic breakdown of global income groups in 1980 and 2025, highlighting how the composition of top earners and other groups has shifted over time. In 1980, the global elite was overwhelmingly concentrated in North America & Oceania and Europe, which together accounted for most of the world’s top income groups. Latin America also had some presence near the top, but China and India were almost entirely confined to the bottom half of the distribution. At that time, China had virtually no presence among the global elite, while India, Asia in general, and Sub-Saharan Africa were heavily concentrated in the very lowest percentiles.

Interpretation. These graphs show the geographical breakdown of global income groups. Between 1980 and 2025, the global income distribution has shifted, with China gaining presence in the middle and upper−middle percentiles, while Europe and North America & Oceania’s dominance in top income groups has declined, but it is still large. In 1980, 1% of the world’s top 1% income group were Chinese residents. By 2025, this figure increased to 5%. This highlights the growing global share of China and the diversification of the global elite.

Sources and series: Chancel et al. (2022) and wir2026.wid.world/methodology.

Figure 2.9 turns to the middle 40%, often considered the backbone of the middle class. Here the contrasts are equally stark. In the most unequal settings, especially in Latin America and parts of Africa, the middle 40% receive as little as 23–35% of income, reflecting a fragile middle class. By contrast, in Europe and parts of North America & Oceania, this group’s share rises to 44–50%, making them central to national income distribution. Asia shows both ends of the spectrum: India’s middle 40% remains in the lower levels, while China’s earns a larger share.

Related:

One percent of Indians own 58% of country’s wealth: Oxfam inequality report

Journalist cannot cover the labour beat without questioning extreme inequality- P Sainath

Tax Justice proposal: what are leading economists proposing on Wealth Redistribution in India

The post In India, Wealth Inequality among highest in the world, top 1% holds 40% wealth: Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bench was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR that accused the petitioners of organising a Christian prayer meeting, distributing Bibles, and attempting to convert Dalits and poor persons. Alongside the conversion charges, the FIR also invoked Sections 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court not only cast serious doubt on the FIR, but also reproached the police for swiftly arresting all accused on the very day the FIR was lodged, despite no victim having come forward at that time.

No Victim, No Conversion: FIR has no legal backbone, says Court

The FIR, registered on 17 August 2025 by one Manoj Kumar Singh, alleged that the petitioners had organised a prayer meeting, preached Christian tenets through an LED screen, distributed Bibles, and attempted to convert Dalits and economically vulnerable persons.

However, the Bench—after a close reading of the FIR—observed that:

• No individual had come forward on 17 August 2025 to claim they were being converted.
• The FIR merely recorded that an LED screen and Bibles were present at the site.
• There was no reference to force, misrepresentation, coercion or allurement at the time of registration.

The judges emphasised that distribution of Bibles is not a crime, and preaching a religion is not criminalised anywhere in law. In its order, the Bench held unequivocally that:

“Learned AGA has failed to indicate and obviously would not be able to indicate that distribution of Bible is a crime. Further, even preaching of a religion has not been prescribed as a crime anywhere. Thus, the sine-qua-non to invocation of Section 3 of the Act, 2021 prima facie would be coming forward of a ‘person’ to allege that either he has been converted to any other religion or is being coerced or given some allurement to convert to some other religion which is patently missing at the time of lodging of the FIR.” (Para 15)

Crucially, the judges emphasised that Section 3 of the 2021 Act requires the presence of an actual ‘person’ who alleges coercion, force, undue influence, misrepresentation or allurement. This foundational requirement, they held, was “patently missing” on the date of the FIR.

Two-month silence from alleged victims raises red flags

The State attempted to rely on the supplementary statement of a purported victim recorded on October 25, 2025, claiming that he later mentioned being given an “allurement” to convert.

But the Court underlined two troubling facts:

1. His first statement on September 4, 2025 said nothing about conversion,
2. The allegation surfaced only after more than two months of the FIR.

The witness’s wife also recorded her statement only on 25 October 2025, mirroring the same unexplained delay.

The Court found this chronology deeply questionable, noting that the very offence alleged in the FIR “has only been supported after more than two months.”

“Interestingly, in the initial statement of Sri Ram Dev recorded on 04.09.2025 he has not indicated anything about any attempt being made to convert him or any allurement etc. having been given which has only come in the subsequent/supplementary statement recorded on 25.10.2025 wherein he has indicated about the allurement. Thus, it is apparent that the offence under the Act, 2021 as indicated in the FIR lodged on 17.08.2025 has only been supported after more than two months on 25.10.2025!” (Para 16)

“Interestingly, even the statement of wife of the witness Sri Ram Dev namely Smt. Nisha had been recorded on 25.10.2025 i.e. after a period of more than two months of the date of the alleged incident indicating the accused asking the petitioners to convert.” (Para 17)

HC: Police “bent themselves backward” to arrest petitioners without any basis

What particularly troubled the Bench was the immediate arrest of all petitioners on the same day the FIR was filed. At that time, there was:

• no victim complaint,
• no allegation of coercion,
• no evidence of conversion, and
• only a recovery of the Bible and an LED screen—neither of which is unlawful.

The judges remarked:

“Even more interesting is that fact that immediately on lodging of the FIR on 17.08.2025 the petitioner(s) have been arrested on the same date. As already indicated above, the statement of the alleged victim has been recorded more than two months later to indicate the alleged offence. Although an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia containing all the facts of the entire evidence rather it is only meant to set the criminal law in motion yet considering that the Act, 2021 is a special Act as such at least the authorities should have applied their mind to the fact that on the date the said incident is committed i.e. 17.08.2025 there was nothing to indicate the commission of the said offence. Thus, it is prima facie apparent that the authorities have bent themselves backward in order to arrest the petitioner(s) even though it is not known as to how the complainant had got information about any offence as alleged in the FIR having come to his knowledge. These are all strange facts which need to be explained by the authorities more particularly when it is the life and liberty of the petitioner(s) which is involved.” (Para 18)

The Court reminded the State of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025), stressing that the 2021 Act is a special law requiring strict, not presumptive, compliance.

Court turns spotlight on complainant’s conduct; issues notice with tough questions

In a rare and telling move, the High Court has issued notice to the complainant—Manoj Kumar Singh—directing him to file a counter-affidavit answering pointed questions:

1. Where did you get information about the alleged offence?
2. How did you gather a group of people to accompany you?
3. If you barged into a private home, what offence did the petitioners commit by stopping you?
4. How do offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNS apply at all?
5. What is your criminal history, if any?

This line of inquiry signals the Court’s concern about possible vigilantism, motivated complaints, and misuse of the conversion law to target religious minorities.

A Clear Judicial Message: Anti-conversion laws cannot be used lightly

Importantly, the Bench issued notice to complainant Manoj Kumar Singh (respondent no. 4) and required him to file a detailed counter-affidavit responding to a series of sharp questions:

1. Source of information: From where did he learn of the alleged conversion activity?
2. Mobilisation of crowd: How did he gather a group of people to accompany him to the petitioners’ home?
3. Unlawful entry: If he forcibly “barged into” a third person’s residence with others, what offence were the petitioners committing by trying to stop him?
4. Applicability of BNS charges: How can Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation causing threat of death or grievous hurt) be justified against the accused in such circumstances?
5. Criminal history: The Court specifically asked for disclosure of the complainant’s criminal antecedents, if any.

This shift in judicial focus—from accused to complainant—signals the Court’s concern about possible misuse of the conversion law and potential vigilantism. By demanding explanations from both the State and the complainant, the High Court has effectively signalled that the criminal process cannot become a tool for harassment or intimidation in the name of controlling conversions.

Strict Interpretation of Section 3: Conversion requires a specific person alleging harm

The Court reaffirmed that for an offence under Section 3 of the 2021 Act, there must be:

• A person claiming, they were subjected to force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, or allurement;
• A complaint indicating actual or attempted conversion;
• Immediate and credible allegations, not delayed statements recorded months later.

The Court reiterated that:

• Preaching Christianity, installing an LED screen, or holding a prayer meeting does not amount to conversion.
• Distributing the Bible is not an offence.

In the absence of a named victim at the time of the FIR, the statutory ingredients were missing.

Order and next steps

The Court has granted:

• 4 weeks to the State to file its counter-affidavit,
• 2 weeks to the petitioners to file a rejoinder thereafter, and
• will hear the matter afresh after completion of pleadings.

Pending this, the Bench’s observations stand as a significant judicial caution against the weaponisation of conversion laws and arbitrary arrests, while also curbing attempts by private actors to take the law into their own hands.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado

Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP urges SC to curb misuse of anti-conversion statutes by states

The post Allahabad HC slams overzealous police action, says distributing Bibles or preaching Christianity is not an offence under UP conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement may be read here:

We, concerned Indian citizens and organisations, are alarmed to note that efforts are being made to promote biometric identity systems similar to Aadhaar in other countries.

Aadhaar is India’s unique identity number, linked with a person’s biometrics (fingerprints, iris and photograph as of now). The number was rolled out with fanfare from 2009 onwards. The use of this number, and of Aadhaar-based biometric authentication (ABBA), was promoted to the hilt by the Indian government in close collaboration with the IT industry. Aadhaar was supposed to be voluntary, but it quickly became clear that living without it would be very difficult for most. Today, it is as good as compulsory. Most social benefits are out of reach without Aadhaar.

Aadhaar was rolled out in an explicitly “evangelistic” mode from day one. In recent years, it has been projected as a grand success by its promoters. Their friends in high places (like Davos, the World Bank, and the B & M Gates Foundation) are on board. There is an attempt, partly successful already, to project Aadhaar as a model and “export” it to other countries.

For our part, we view Aadhaar as a failed and objectionable model that should not be replicated in other countries, certainly not in its Indian version.

Our main concerns are as follows:

1. Aadhaar involves the creation a centralized database that includes biometrics as well as demographic information (e., name, gender, date of birth and address). This could turn into a dangerous tool of social control, especially but not only in the hands of an authoritarian government.
2. The linkage of numerous databases with Aadhaar magnifies the danger of it becoming a tool for profiling, surveillance, exclusion and Centralised databases also pose data security risks by creating a single point of failure.
3. While the “core biometrics” (biometrics minus photograph) in the Aadhaar database are supposed to be secure, the rest is freely shared with authorised users of Aadhaar authentication, with minimal This is a major infringement of privacy.
4. The demographic details attached to Aadhaar numbers in the database are full of errors, partly due to hasty rollout. Yet severe restrictions have been placed on correcting this Meanwhile, people are expected to align other documents with this unreliable information. This is causing endless hassles to poor people. Many of them are excluded from some or all social benefits.
5. Biometric failures are another major source of social exclusion, especially for the elderly. Aadhaar was rolled out without any transparency about the reliability of biometric authentication.
6. A significant minority of people, mainly from marginalised groups (including disabled persons), do not have Aadhaar for some reason and no fault of their own. They are excluded from most social benefits.
7. If an Aadhaar number is lost, it can be very difficult to Poor people have been forced to make long and expensive trips to regional assistance centres for this purpose. Some never managed to retrieve it, and are now deprived of all social benefits.
8. The coercive “seeding” of Aadhaar with endless databases (ration cards, job cards, pension lists, bank accounts, voter lists, what not), associated with function creep, is a monumental waste of time for functionaries and Seeding sounds simple but it requires biometric or demographic verification. Both can be very cumbersome.
9. The rush for correction or update of Aadhaar details has led to humongous queues at many assistance centres, where people often wait in line for hours with no guarantee of remedy. There are no facilities for tracking of grievance redressal, continuity of assistance, or other People’s time and money are wasted to no end.
10. Far from rooting out corruption, Aadhaar’s centralised database has enhanced information asymmetries and reduced Integration of Aadhaar with the banking system has magnified exposure to new vulnerabilities such as identity fraud.
11. At every step, the Aadhaar project has been a law unto It began without any legal backing. Later, the Aadhaar Act was passed by bypassing the Upper House of Parliament. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) often violates orders of the Supreme Court of India (e.g., protections for children and against use by private entities). It has enormous power and regularly issues rules that make life difficult for millions, without any serious feedback from affected people. A critical provision for parliamentary oversight of UIDAI was dropped in the final version of the Aadhaar Act.

Articles and reports amplifying these concerns are available at rethinkaadhaar.in

The promoters of Aadhaar were never able to justify this particular identity model or to explain what ills it is supposed to remedy. Instead, they relied on propaganda to push for it. Many countries have functional identity systems that are less coercive, invasive, exclusionary and unreliable than Aadhaar.

We urge the greatest caution from countries that are considering a replication of the Aadhaar model. We would be happy to facilitate field visits for anyone interested in understanding these problems in more detail.

(Endorsed by more than 50 organisations, aside from individual signatories – see attached list.)

Signatory Organisations 

1. All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA)
2. All India Lawyers Association for Justice {AILAJ)
3. All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA)
4. All India Students’ Association (AISA)
5. Ambedkarijame Punadi (Andhra Pradesh)
6. Bahutva Karnataka
7. Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD)
8. Dalit Bahujan Front
9. Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF)
10. Gig and Platform Services Workers Union
11. Grakoos Union
12. Hamal Panchayat (trade union)
13. Human Rights Law Network (HRLN)
14. Internet Freedom Foundation
15. Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan (JJSS)
16. Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA)
17. Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha (JJM)
18. JNU Students Union
19. Karwan e Mohabbat
20. Khudai Khidmatgar India
21. LibTech India
22. Maadhyam (a civic engagement initiative)
23. Maharashtra Shramik Ustod & Vahtuk Kamgar Sanghatana (trade union)
24. Manjeera Dalitha Seva Samithi (Telangana)
25. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)
26. Moneylife Foundation
27. National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
28. National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights {NAJAR)
29. National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Workers
30. National Campaign Committee for Unorganised Sector Workers (NCCUSW)
31. National Campaign Committee on Eradication of Bonded Labour {NCCEBL)
32. National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)
33. National Confederation of Dalit Organisations (NACDOR)
34. National Federation of Indian Women {NFIW)
35. National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled {NPRD)
36. New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI)
37. NREGA Sansharsh Morcha
38. NREGA Watch (Jharkhand)
39. Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS)
40. Pension Parishad
41. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
42. People’s Union for Democratic Rights {PUDR)
43. RANG Foundation
44. Rethink Aadhaar
45. Right to Food Campaign
46. Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA)Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT)
47. Samalochana Association (Andhra Pradesh)
48. Sangatin Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan (SKMS) SO. Satark Nagrik Sangathan
49. Social Accountability Forum for Action and Research (SAFAR)
50. SR Sankaran Adivasi Sahaya Kendram (Andhra Pradesh)
51. United Forum for RTI Campaign (Andhra Pradesh)
52. United Milli Forum (Jharkhand)

Individual Signatories

1. Aakar Patel, Writer
2. Aban Raza, concerned citizen
3. Abha Bhaiya, India coordinator, One Billion Rising campaign
4. Aditi Mishra, Jawaharlal Nehru University
5. Adv Albertina, National Alliance of People’s Movements
6. Advocate Dr Shalu Nigam, Lawyer and researcher
7. Advocate Vertika Mani, Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
8. Akhila Phadnis, concerned citizen
9. Akshay S Dinesh, Action for Equity
10. Alok Laddha, Chennai Mathematical Institute
11. Alphonse Raj, concerned citizen
12. Amber Sinha, Tech Policy Press
13. Ambika Tandon, University of Cambridge
14. Anand Mazgaonkar, concerned citizen
15. Anand Patwardhan, Filmmaker
16. Anand Teltumbde, Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Mumbai
17. Anantha, concerned citizen
18. Anivar A Aravind, concerned citizen
19. Ankita Aggarwal, concerned citizen
20. Annie Raja, concerned citizen
21. Anjor, Dialogues on Democracy and Development
22. Anupam Pachauri, Indira Gandhi National Open University
23. Anuradha Talwar, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity
24. Anurag Mehra, Retired IIT Faculty
25. Arun Khote, National Movement for Land, Labour & Justice
26. Arun Kumar, Retired Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
27. Aruna Rodrigues, concerned citizen
28. Aruna Roy, School for Democracy
29. Arundhati Dhuru, NAPM Convenor
30. Arundhati Roy, Writer
31. Ashish Ranjan, National Alliance of People’s Movements
32. Ashlesh Biradar, Brave New Web
33. Ashok Bharti, National Confederation of Dalit Organisations
34. Ashokan Nambiar, C MAHE, Manipal, Karnataka
35. Avantika Tewari, Jawaharlal Nehru University
36. Baghamabar Pattnaik, Anti-slavery India
37. Bela Bhatia, Lawyer and writer
38. Bezwada Wilson, National Convenor, Safai Karmchari Andolan
39. Bhanuj KappaI, Independent journalist
40. Bhanwar Meghwanshi, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
41. Bhargav Oza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability, and Rights
42. Bhoomika Pandhare, concerned citizenBhupen Singh, University of Sussex
43. Bittu KR, Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression
44. Brinda Crishna, concerned citizen
45. Budhaditya Bhattacharya, concerned citizen
46. Chirashree Das Gupta, Jawaharlal Nehru University
47. Clifton D’Rosario, advocate
48. Colin Gonsalves, advocate
49. Danish Ali, concerned citizen
50. Dayamani Baria, concerned citizen
51. Deep Chandra Joshi, concerned citizen
52. Devi, All India Democratic Women’s Association
53. Dorothy Vallado, concerned citizen
54. Dr lndu Prakash Singh, Facilitator, CityMakers Mission International
55. Dr Sudhir Vombatkere, concerned citizen
56. Dr Sylvia Karpagam, Public health doctor
57. Dwiji Guru, National Alliance of People’s Movements
58. Edwin, OpenSpace
59. Firoz Ahmad, school teacher
60. Francis Bosco, National Federation of Unorganised and Migrant Workers
61. Gangaram Paikra, concerned citizen
62. Gautam Bhatia, Constitutional law scholar and Professor of Law
63. Gouranga Mahapatra, Jana Swasthya Abhiyan Odisha
64. Gowramma, Akila Bharath Janavadi Mahila Sangatane (Karnataka)
65. H M Sunasara, concerned citizen
66. Harish Dhawan, concerned citizen
67. Harsh Mander, Karwan e Mohabbat
68. Hemant Sareen, concerned citizen
69. Himmat Singh Ratnoo, Former Secretary MDU Teachers’ Association (MDUTA) Rohtak
70. Hindolee Datta, concerned citizen
71. Indira C, Public health researcher
72. Indira Unninayar, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court
73. Jagdish Patel, concerned citizen
74. Jayati Ghosh, Economist
75. James Herenj, NREGA Watch Jharkhand
76. Jean Dreze, Development economist
77. John Dayal, Writer
78. John Simte, Lawyer
79. Justice P. Shah, Retired Judge and former Chairman of the Law Commission of India
80. JT D’souza, concerned citizen
81. A. Verghese, Green Kerala
82. Karen Gabriel, St Stephen’s College, Delhi
83. Karuna M, NREGA Sangharsh Morcha
84. Kalyani Menon Sen, Independent researcher
85. Kelvin, concerned citizen
86. Kiran Jonnalagadda, concerned citizen
87. Koninika Ray, National Federation of Indian Women
88. Krishnakant Chauhan, Activist
89. Laavanya Tamang, Independent researcher
90. Lawrence Liang, Legal academic
91. Laxmi Murthy, Journalist and researcher
92. Lubna Sarwath, Advocate
93. M S Sriram, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
94. Balakrishnan, concerned citizen
95. Maimoona Mollah, Women’s rights activist
96. Martin Macwan, concerned citizen
97. Marthe Mautarelli, concerned citizen
98. Meera Sanghamitra, National Alliance of People’s Movements
99. Meghna Jayanth, concerned citizen
100. Meghna Yadav, Researcher
101. Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta {retd)
102. Mukul Kesavan, Retired teacher
103. Nandini Sundar, University of Delhi
104. Nandita Narain, Associate Professor (Retd), Stephen’s College, Delhi University
105. Nandita Sengupta, Journalist, Times of India
106. Navsharan Singh, Researcher activist
107. Nayanjyoti, Lecturer in Development Studies, Delhi
108. NB Murthy, concerned citizen
109. Neeraj Hatekar, Researcher
110. Nikhil Dey, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
111. Nishant S, Researcher
112. Nishi, concerned citizen
113. Nitish Kumar, Former JNUSU President
114. Nivedita Menon, Jawaharlal Nehru University
115. Om Damani, concerned citizen
116. Sainath, journalist
117. Padmini Ramesh, Johns Hopkins University
118. Paran Amitava, PhD Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
119. Parth Sharma, Nivarana
120. Parthasarathi Paul, concerned citizen
121. Persis Ginwalla, concerned citizen
122. Praavita, Rethink Aadhaar
123. Pradeep E, concerned citizen
124. Pradyumna Behera, Independent researcher
125. Prafulla Samantara, President, Lok Shakti Abhiyan
126. Prakash Louis, Bihar migrant hub
127. Prasad Chacko, Social worker, Ahmedabad
128. Prasanna s, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
129. Praveer Peter, National Alliance of People’s Movements
130. Prof Ritu Dewan, Director (Retd), Mumbai School of Economics & Public Policy
131. Mohan Rao, concerned citizen
132. Purbayan C, Advocate
133. Pushpendra, Former Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
134. Rahul Basu, concerned citizen
135. Raj Shekhar, Right to Food Campaign
136. Rajaraman, Independent journalist and researcher
137. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, concerned citizen
138. Rajinder Chaudhary, Former Professor of Economics, MD University, Rohtak
139. Rama Teltumbde, concerned citizen
140. Raman Jit Singh Chima, Lawyer
141. Ramdas Rao, Member, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
142. Rammanohar Reddy, Editor
143. Reetika Khera, Development economist
144. Renuka Kad, concerned citizen
145. Ritash, RANG Foundation
146. Rohini Hensman, Writer and independent scholar
147. Rohith Jyothish, concerned citizen
148. Rosamma Thomas, concerned citizen
149. Q. Masood, ASEEM
150. Sakina Dhorajiwala, LibTech India
151. Sameet Panda, Right to Food Campaign
152. Sandeep Khurana, Retired professional
153. Sandeep Mertia, Stevens Institute of Technology
154. Sarah M, concerned citizen
155. Seema Mahi, concerned citizen
156. Shabnam Hashmi, Independent social activist
157. Shahjahan, concerned citizen
158. Shahvir Aga, concerned citizen
159. Shailja Tandon, concerned citizen
160. Shailly Gupta, concerned citizen
161. Shantha Sinha, Independent advocate of children’s rights
162. Sharanya, Indigenous People’s Land, Life and Knowledge Collective
163. Shishu Ranjan, All India Forum for Right to Education
164. Shiva Shankar, Retired academic
165. Shreekant Gupta, Professor (retired), University of Delhi
166. Shruti Narayan, Lawyer
167. Siddharth de Souza, concerned citizen
168. Siddhartha Das, Public health activist
169. Snehan Kekre, Technologist
170. Sookthi K, concerned citizen
171. Srikanth, CashlessConsumer
172. Srinivas Kodali, Independent researcher
173. Srujana Bej, Jindal Global Law School, P. Jindal Global University
174. Stella James, Independent legal consultant
175. Sucheta Dalal, Founder Trustee, Moneylife Foundation
176. Sudhir Gandotra, concerned citizen
177. Sunil Kaul, Right to Food and Information
178. Suresh Chandra Joshi, concerned citizen
179. Suruchi, concerned citizen
180. Swathi, Eddelu, Karnataka
181. Swati Desai, concerned citizen
182. Swati Narayan, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
183. Syed Asif Ali Zaidi, Lawyer
184. TM Krishna, Musician and author
185. T. Ramakrishnan, concerned citizen
186. Tarangini Sriraman, King’s College, London
187. Timir Basu, Frontier Weekly
188. Trilochan S, concerned citizen
189. Uma Chakravarti, historian
190. Usha Ramanathan, Independent law researcher
191. V Rukmini Rao, Feminist activist
192. V Upadhyay, Retired professor
193. Vasavi Kiro, concerned citizen
194. Vasundhar, concerned citizen
195. Veena Shatrugna, Independent researcher
196. Vickram Crishna, Independent researcher
197. Vimala s., concerned citizen
198. Vipul Paikra, Independent researcher
199. Vivek K, concerned citizen
200. Winona D’Souza, Lawyer, Mumbai

Related:

New “advisory on Aadhaar as date of birth proof soon

Assam government introduces stricter Aadhaar rules amid concerns over population discrepancies, increases chances of bureaucracy in the process 

ECI undertaking to SC: Aadhaar number not mandatory to enrol as voter

The post Beware of Aadhaar: A warning on India’s biometric identity model on International Human Rights Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Social revolution also means caring and sharing and a demonstrative programme,” said Adhav when he spoke of this initiative launched after inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi (launched on Gandhi Jayanti, October 2, 1974). From one such eatery launched in 1974, forty years later, in 2014 it had expanded to 12 such in Pune provided tasty bhakaris prepared by women from working class families to close to 12,000 workers!

Widely revered as a prominent progressive leader in the socialist movement in Maharashtra who had fought against the caste system and for the rights of labourers, head-loaders, waste-pickers, and street vendors, Baba Adhav has also participated in the freedom movement, Samyukta Maharashtra movement, anti-Emergency protests, one village one water source movement (against caste system), and protests for the removal of Manu’s statue. He had also helmed a cycle rally from Pune to Delhi to seek social security for unorganised labourers.

In remembrance, Leader of Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi said, “Baba Adhav was the strong pillar of social justice. He dedicated his entire life fighting for the rights of the marginalised, the exploited labourers. The flame of struggle ignited by Adhav in Pune became a torch for social justice movements across the country.”

Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee president Harshwardhan Sapkal wrote on X, “Carrying the torch of the truth-seeking tradition in his hand, Dr Baba Adhav, who fought against injustice in society and fought for the rights of the underprivileged throughout his life, passed away today. The progressive movement of Maharashtra has lost a major guide today. Heartfelt tribute to this fighting personality!”

As a recall of his prescience and work, we at Sabrangindia bring to you this conversation with this inspirational leader, Baba Adhav, conducted with co-editor, Teesta Setalvad in October 2014.

The interview and transcript of the Interview may be read/heard here.

It is religion-based politics that refuses to root out caste: Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad

The post Baba Adhav the grassroots campaigner and leader of the socially oppressed passed away at 96 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In 1952, he joined a satyagraha (protest) against high prices and food rationing during a drought, and went to jail — for three weeks — for the first time. “I have been (to jail) 52 or 53 times after that,” he says with a toothy chuckle to Setalvad. In May 2008, he served 14 days in judicial custody for protesting against, yet again, rising prices. More on www.sabrang.com

Excerpts of the Conversation of Baba Adhav with Teesta Setalvad, October 18, 2014

The Interview may be viewed here:

Baba Adhav:

Deep Inequality, especially Economic Inequality has increased, as has awareness.  Domestic workers, Rag pickers with whom I work just listen to their slogans. “Kachra Hamara Haq Ka:, Na Kisi ke Baap Ka!” However, the Political transformation of these Social Issues/Struggles against Inequality is lacking!

Baba Adhav recalls Jyotiba Phule:

Jyotiba Phule had pointed out in the 1800s how All Religious Books authored by Men and questioned what has religion done for women? He had said that in today’s India, in 2014, it is the mixing of Religion (Dharam) and Politics (Rajniti) is the problem

Baba Adhav On Ek Gaon Ek Panavtha (Kua) Movement of the 1970s:

In 1972 Maharashtra had a Devastating Drought: That was also the year of the launch of the Centenary Year of the Foundation of the Satyashodhak Samaj (set up by Jyotiba Phule) on September 24, 1873. ((Satyashodhak Samaj (Society of Truth Seekers) was founded, to challenge Brahmanical dominance and caste-based exploitation by promoting education, equality, and social justice for marginalized groups (Shudras, Dalits, women). It advocated for direct access to God, simple rituals without Brahmin priests, and empowering the oppressed to achieve self-respect and rights, becoming a significant force in India’s social reform history.

So what I, Baba Adhav did in the three years between 1972- 1974 (before I was arrested in the Emergency)—I recall that even Vijay Tendulkar had come with us to farflung villages of Maharashtra— was to travel far and wide and that is how I saw the deep segregation and caste exclusions at work. That is how and why this movement, One Village, One Water Source/Well (Ek Gaon Ek Panavtha) Kua was launched.

Baba Adhav: Dalit Ostracisation Today (2014): Dalits may not be ostracized because of Water but Dalits are Killed for Inter-Caste Marriages! The Bharatiya Samaj (Indian Society) is based on Caste,

Setalvad: Has not Indian Politics (Bharatiya Politics) adjusted with the Caste System and not confronted it?

Baba Adhav: Yes because there is no political or social programme to root out Caste.

Speaking to Setalvad soon after the Regime Take over in 2014, he had also presciently stated that the crucial question is whether the Indian State adheres to the Constitution or to a Caste Drives/Based Hindu Faith.

Baba Adhav on Flood Relief for Kashmiris in 2014:

Punekars had responded positively to the programme! How the working class response has been generous, rickshawallahs, hamaals, businessmen all have responded generously? Last week alone we collected Rs 1 lakh for the flood affected in Kashmir. Donations are with receipts for those who wanted. This programme is not for Relief alone but to ensure a deeper engagement with Kashmir (including Jammu and Ladhakh). The CPI-M has announced that the Kashmir Flood is a National Calamity but what use is this if there is no Programme to match this?

Setalvad: Pune City has been historically one of deep contradictions. It is home to the opporessive Peshwa Raj and also the seat of a revolutionary social reform politics symbolized by Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule of course also reflected in what Shivaji Maharaj and Sahu Maharasj stood for! How do both these factors reflect today?

Baba Adhav:  Historically the city on the western side of it was dominated by Brahmins and the eastern side Dalits and the Backward/Oppressed. Urbanisation in Maharashtra happening with fast speed. In 25 municipal corporations this is reflected: because we have abandoned de-centralisation in favour of centralization. In education too, large, five to six “deemed Universities”, private universities. Today, this city character is changing. However the unorganized sector is playing a rule-the rickshawallah is semi-lettered yet it is an influential section (The victory of Arvind Kejriwal is reflective of this). Kolkatta is similar. In Pune how is this reflected? This unorganized sector—the rickshawallah, the hamaals, the domestic workers, the women who form self-help groups—in this entire section, there is a deep awareness; which will now not be taken for granted. Though in 2014 general elections they voted right to give the establishment a jolt, the local by-elections saw a turn away from the right. The problem is organising this section—opposition established political parties, left is just not doing this. But Shiv Sena is doing this—dhol, violence. Young people today don’t want to struggle nonviolently, go to jail. I have been to jail 53 times for a nonviolent struggle!

Setalvad: In 1848, the first school for girls was set up in Bhidewada, Pune by Jyotiba-Savitribai Phule in which Fatima Shaikh and Usman Shaikh played a role. Today a Bank runs at the location, few Indian textbooks deal with this aspect of our history, that challenges caste and inequality. Will Baba Adhav give us a text book from his vast expereriences and knowledge?

Baba Adhav: Constitutional Values should form the base of Education.

And then Adhav ends by singing for us a beautiful song from Phule.

The Transcript of the Interview conducted in Hindi can be read below:

https://sabrang.com/cc/ccinterviews/BabaAdhavTranscript.htm

Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad  (Transcript Hindi)

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    बाबा आधव जी आपका हार्दिक स्वागत है और हम से बात करने के लिए बहुत बहुत धन्यवाद। आज हम बहुत ही अहम सवालों पर बात करने की कोशिश करेंगे, कि सामाजिक असमानता, सामाजिक प्रश्न और आज की राजनीति, जो इलेक्शन की राजनीति हैं इसमें इतने मतभेद क्यों हैं?

बाबा आधव: जो आप कह रही हैं, इसकी वजह यह है कि असमानता बढ़ी है तो जागृति भी हुई है यह भी मानना पड़ेगा। समानता की मांग करनेवाले जितने शोषित लोग हैं,  जिस जनता में मैं काम करता हूं। समझें कि काम करनेवाली घरेलू औरतें हैं, डोमेस्टिक वर्कर्स, रॅग पिकर्स इनमें ज्यादा से ज्यादा औरतें दलित वर्गों की हैं, तो मैं देख रहा हूँ कि उनकी मांगें बढ़ रही हैं। हिमायत बढ़ रही हैं, वह खुद कहती हैं…आप स्लोगन देखिए न कैसे हैं। कचरा हमारे हक़ का, नहीं किसी के बाप का…रस्ते पे जो कचरा हैं वो मेरे हक़ का है…नहीं किसी का। लेकिन जब म्युनिसिपल कॉरपोरेशन के ध्यान में अभी ये आया कि इसमें इसकी ज़िन्दगी है तो उससे वह रोकने लगे। कचरा हमारा हैं, तो इस स्लोगन पर जो झगड़ा हुआ तो इसलिए मैंने कहा की मांग करने वालों की जागृति तो बढ़ रही हैं, तब एक नतीजा होगा। लेकिन आम तौर पर ये दिखाया जाता हैं की असमानता बढ़ी हैं, जो कि आर्थिक रूप से बहुत बड़ी है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    मगर सर ये जो असमानता है, वो हमारी राजनीति में एक्सप्रेस नहीं होती। कहीं न कहीं राजनीति वही २०-३०-४०% की राजनीति हो जाती हैं। जो इलेक्शन की राजनीति है और इसलिए इस तबके के लोग कभी चुन के नहीं आते, या आगे बढ़ के नहीं आते! आप इतने सालो, ५०-६० सालों से आप आंदोलन चला रहे हैं, तो इसमें पोलिटिकल ट्रांसफॉर्मेशन कब होगा?

बाबा आधव:  देखिये पहले तो मैं पोलिटिकल पार्टी में था, अब मैं समाजवादी हूं। इसलिए मैं जिस सोशल आइडॉलोजी को मानता था, उसे सोशलिस्ट आइडॉलोजी ने खुले दिमाग से नहीं स्वीकार किया था। वो राजनीति के ढंग से ही काम करते थे तो मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि कल्चरल लेवल पर कभी तो ये देश ऐसा है कि जिसमें विषमता पर ही बिल्डिंग खड़ी कर दी गयी है। यानी कि भारत में असमानता का ही आधार है। यानी कि सब लोग जन्म से समान नहीं होते हैं।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    ये तो जातिवाद की वजह वजह से है न?

बाबा आधव:       जातिवाद की नहीं धर्म की बात है! हिन्दू धर्म की बात सुनिए, इस्लाम की बात सुनिए…किसी भी धर्म की सुनिए! महात्मा फुले जी ने कहा था कि मजहब की सभी किताबे मर्दों ने लिखी हैं, एक भी किताब औरत ने नहीं लिखी नहीं! और मर्दो ने औरतों का क्या हाल किया हैं वो तो बताने की जरुरत ही नहीं हैं। हमारे भारत में धर्म और राजनीति एक दूसरे में जितने जुड़े हुए हैं, ये भी एक बात है। तो हम जब सेक्युलर और धर्मनिरपेक्ष समाज की बात करते हैं तो बीजेपी वाले कहते हैं ये छद्म सेकुलरिज़म है। वो खुद ऐसा नहीं कहते हैं कि हम धर्मनिरपेक्षता वाली बात कर रहे हैं। तो बात ऐसी है भारत में, और समाज कभी आगे जाता हैं, कभी पीछे हट जाता हैं। मुझे ऐसा लग रहा हैं की ७७ में जो हुआ…७४ में इमरजेंसी थी भारत में और हम लोग जेल में भी थे। उसके बाद में इंदिरा गांधी की हार हुई और हम लोगो ने कहा कि ये डेमोक्रेसी की जीत हुई है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड: गांव और कुंआ का जो आपका स्लोगन था सत्तर-अस्सी के दशक में, आज अगर उस नारे के बारे में आप सोचेंगे, तो आपको लगता हैं वो रिलेवेंट हैं? आज भी उस तरह की जातिप्रथा है या कुछ बदला है?

बाबा आधव: बिलकुल, मैं यही कह रहा हूँ कि इसलिए हमने जो किया…मैं चर्चा-गोष्ठी करने में रुचि नहीं लेता हूँ। सही में…मैं थोड़ा तंग हो जाता हूँ! अगर आप बोलेंगे कि सेमिनार में आ जाओ, तो मुझे थोड़ा ऐसा लगता हैं कि क्या लाभ हैं सेमिनार में?

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    काम करो, ऑर्गनाइज़ करो

बाबा आधव: काम करो, काम करो, चलिए अब और देखिये कि 1972 में महाराष्ट्र में बहुत भीषण अकाल था. उसमे मैंने देखा कि कि महात्मा ज्योतिराव फुले ने जिस सत्यशोधक समाज की स्थापना की थी, उसकी वर्षगांठ थी। हमने सोचा कि एनीवर्सरी में कोई चर्चा-गोष्ठी करने के बजाय हम गांव में क्यों न चले जाएं और देखें गांव में पानी की क्या व्यवस्था हैं? तो इसलिए दो-तीन साल ७२ से लेकर ७४ तक मुझे जेल में डाल दिया। फिर बाद में हमने बाहर शुरू कर दिया। तेंदुलकर जी की बात आप जो कह रही थी, वो हमारे साथ में आये थे देखने के लिए, और हिंसा के पैटर्न्स की कोई खोज कर रहे थे। तो उनकी सोच थी कि उसमे से कोई नतीजा निकलता हैं क्या? तो अस्पृश्यता का जो मामला हैं आज पानी का नहीं है लेकिन आज वो कास्ट मैरिजस में इंटर कास्ट मैरिज का बन गया है। तो दलित लोगो की हत्या कैसे होती है? अभी भी खरड़ा में जो हुआ…जवान लड़का दलित है और ये मराठा लोगो की लड़की थी…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    तो मतलब आज पानी के मामले में न हो मगर फिर भी जातिव्यवहार में वैसी ही बात हैं?

बाबा आधव: बात होती हैं, बात चलती हैं, तो यह हैं वजह, लेकिन उसमे मैंने देखा की ये टोटल मामला कास्ट सिस्टम का ही हैं. और भारतीय समाज की कास्ट पर ही…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    और वो आज भारतीय जो लोकशाही हैं वो कास्ट से पूरा एडजस्ट कर चुकी हैं, अभी तक वो मुकाबला नहीं कर सकती है?

बाबा आधव: नहीं, प्रोग्राम ही नहीं हैं. असमानता के खिलाफ, जातिव्यवस्था के खिलाफ, जेंडर के भेदभाव के खिलाफ, हमारी पढाई में ही कुछ नहीं हैं। हम लोग, राजनीतिक लोग ये चाहते हैं कि संघर्ष नहीं होना चाहिए। ऐसे संभावित बोलते हैं मराठी में… अरे हां ठीक हैं वगैरह।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    संघर्ष नहीं होना चाहिए

बाबा आधव: ऐसी बात होती है कि नहीं होना चाहिए…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    तो पढाई में ये असमानता की बात हम बच्चों को नहीं समझाते, जिससे समाज में ये समझ नहीं बनती, संघर्ष नहीं बनते और राजनीति में इसका फेर बदल नहीं होता…तो फिर जवाब कहां से मिलेगा ?

बाबा आधव: जवाब ऐसे मिलते हैं कि हम मांग कर रहे हैं न। आज देखिये, आज राजनीति में एक अहम सवाल आया हैं, राजनीति दिल्ली में बदल गयी हैं. लेकिन एक सवाल उभर कर आया है कि आप कॉन्स्टिटूशन मानते हैं या नहीं?

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    आपको लगता हैं की ये सबसे अहम सवाल हैं?

बाबा आधव: जी बिलकुल।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    क्यों ?

बाबा आधव: बात ऐसी हैं की जो लोग आज सत्ता में आए, वो लोग हिन्दू धर्म की बात कर रहे थे। और आज लोग बोलते हैं की भाई संविधान में क्या लिखा हैं? बाबा साहेब ने अगर कहा हैं कि स्वतंत्रता, समता, लोकशाही, फ्रैटर्निटी, बंधुता, धर्मनिरपेक्षता वही बात कर रहा हैं। गाइडिंग प्रिंसिपल में  साइंटिफिक  टेम्पोराइज की बातें कही हैं। बढ़ाने की बात की है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    वो हमारे समाज में नहीं बढ़ी।

बाबा आधव: कहां? मूल्यों के प्रति पढाई कुछ नहीं हैं, वो उधर ही रहा है। हम को मूल्यों को शामिल करना चाहिए।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    स्कूल से लेकर।

बाबा आधव:       कहां हुआ हैं? उल्टा रास्ता हुआ हैं। धर्मनिरपेक्षता की चेष्टा-मसखरी करते थे।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    अभी राष्ट्रीय एकता समिति का जो आपका काम चल रहा हैं वो किस मुद्दे पर चल रहा है सबसे ज्यादा?

बाबा आधव: अभी नया कार्यक्रम जो चला है जो हमारे कश्मीरी लोगों को पीड़ा हुई हैं, उन लोगो की सहायता के लिए।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    तो पुणे मैं शहरी लोगो का क्या रेस्पॉन्स हैं?

बाबा आधव: अच्छा, बिलकुल अच्छा, वर्किंग क्लास का रेस्पॉन्स इतना अच्छा हैं कि क्या कहूं आपको। हम झोली लेके जब जाते हैं वहा और पुकारते हैं, कश्मीर के बाढ़ ग्रस्तो के लिए मदद दीजिये, मदद दी जाये। दे दिया चलो आइये हमाल, आ जाईये रिक्शावाला, आ जाईये व्यापारियों, आजाईये…हम गली में ऐसे पुकारते हैं। तो लोग झोली में आकर डालते हैं। पहले तो हम डिब्बे लेके जाते थे। लेकिन डिब्बे हमने तोड़ दिए क्यू उसमे वो ना-ना बोलते हैं…यानी अट्ठनी डालते हैं। लेकिन झोली देखो तो दस रुपये की नोट डालते हैं, तो थोड़ी ये बात होती हैं। तो देखो भाई हफ्ते में, एक पूरे गए हफ्ते में लाख रुपये से ज्यादा हम लोग इकठ्ठा करते हैं।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    वर्किगं क्लास, पूरा कामगार वर्क्स

बाबा आधव: कामगार हो या व्यापारी, रास्ते में से जब भी जाते-जाते ये बात होती रही है। वैसे तो डोनेशन उसकी रिसीप्ट भी रखते हैं, हिसाब भी रखते हैं हम लोग। लोगो को हिसाब भी दे देते हैं।  कोई बोला मुझे रिसीप्ट चाहिए तो रिसीप्ट भी देते हैं। लेकिन इसमें एक बात है कि पैसा जमा करना बात नहीं है…कश्मीर के लिए भारत को जरा ज्यादा प्रयास करना चाहिए। क्योंकि कश्मीर और भारत में अलगाव की बात चलती हैं हमेशा। दो बात हैं उसमे। और उस में भी देखो जम्मू के लिए अलग से बात होती है, लद्दाख के लिए अलग से बात होती हैं, कश्मीर के ऊपर अलग से होती है। ठीक है ऐसा है लेकिन अगर कश्मीर, भारत में आता है तो हमारा ये काम है कि हम अभी इसी वक़्त पूरा भारत उनके लिए खड़ा रहे।  पी.एम. ने तो ऐलान कर दिया के ये नेशनल कॅलामिटी हैं। लेकिन नेशनल कॅलामिटी होते हुए प्रोग्राम देना चाहिए था पब्लिक को।  एक भी पार्टी ऐसा नहीं करती है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:          बाबा आधव जी पुणे नगरी जो हैं वो ऐतिहासिक स्तर पे एक कंट्राडिक्शन की शहरी रही हैं।  जहाँ पे एक तरफ से पेशवाओं की पूरी पेशवाई थी यहाँ पे वो एक तरफ से जुल्म की राजनीति थी।  उसके साथ साथ सुधारवादी राजनीति का भी एक पूरा यहाँ से एक जत्था निकलता है। ज्योतिबा फुले, सावित्रीबाई फुले, शाहू जी महाराज, शिवाजी महाराज…तो पुणे नगरी में आज का जो कल्चर हैं…एक परिस्थिति हैं वो किस तरह से इन सब प्रभावों को उभर कर लाता हैं ?

बाबा आधव: अभी पहले तो था के पूना के दो भाग थे, पूर्वी भाग और पश्चिमी भाग…यानी पश्चिम में ब्राह्मणों की अधिक आबादी थी और पूर्व भाग में दलितों की, पिछड़ों की…आज भी थोड़ा बोला जाता हैं लेकिन इतना नहीं… महाराष्ट्र में नागरिकीकरण, अरबईनाइजेशन बहुत जोरो से चालू हैं।  यहाँ महाराष्ट्र में अभी २५ कॉर्पोरेशन्स महानगरपालिका बन  चुकी हैं।  ये बहुत गंभीर समस्या पैदा हुई है। यानी वो डिसेंट्रलाइजेशन हमने छोड़ दिया हैं और केंद्रीकरण से झोपड़ीवाले का  सवाल और बिगड़ जाता है…उसमे भी फिर बाद में करप्शन वगैरह सब बातें आ जाती हैं । दूसरी बात ये है कि एजुकेशन में ऐसा हुआ है कि पूना में इतने बड़े संस्थान बना दिए गए हैं…यानी कि ५-६ डीम्ड यूनिवर्सिटीज हैं, अभिमत विद्यापीठ जैसी, जिसे कहा जाये भारत विद्यापीठ, एस.एन.डी.टी. पहले से है, कर्वे यूनिवर्सिटी हैं वगैरह-वगैरह। डी.वाय. पाटिल की भी एक यूनिवर्सिटी बन चुकी है। तो इस शहर का जो एकीकरण हुआ है… मैं रिक्शा यूनियन चलाता हूँ…रिक्शावाला कम्युनिकेशन में इतना बड़ा भारी आदमी है…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    घूमता रहता हैं, एक जगह से दूसरी जगह।

बाबा आधव:       घूमता रहता हैं और..

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    सुनता रहता हैं

बाबा आधव: ही इज अ सेमी एज्युकेटेड मैन नॉट सेमीइलिटेरेट यानी वो अनपढ़ भी नहीं होता है। यानी मिसाल के तौर पर बोल देता हूँ कि दिल्ली में जो केजरीवाल की बात चली थी। केजरीवाल को रिक्शावालों ने चुन के भेजा था।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    सही बात हैं।

बाबा आधव: सही बात हैं। और मैं दिल्ली में, मैंने देखा कि प्रचार तो सब बीजेपी का हैं।  मैंने वो रिक्शावाले को पूछा, बैठा था…रिक्शावालों के साथ मेरा थोड़ा ताल्लुख होता हैं क्यूंकि मैं लीडर हूँ, तो वो बिहारी था बोला…”क्या समझत हैं बाबू हमें… ” ”मैं समझता हूँ बोलो।” ”केजरीवाल आएगा” बोला, ”आप आप आएगा।” कलकत्ता में यही मैंने देखा। तो आज कैसा हुआ हैं पूना में, पूना के हाल आप पूछ रही हैं तो रिक्शावालों को या रॅग पिकर्स को, या हमाल हो, या घरेलू औरते हो, ये बचत गुट की महिलाये हो ये पूरी तबके में एक ऐसा माहोल बना हुआ हैं। तो अभी एक चीज़ तो मैं बोल दूंगा कि कोई पोलिटिकल आदमी हमको फसा नहीं सकता।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    इतनी आसानी से।

बाबा आधव:       इतनी आसानी से।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    मगर २०१४ में तो हम सब फस चुके हैं, मई के इलेक्शंस में।

बाबा आधव:    नहीं थोड़ा होता हैं न, लोगो को धक्का देना चाहते थे, जैसे १४ में हुआ, १४ में दूसरे १०० डेज के बाद क्या हुआ आपने बाय-इलेक्शंस में देखा। इसमें एक बुनियादी बात मैं कह देता हूं कि, भारत की जनता बहुत होशियार हैं। आपको शायद आश्चर्य लगेगा जब आपातकाल में जेल में थे तो ऐसा था की हमारा क्या होगा बाहर? पूरे जनसंघ वाले हम लोगों को कहते थे इंदिरा गांधी जिन्दा हैं, तब तक हम नहीं छूटेंगे। मैं कहता था की नहीं अगर इलेक्शन हो जाये तो हम जीत जायेंगे। लोगो ने हमको जिताया आज जो हुआ है ठीक है। ये एक साधारण अवस्था हैं।  लेकिन इसमें भी बदलाव आ सकता हैं।  इसके लिए हमे थोड़ी हिम्मत चाहिए। मैं जिनके साथ काम कर रहा हूं…उन लोगो में है। भले उनके पास पोलिटिकल फ्रंट नहीं हो, लेकिन जो लोग पोलिटिकल फ्रंट बनाने का प्रयास कर रहे हैं वो आर्गेनाईजेशन के बारे में जानकारी रखते ही नहीं हैं। वही बात हैं। अभी जवान लोगो के साथ की बात हैं, आपने नहीं पूछा इसलिए कह रहा हूं। क्या होता हैं जो १८ से २०-२२ तक की जो उमर वाली, उनके साथ हमारी पोलिटिकल पार्टी का कोई यानी जैसे लेफ्ट हो.

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    रिश्ता ही नहीं हैं।

बाबा आधव: याने कोई संवाद होता है तो शिवसेना का होता है, क्यों? तो उनको वो ऐज ऐसा रहता है कि थोड़ी हिंसा के प्रति उसके, और ढोल बजाने की बात हैं। अभी इतने ढोल देते हैं, क्या कहूं आपको ढोल तो समझती हो। लेकिन हम बोलते हैं लड़ो। लेकिन लड़ाई में भी एक बात होती है, मैं कहता हूँ चल जेल में जायेंगे। जवान लोग जेल में आने के लिए तैयार नहीं। आई हैड बीन इन जेल फॉर ५३ टाइम्स अॅट द ऐज ऑफ़ ८० अल्सो आई हैड बीन इन द जेल।  इसका मुझे गर्व नहीं है। लेकिन मैं चाहता हूँ के नॉन-वायलेंट मीन्स से आंदोलन की इज़्ज़त भी बढ़ जाती हैं। आप मुझसे जो बात करे,  आपने मुझे बुलाया इसलिए कि आप मेरी इज़्ज़त कर रहे हो।  मेरी इज़्ज़त नहीं हैं।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    काम की इज़्ज़त हैं

बाबा आधव: जो काम की इज़्ज़त है, वो हो जाती हैं। तो मुझे ऐसा लग रहा है की मैं तो निराश नहीं हुआ। आई ऍम नॉट डिसहर्टनेड।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    पुणे में, हिंदुस्तान में भारत की सबसे पहले बच्चियों का स्कूल १८४८ में शुरू किया गया, ज्योतिबा और सावित्रीबाई फुले ने, वहां पे उस्मान शेख और फातिमा शेख का साथ था, वहीं भीलेवाङा में आज बैंक चल रहा है। ये जो एक ऐतिहासिक एक ठिकाना पूना में जो बना है, उसका आज हमारी पाठ्यपुस्तकों में ज़िक्र नहीं है…तो हम किस तरह का इतिहास हमारे बच्चो को पढ़ा रहे हैं?

बाबा आधव: बात ये हैं कि आज कल की पढाई में मैं कह रहा हूँ की सेकुलरिज्म की किताब आप पढ़ाती हो। सर्व धर्म समभाव, और उसका नतीजा एक है अगर तुकाराम को लिया तो ज्ञानेश्वर को लेना पड़ता है…क्योंकि वो ब्राह्मण है…ये कुणबी हैं। फिर संत नामदेव को लिया जाता हैं की वो टेलर हैं और ये दूसरा रोहिदास हैं वो चर्मकार…ये हमारा हाल हुआ हैं। आप जितने सवाल पूछेंगी उतनी वजह हैं, लेकिन अनुभव हम पाते हैं, कि कही तो एक जगह भी आना पड़ेगा और कहना पड़ेगा, नहीं कॉन्स्टिटूशन में जो लिखा हैं, जो मेमोरेंडम दिया हैं, उसको खुद को अर्पित किया हमने।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    सो नीड्स फॉर कोंस्टीटूशनल वैल्यूज एंड एजुकेशन। तो क्या बाबा आधव जी एक टेक्स्ट बुक हमे लिख के देंगे?

बाबा आधव: नहीं, मैं तो इनकार भी नहीं कर सकता हूँ।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    नहीं आप जरूर काम शुरू कीजिये।

बाबा आधव: बात इसकी हैं की थोड़ी फुरसत वाली बात होती हैं, और मेरा दिमाग ऐसे हैं.…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    नहीं आपको फुरसत निकालना हैं, इतने अनुभव हैं आपके।

बाबा आधव: मैं क्या कह रहा हूं कि एक आदत स्वीकारो…कुछ भी समझो, लेकिन कर सकता हूँ, नहीं ऐसा नहीं…मैं नहीं मेरे साथी हैं और, मैं अकेला काम नहीं करता हूं, वो जो मेरे साथी हैं वो करते है। इसलिए तो मैंने कहा कि जो प्रार्थना आपको मैंने कही थी…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    थोड़ा सा गा दीजिये हम टेप कर लेंगे।

बाबा आधव: वही बात हैं, देखो फुले जी ने इतनी अच्छी प्रार्थना कही हैं।

सत्य सर्वांचे आधी घर,

सर्व धर्मांचे माहेर,

जगामाजी सुख असा रे,

खास सत्याची ती पोरे,

सत्य सुखाला आधार,

बाकी सर्व अंधकार,

आहे सत्याचा बाजोर,

काढ़ी भंडाचा तो नीर,

सत्य आहे ज्याचे मूळ,

करी धुरतांशी बाराल,

बल सत्याचे पाहुनी,

बहुरूपी झले मनी,

खरे सुख नटा नोहे,

सत्य ईर्ष्या वर्जो पाहे,

ज्योति पार्थी सर्व लोका,

व्यर्थ दंभा पेटू नका,

सत्य सर्वांचे आधी घर,

सर्व धर्मांचे माहेर।

सर्व धर्मांचे माहेर।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    बहुत बहुत शुक्रिया बाबा आधव जी, बहुत बहुत शुक्रिया।

The post It is religion-based politics that refuses to root out caste: Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision came during the hearing of special leave petitions filed by the Union challenging two Calcutta High Court orders of September 26–27, which had directed the return of six individuals deported to Bangladesh and mandated an opportunity to them to establish their Indian citizenship. Sunali and her child are among those six deportees, whose removal from India has since raised troubling questions of due process, legality, and the treatment of vulnerable individuals caught in verification drives.

A family caught in a deportation sweep

The case originated from a habeas corpus plea filed by Bhodu Sekh, Sunali’s father, who told the High Court that his family hailed from West Bengal but had migrated to Delhi for better livelihood opportunities. According to Sekh, Sunali, her husband, and their son were detained on June 21 during an identity-verification campaign initiated under a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification dated May 2. Within five days, the family was produced before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and deported to Bangladesh on June 26.

In its September rulings, the Calcutta High Court noted the “hot haste” of the proceedings and criticised the Union and Delhi Police for effecting deportation without a fair hearing or adequate inquiry. The court observed that the names of the deportees’ grandfathers appeared in the electoral rolls of West Bengal—an important indication of Indian lineage. It also highlighted that the May 2025 MHA memo allows immediate deportation only under emergent circumstances following proper inquiry, finding that such procedural safeguards were “conspicuously absent.”

Detailed reports on the said case may be read here, here and here.

Humanitarian Intervention by the Supreme Court

At the recent hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Union had, after consultations, agreed to bring back Sunali and her child because of her advanced pregnancy and the need to avoid separation between mother and minor child. He clarified that the gesture:

• was not an admission concerning their citizenship,
• would not set a precedent,
• and would be accompanied by appropriate surveillance upon their return.

As the deportation was conducted formally through official channels, Mehta requested that the court incorporate the Union’s undertaking into its written order to expedite diplomatic coordination with Bangladeshi authorities. The Bench complied, ensuring that the repatriation process could begin without administrative obstacles.

Significantly, as per the report of Livelaw, the court remarked: “These are cases where law has to bend to humanity. Some of these cases require a different outlook.”

The order marks a crucial assertion of judicial discretion in situations where rigid enforcement risks inflicting disproportionate harm on vulnerable individuals.

Directions ensuring medical and social support

Accepting requests from senior advocates Kapil Sibal (appearing for the State of West Bengal) and Sanjay Hegde (for Bhodu Sekh), the Supreme Court directed that Sunali be allowed to reside temporarily in Birbhum district, where her family lives. As per Livelaw report, the Bench further ordered:

• Free and comprehensive medical care for Sunali, including all delivery-related services;
• Full assistance and day-to-day care for her minor son;
• Immediate coordination between the Union, West Bengal authorities, and medical officials to ensure safe return and treatment.

The Bench noted that since Sunali was picked up from Delhi, she may initially be brought back to the national capital before being shifted to her native district.

Citizenship Inquiry: Biological link may be pivotal

Justice Bagchi raised a crucial legal issue: if Bhodu Sekh is indeed an Indian citizen—as the High Court record suggests—then Sunali, as his biological daughter, and Sabir, as her child, would also qualify as Indian citizens. The Court urged the Union to undertake an inquiry into Sekh’s citizenship in accordance with principles of natural justice, signalling that the broader dispute over nationality remains very much alive.

Contempt proceedings and Union’s concerns

The Solicitor General informed the Court that a contempt petition was pending before the Calcutta High Court against the Union Government for non-compliance with the repatriation directions. While Mehta requested protection, the Bench said that since the Supreme Court was now seized of the matter, the High Court would not proceed independently. It declined to formally stay the contempt proceedings but indicated that the issue would not trouble the Union in light of ongoing Supreme Court supervision.

Remaining Deportees: Union maintains they are Bangladeshis

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that four other deportees named in the High Court’s September orders remain in Bangladesh. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal requested that the Union take instructions regarding their return as well. The Solicitor General resisted, insisting that the remaining individuals were “Bangladeshi nationals” and that the Union had a serious contest to their claims of Indian citizenship.

The Bench has directed the Union to return with its instructions at the next hearing, signalling that the nationality dispute for the remaining individuals is far from settled.

Backdrop of procedural lapses

The High Court’s criticism of the June 2025 deportations remains a crucial backdrop. The Delhi Police, FRRO and central agencies executed the arrest-to-deportation timeline in five days, a speed the High Court deemed incompatible with fair procedure. It held that:

• no adequate inquiry was conducted,
• no meaningful opportunity to be heard was given,
• and the exercise violated the Union’s own procedural guidelines.

Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these legal defects, its present orders focus on preventing further harm while preserving the Union’s right to contest the High Court’s findings.

A limited but crucial relief

While emphasising that its directions do not prejudice the Union’s legal arguments on the merits of the deportation, the Supreme Court made clear that humanitarian imperatives could not be ignored. The Court will resume hearing the matter on December 12, when it will also consider the status of the remaining deported individuals.

For now, the Court’s intervention ensures that a heavily pregnant woman and her young child will not be left without medical care or family support across an international border—sending a powerful message that judicial oversight remains vital where citizenship, deportation and human dignity intersect.

Order can be read here.

Related:

“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

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

The post SC secures return of pregnant woman and child deported to Bangladesh, says ‘law must bend to humanity’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Sumeet Goel, deciding on December 2, 2025, held that the petitioner’s conduct, as reflected in the FIR, witness statements, and electronic evidence, prima facie shows active participation in creating hostility, resentment, and communal disharmony directed at the Purvanchal community and migrant labourers in Ludhiana.

The petition was filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, seeking pre-arrest protection in FIR No. 270/2025 registered for offences under Sections 304, 196, 352, 353(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR: Allegations of abusive language, threats, intimidation, and derogatory gendered slurs

The case originates from an FIR (No. 270 dated 21.10.2025, P.S. Division No. 7, Ludhiana) lodged by complainant Braj Bhushan Singh, who belongs to the Purvanchal community. He alleged that:

• Routine verbal abuse and humiliation: Both accused regularly insulted and abused Purvanchal migrants, particularly labourers and roadside vendors.
• Threats, blackmail, and intimidation of poor vendors: Co-accused Machan allegedly threatened, intimidated, and blackmailed poor workers, with the petitioner implicated in this broader course of conduct.
• Derogatory and gendered remarks about Purvanchal women: The complaint asserts that both accused made explicitly derogatory remarks about the women of the Purvanchal community, causing widespread anger and indignation.
• Speeches provoking inter-community hostility: They allegedly delivered provocative and hateful speeches aimed at creating friction between Punjabi and Purvanchal communities.

To reinforce the credibility of the allegations, the complainant submitted a memorandum signed by numerous members of the community, demonstrating collective concern and the seriousness of the impact.

Digital Evidence: The pen drive and the viral interview

During the inquiry before registration of the FIR, the complainant handed over a pen-drive containing a video interview recorded by co-accused Machan.

Justice Goel notes that this digital material revealed:

• Explicit communal targeting: The petitioner allegedly claimed that migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar bring large quantities of ganja to Punjab and sell it in Ludhiana.
• Gendered slurs and moral policing: He allegedly stated that women of the Purvanchal community are involved in flesh trade.
• Statements projecting migrants as a threat: He purportedly claimed that migrants are now “ruling Punjab”, suggesting cultural takeover or demographic dominance.
• Viral circulation and public reaction: The enquiry showed that the hate-filled interview went viral on social media, resulting in widespread resentment among the Purvanchal community and creating a potential for law-and-order disturbance.

These statements, the Court noted, became viral on social media, generating substantial resentment within the community and creating a potential for law-and-order disruption.

Alleged incident of waylaying and mobile phone snatching

The Court also relied on the statement of witness Nitin Kumar recorded under Section 180 BNSS. He stated that on September 24, 2025, the petitioner, co-accused Machan, and some Nihang persons:

• surrounded and threatened him and one Mukesh Kumar, and
• snatched his mobile phone

This aspect, the Court observed, showed that the petitioner’s alleged conduct was not limited to speech-related offences, but extended to physical intimidation and obstruction.

Petitioner’s Defence: False implication and cross-version case

Counsel for the petitioner advanced a series of arguments:

1. False implication with no direct involvement: The petitioner claimed he had been falsely roped in through a supplementary statement.
2. Case arising out of cross-versions: It was argued that the incident was merely a verbal altercation outside the police station between Punjabi and Purvanchal groups, leading to FIRs from both sides.
3. No recovery needed; no threat of absconsion: He contended that:

• nothing incriminating was left to be recovered,
• custodial interrogation was unnecessary,
• he was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

4. Allegations vague and malicious: The defence insisted that the statements attributed to him were vague, motivated, and exaggerated.

Justice Goel noted these submissions but found them insufficient in light of the investigation material.

State’s Stand: Strong incriminating material, witness statements, and criminal antecedents

The State vigorously opposed the plea, pointing to:

1. Prima facie digital evidence of hate speech: The viral interview contained abusive, humiliating, caste-targeted, and communal remarks.
2. Witness statements supporting intimidation: Nitin Kumar’s testimony confirmed physical intimidation and mobile snatching.
3. Criminal antecedents of the petitioner: The petitioner was earlier named in FIR No. 118/2021 (Mohali) involving offences under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298 IPC, all related to communal tension and public order.
4. Need to identify others involved: The State argued custodial interrogation was essential to-

• identify other co-participants,
• verify the source of recordings,
• trace circulation patterns,
• recover devices or data.

The State argued that custodial interrogation was essential to identify other persons involved, recover material, and scrutinise electronic evidence. Justice Goel accepted the State’s submissions.

Court’s Reasoning: Speech, social harm, and the public order threshold

Application of Speech Act Theory: The judgment is notable for introducing Speech Act Theory (by Austin and Searle) into the anticipatory bail context. Justice Goel observed: “Utterances must be examined not just for their literal meaning but for the communicative intention and the action they convey.” (Para 6)

He emphasised the three-layered nature of speech:

• Locutionary act — the words spoken
• Illocutionary act — the intention behind the words
• Perlocutionary act — the effect on the audience

Applying this framework, the Court found that the petitioner’s alleged statements had a perlocutionary capacity to provoke hostility and disturb communal peace.

Material not confined to a “roadside altercation”: The Court held that:

• This was not a minor quarrel or isolated outburst.
• It involved systematic targeting, with real potential to disturb public order, community relations, and societal peace.

Supplementary naming no ground to dilute evidence: The defence argument that the petitioner was named only through a supplementary statement was rejected as insufficient to discard the digital and testimonial material emerging from the investigation.

Seriousness of offence and societal impact: The Court stressed that the alleged speech-

• was not limited to individual harm,
• but created a sense of insecurity within the community at large,
• required a strong judicial response to prevent recurrence.

Necessity of custodial interrogation: The Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma (1997), reiterating that “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented… interrogation with the protection of pre-arrest bail often reduces to a mere ritual.” (Para 9)

Justice Goel held that:

• effective investigation requires custodial questioning,
• particularly when electronic evidence and multiple actors are involved,
• a pre-arrest bail order would severely undermine the inquiry.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail denied, petition dismissed

Given the gravity of allegations, the substantial digital evidence, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail. It held:

• A prima facie case is clearly made out.
• The material gathered justifies custodial interrogation.
• No grounds exist to believe the petitioner was falsely implicated.
• Granting anticipatory bail would impede effective investigation and undermine communal harmony.

Accordingly, the Court ordered:

“The material on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.” (Para 9)

“Considering the gravity of allegations, the nature of the evidence collected so far and the requirement of effective investigation, and the necessity of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.” (Para 10)

All pending applications were also disposed of, with the Court cautioning that its observations should not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:                      

A New Silence: The Supreme Court’s turn toward non-interference in hate-speech cases

Unveiling the diverse impact of Hate Speech: From elections to escalating violence

Hate speeches, stone pelting, brandishing of weapons – what VHP’s Shaurya Yatras have achieved till date

India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech

Three separate benches of the Indian Supreme Court interrogate hate speech

CJP writes to Minorities Commission over repeated attacks on Muslims

The post Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses anticipatory bail to journalist accused of provocative, communal statements against Purvanchal community appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey delivered the ruling in a criminal writ petition filed by Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh, who had remained in the Central Jail, Gaya, even after securing bail in a case under Sections 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Release order issued on September 29 — but prisoner not released

Neeraj Kumar’s ordeal began after the Special Excise Judge issued a release warrant on September 29, 2025, which was promptly sent to the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Gaya. Yet, instead of being released, he continued to languish in custody. The Court meticulously reconstructed the timeline:

• The petitioner was arrested in Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 91/2025 and lodged in Central Jail, Gaya.
• He was granted bail on September 23, 2025.
• A release warrant dated September 29, 2025 was issued by the Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Gaya, directing that he be released unless required in another case.
• The jail acknowledged receipt of this release order.

Yet, the petitioner remained confined.

Instead of complying with the bail order, the Jail Superintendent relied on an earlier production warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, in connection with an unrelated theft case under Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. Significantly, the production warrant had fixed the production date as September 4, 2025—well before the release warrant arrived, and long expired by the time the petitioner’s liberty was at stake.

The High Court noted that the jail authorities had been corresponding with police officials for “vehicle with adequate force” to take the accused to Buxar, but at no point had they secured a fresh production warrant after the earlier one lapsed, even though both Section 304 and Section 305 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed such recourse.

The Bench held unequivocally:

“…once the date fixed in the production warrant expired and the order of release had already reached in the hand of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gaya Jee, he had no option but to release the petitioner.” (Para 3)

Instead, the jail kept him confined “for 18 days even after release without there being any order of a competent court,” as initially observed by the Court. Later, after accounting for a virtual production on October 4, the Bench narrowed the illegal period to five days—still an admitted constitutional violation.

IG Prisons Called to Court; Durga Puja holiday excuse rejected

On November 12, 2025, disturbed by what it termed “disturbing features” of the case, the Court summoned the IG, Prisons. Appearing online, the IG attempted to justify the delay, arguing that the non-release “occasioned due to the intervening Durga Puja holidays.”

The Bench rejected this outright, pointing out that:

• In-charge courts function even during holidays,
• The petitioner’s virtual production on October 4 occurred during Puja holidays, disproving the justification,
• The delay reflected not an isolated lapse but a habitual administrative practice.

The Court recorded that upon being confronted, the IG “immediately realised” and conceded:

“Yes, there is an illegal detention for at least five days.” (Para 6)

Court observes systemic violations across Bihar

The Bench expressed grave concern that such illegal detentions were not unique to this jail.

Justice Prasad observed: “There being an admitted position that it is a case of unauthorized detention of the petitioner from 29.09.2025 until 04.10.2025 and this practice is going on without drawing much attention of the Department, this Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a silent spectator.” (Para 7)

The Court’s warning was not limited to the Gaya jail, but directed at the State’s entire prison administration.

On Compensation: Court rejects ‘tokenism’, Cites Rudul Sah and Delhi High Court precedent

When asked to suggest a reasonable compensation amount, the IG proposed ₹10,000—a suggestion the Bench considered wholly inadequate.

The petitioner’s counsel demanded serious compensation, arguing that monetary relief must reflect the gravity of an Article 21 violation and citing:

• K.K. Pathak v. Ravi Shankar Prasad (2019), where the Patna High Court held that compensation for constitutional wrongs must be recovered from erring officials;
• Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD (2023), where the Delhi High Court awarded ₹50,000 for only half an hour of illegal detention;
• Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar (2025), where ₹1 lakh each was awarded for unauthorized police custody.

The Bench quoted extensively from Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), reaffirming that denying compensation would amount to “lip service” to fundamental rights.

After weighing these precedents, the Court held:

“Having considered the entire materials and the submissions as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be a reasonable amount which may be awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation for his unauthorized detention by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee.” (Para 11)

Crucially, the Court reiterated the principle that public money cannot bear the burden of unconstitutional action:

“The Respondent State of Bihar shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the petitioner within one month from today. Following the settled principle as discussed in the case of K.K. Pathak (supra), we direct that the amount so paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law.” (Para 12)

State-wide Reform Direction: Mandatory guidelines in two weeks

Recognising the systemic implications, the Court issued a sweeping administrative directive:

• The IG, Prisons must issue uniform guidelines to all Jail Superintendents in Bihar,
• These guidelines must ensure strict compliance with release orders and constitutional guarantees,
• They must be issued within two weeks.

“Since we have come to know that this practice is going on in other jurisdictions of the Jail Superintendents in the State, the I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services is directed to issue appropriate guidelines to all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Bihar requiring them to strictly abide by the Constitutional Mandate and order of the Court without any exception. Such guideline shall be issued within a period of two weeks from today.” (Para 12)

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

The complete judgement may be read here.

Related:

A Decade after Bisada: Why Uttar Pradesh’s attempt to drop the Akhlaq lynching case defies law and constitution

Bihar Elections: Trains for votes? The unanswered mystery of the ‘phantom’ specials from Haryana to Bihar

‘They Have a Right to Be Heard’: Supreme Court suggests Union brings back alleged deportees from Bangladesh “at least as a temporary measure”

A Terror Case Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court’s ‘heavy heart’ acquittal After 28 Years

The post Six Days Behind Bars After Bail: Patna High Court orders ₹2 lakh relief, flags state-wide pattern of illegal detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The timeline of suspicion

The timing remains the primary indictment against the transparency of the process. With the Bihar Assembly polls scheduled for November 6 and 11, 2025, the departure of these trains on November 3 was not a random administrative decision. It suggests a meticulously timed arrival, allowing thousands of passengers just enough leeway to disperse into specific constituencies before the crucial “silent period” (campaigning ban) came into force.

According to the RTI responses, the special trains operated on a synchronised schedule departing on November 3, 2025, from origins in Karnal and Gurugram, Haryana. These unannounced services were routed via Patna (PNBE) to terminate at strategic locations in Bihar, specifically Bhagalpur and Barauni, thereby creating a direct corridor between the two states mere days before the critical voting phase.

The RTI stonewall: “rush clearance” or cover-up?

The RTI responses from the Commercial Department of the Delhi Division are notable not for what they reveal, but for what they conceal. When the RTI activist Ajay Basudev Bose demanded specifics regarding who booked the trains, the total fare paid, the security deposits, and the exact passenger count, the Railway authorities deflected.

The official reply cited vague “Press Releases” and the generic excuse of “Rush Clearance.” However, the Coach Composition details betrayed the scale of the operation that Configuration A – “12 GS + 2 GSCN + 2 SLR” and Configuration B – “9 GS + 9 GSCN + 2 SLR.”

This composition is heavily skewed towards General Seating (GS), capable of ferrying thousands of individuals in high density. The refusal to disclose the financial trail—specifically who footed the bill—has led critics to argue that the “Rush Clearance” narrative is a bureaucratic veil. As noted in the appeal by activists, the stonewalling on the question of payment “Smells like a cover-up!”

Why were they run specifically from Haryana when they could not run such trains during Chhath?: Kapil Sibal

On November 9, during a joint press briefing, Rajya Sabha MP and legal luminary Kapil Sibal dismantled this defense with a simple question of logic that “Why were they run specifically from Haryana when they could not run such trains during Chhath?”

Sibal’s argument highlights a critical anomaly. Migrant workers return to Bihar from across India—Delhi, Mumbai, Surat, Punjab. Yet, the concentration of these specific, unannounced trains originated from Haryana, a state ruled by the BJP, heading into a state where the BJP was a key contender. If this were purely for Chhath, why were similar “emergency” trains not reported from non-NDA ruled states with equal urgency?

The “professional voter” theory: a modern booth capture?

The dimensional part of this story was introduced by RJD MP A.D. Singh, who moved the allegation from logistical support to criminal conspiracy. Singh suggested that the passengers were not merely home-bound migrants, but a mercenary force of “professional voters”—individuals moved across state lines to vote in multiple constituencies or impersonate absent voters.

“The passengers would be ‘professional voters’ who vote from constituency to constituency on a particular date. They must be having fake EPIC cards for which the EC has been helping them.” — A.D. Singh

Singh further alleged a direct nexus, claiming he received information that railway officials were instructed to coordinate these movements directly with Haryana BJP chief Mohan Lal Badoli and other party functionaries. He issued a direct challenge that remains unmet:

“The payment has been made by the BJP. Let the rail minister say who paid the money for these trains.”

The “festival alibi” vs. geographic logic

The Railway Ministry responded quickly, arguing that the situation was due to the overlap with Chhath Puja and Diwali. Their statement said, “This festival season, the railways is running 12,000 special trains; 10,700 special trains are scheduled and about 2000 trains are unscheduled. We are operating war rooms at three levels, divisional, zonal, and Railway board level.” “Whenever there is a sudden rush of passengers at any station, we immediately put into service unscheduled special trains” as per a report in The Print.

Caught on camera: the ‘free ticket’ confession

Apart from the RTI revelations, video evidence has now surfaced that seemingly confirms the precise mechanics of this alleged “voter smuggling” operation. While the Railway Ministry maintained the bureaucratic defence of “rush clearance,” ground reports from Sonipat and Karnal tell a radically different story that the trains were the hardware, but the ruling party provided the software—specifically, free tickets and food.

Special trains by Railways and Free tickets by BJP.
Proof:
1. https://t.co/1adtpz4spe
2. https://t.co/FCkmOxbR2X
3. https://t.co/ebyuWJzRpK

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) November 9, 2025

Investigative footage from SNA News and Swarnpatr captures a brazen display of electoral mobilisation where the distinction between state infrastructure and party machinery completely collapsed.

This was from Karnal pic.twitter.com/ck2OngR8yG

— Ashish Bagchi (@BagchiAsh) November 28, 2025

In the exposed footage, the denial of “sponsored travel” unravels through the testimonies of the passengers themselves. When asked who paid for their journey, multiple laborers are seen on camera admitting, “Ticket BJP ne diya hai” (BJP gave the ticket) and “Modi sarkar ne paisa diya” (The Modi government paid). Even more incriminating is the on-record admission by local BJP functionaries present at the station. In one instance, a party worker explicitly states, “Ticket BJP arrange kara ke de rahi hai… bilkul nishulk” (The BJP is arranging the tickets… absolutely free), justifying the expenditure as a necessary service to help poor laborers participate in the “festival of democracy.”

This visual proof directly contradicts the “festival rush” narrative; these were not passengers buying tickets to go home for Chhath, but voters being ferried free of cost with the specific instruction to “cast their vote” (“Vot girane ja rahe hai”), a fact corroborated by video documentation where local leaders admit to the free distribution of tickets  and passengers confirm they did not pay a single rupee for the journey.

MCC and “corrupt practice” under RP Act, 1951

Even with the elections concluded, the legal ramifications of these allegations persist. If proven, they point to a structural rot in the electoral process involving two key frameworks:

First, violation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) The core allegation triggers Section 123(5) of the RP Act, which deals with “Corrupt Practices.”

Section 123(5): The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent… for the free conveyance of any elector… to or from any polling station…

While the text specifies “to or from a polling station,” judicial interpretation of “corrupt practice” often extends to the entire election apparatus. If a political party paid for trains to transport voters from Haryana to Bihar for the explicit purpose of voting, it violates the spirit of this prohibition. The RTI’s failure to disclose the “party or person who booked” the trains effectively suppresses evidence of a potential federal crime.

Secondly, misuse of official machinery under the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) The MCC is unequivocal, the party in power at the Centre must not use its official position for campaigning.

Para VII of MCC: The party in power whether at the Centre or in the State… shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign.

The Indian Railways is a central ministry. If “unscheduled” trains were allocated based on backchannel requests from political functionaries to aid a specific party’s mobilisation, it constitutes a gross misuse of state machinery, shattering the “level playing field” the ECI is sworn to protect.

Institutional failure: the ECI’s abdication

The most troubling part of the “Phantom Trains” episode is the inaction of the regulator. The ECI, which is empowered by Article 324 of the Constitution to supervise and control elections, has remained silent.

The Bihar 2025 Assembly elections may be over, but the alleged “Trains for Votes” incident should not be brushed aside. The RTI documents clearly show an irregularity that needs an institutional response. If the Indian Railways—the country’s main transport network—can be used in a way that shifts voters on polling day as alleged, then the idea of a free and fair election is at risk.

The unanswered question of who paid for these trains raises serious doubts. Until the Election Commission conducts a transparent audit of these “Phantom Trains,” the election process will continue to face suspicion that government machinery was used to influence the outcome.

Related

The Indian Railways Need to be Saved

‘Designed to Exclude’: The ongoing enumeration phase of the SIR

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

The post Bihar Elections: Trains for votes? The unanswered mystery of the ‘phantom’ specials from Haryana to Bihar appeared first on SabrangIndia.