On April 1, 2025, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the demolitions had been executed in blatant disregard of due process, with authorities failing to provide proper notice before destroying the residences. The ruling underscored the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21, reminding the state that “the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”

Violation of Due Process and Right to Shelter

The Court expressed its deep dismay at the brazen manner in which these demolitions were carried out. “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the manner which we have discussed in detail,” the bench stated, as per LiveLaw. Justice Oka, during the hearing, further criticised the conduct of the authorities, observing, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”

One of the most damning aspects of the ruling was the Court’s rejection of the method by which demolition notices were allegedly served. As per the details of the case, the authorities had affixed notices to properties instead of properly delivering them in person or by registered post, effectively depriving the occupants of any real opportunity to challenge the demolition orders. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka remarked, condemning the practice as a flagrant violation of legal safeguards.

Procedural lapses and flawed execution of notice

The timeline of events further illustrated the authorities’ disregard for procedural fairness. As dictated by Justice Oka in his order, a show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and immediately affixed, with a perfunctory note claiming two prior unsuccessful attempts at personal service. A demolition order followed on January 8, 2021, which was again affixed but never sent via registered post. The first registered post communication was dispatched only on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, and the demolition was carried out the very next day—denying the appellants any meaningful chance to exercise their right to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this approach, clarifying that the objective of the proviso to Section 27(1) was to ensure a genuine opportunity for affected individuals to respond before any demolition took place. “The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the Court held, as per a report in LiveLaw.

Interpretation of legal provisions on service of notice

The order also addressed the legal requirements for serving notices under Section 43 of the U.P. Planning Act. The Court highlighted that affixation could only be resorted to if personal service had genuinely been attempted and failed. “When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for effecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” the Court observed.

The Court’s ruling also referenced its 2024 decision in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down clear guidelines for the service of notices and procedural safeguards to be followed before demolishing structures. While the present case predated that judgment, the Court applied Section 43 to underscore the authorities’ failure to comply with even existing statutory requirements.

Compensation and accountability

Initially, the Court had considered allowing the appellants to rebuild their homes, provided they undertook to demolish them at their own cost if their appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. However, during the latest hearing, their counsel submitted that they lacked the financial means to do so, prompting the Court to award compensation instead. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, opposed this move, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. The Court rejected this line of reasoning outright, stating that the availability of alternative housing did not justify the violation of due process.

Justice Oka was emphatic that financial compensation was necessary to ensure accountability. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he declared during the hearing.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not ruled on the appellants’ ownership rights over the land in question, leaving them free to initiate proceedings to establish their title. Additionally, it directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines set out in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures going forward, ensuring that such abuses do not recur.

A win for due process, justice and equality

The case had an additional political dimension, with the petitioners alleging that the State had wrongly linked their properties to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was assassinated in 2023. They maintained that their homes were demolished without notice under this pretext. The Uttar Pradesh government countered that the structures were unauthorised and that the occupants had overstayed their leases. The Allahabad High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the State, dismissing the petitioners’ challenge on the grounds that their leases had expired in 1996 and that their freehold applications had been rejected in 2015 and 2019.

This Supreme Court order represents a crucial intervention against the increasing trend of illegal demolitions carried out under the guise of law enforcement. By awarding substantial compensation and issuing a strong condemnation of the Prayagraj Development Authority’s actions, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative expediency. The said stance of the Supreme Court sends a clear message that state authorities cannot bulldoze homes without following the law—a warning that should serve as a precedent in future cases of unlawful demolitions and state-sponsored targeting.

Related:

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hegemony and Demolitions: The Tale of Communal Riots in India in 2024

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions, awards Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each six victims for violation of due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court was hearing Prataphgarhi’s petition challenging an FIR filed by the Gujarat police over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”. The poem in question, titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (Listen, oh bloodthirsty ones), was featured in the background of a mass marriage video and was posted by Pratapgarhi on the social media platform X. Pratapgarhi created the post after attending the mass marriage in Jamnagar. Allowing Pratapgarhi’s appeal against the high court order, the Supreme Court, however, took a firm stance against the high court’s reasoning.

“Literate and arts make life more meaningful; freedom of expression is necessary for a dignified life. Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view.

“Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful.”

The court also reportedly criticised the Gujarat high court for not quashing the FIR against Pratapgarhi. On January 17, 2025, the Gujarat high court had refused to quash the FIR saying that the poem had references to “the throne” and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony, the report said.

The court said, that the MP should have known the repercussions of such a post and should have refrained from promoting public disharmony. It observed that further investigation was necessary Pratapgarhi then challenged the high court’s decision before the Supreme Court, which provided interim relief to him on January 25.

“The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals. It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights. Particularly, the Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.

The endeavour of the Court should be to always protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is the most important right citizens can have in all liberal constitutional democracy,” the court said.

About the police officers’ haste in filing an FIR, the court said, “The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself. In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution. The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right.”

The FIR against the Congress MP was filed under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

For the offence under Section 196 of the BNS, the court said, “The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.

Gujarat high court had refused to quash FIR

Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Gujarat HC had refused to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the first information report (FIR) against Congress Rajya Sabha parliamentarian Imran Pratapgarhi, underlining the significance of free speech and reproaching the Gujarat police authorities for seeking to criminally prosecute a person for ostensibly delivering a message of peace through a poem that Pratapgarhi posted on social media. “No offence was attracted at all,” held a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, while reading out the operative part of the judgment.

The bench emphasised that the free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups is an integral part of a healthy, civilized society.

“Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group must be countered by expressing another point of view,” the court observed.

This case against Pratapgarhi stems from the FIR filed in a Jamnagar police station on January 3, invoking various provisions under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and doing acts prejudicial to harmony.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced that “even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art, makes human life more meaningful.”

“The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we, the judges, may not like spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and its respective ideals,” the bench noted.

The judgment further stressed that it is the duty of the courts, particularly constitutional courts, to zealously protect fundamental rights.

“It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, including free speech, which is one of the most cherished fundamental rights for a healthy and vibrant democracy”, it read.

The court observed that the “endeavour of the judiciary should always be to protect and promote fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is the most important right citizens can have in any liberal constitutional democracy.”

The ruling also delivered a stern message to law enforcement, asserting that “police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself.”

The entire judgement may be read here:

Related:

Censorship vs. free speech: The Allahbadia controversy

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

‘Free speech under threat’: again, Jamia student moves court against ‘highhanded’ suspension

The post ‘Courts, Police Have Duty to Protect Freedom of Speech’: SC on FIR against Congress MP Over Poem appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to posts on X by @HindutvaWatchIn, “Mohammad Sharif, 53, died after an altercation with Holi revellers who allegedly assaulted him when he objected to being forcibly smeared with colours” on March 15 in Unnao.

Link: https://x.com/HindutvaWatchIn/status/1903426684352606593

This aligns with family accounts but contrasts with the police narrative of a heart attack. Furthermore, AIMIM Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi expressed outrage on X, stating, “Unnao’s Sharif was beaten to death. His crime? He objected to being forcibly smeared with Holi colour,”

उन्नाव के शरीफ को कल पीट-पीट कर मार दिया गया। उनका जुर्म? उन्होंने उन पर जबरन रंग लगाने पर ऐतराज किया। मेरी दुआएं उनके घर वालों के साथ हैं। वो सिर्फ इस नुक्सान का ग़म ही नहीं मना रहे हैं, बल्कि पुलिस के झूठ से भी जूझ रहे हैं। पुलिस इस मामले को ये कहकर बंद करना चाहती है कि ये एक…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) March 16, 2025

The Incident: a fatal encounter

Sharif, a resident of Qasim Nagar, was no stranger to hard work or resilience. The sole breadwinner for his wife, Raushan Bano, their five daughters—two of whom are married—and a minor son, he had spent over a decade abroad to secure a better future for his family. On that fateful morning, while fasting for Ramadan, Sharif stepped out in an auto-rickshaw, reportedly heading toward a dairy near Sheetla Mata Temple, just beyond Chota Chauraha. It was around noon when his path crossed with a group of revellers celebrating Holi, the festival of colours.

According to his family, the encounter quickly escalated from playful to perilous. The group allegedly attempted to forcibly smear Sharif with colours, an act he resisted. His nephew, Mohammad Shamim, recounted the scene based on witness accounts to Hindustan Times, “He was being heckled, and the revellers were determined to apply colours. When I reached the site, my uncle was requesting them not to do so. The issue seemed settled then, but later, many of them caught hold of him again” Hindustan Times reported

Witnesses told Shamim that Sharif was repeatedly slapped, a brutal assault that left him struggling to breathe. Moments later, he collapsed.

Bystanders intervened, pulling Sharif from the fray and offering him water as he sat on a nearby platform. But the relief was fleeting—Sharif soon succumbed, his body going limp in the arms of those who tried to save him. His daughter, Bushra, spoke with raw anguish to Maktoob Media. “They beat my father so brutally that he struggled to breathe. He was beaten to death. They also took the money he was carrying,” as reported by Maktoob Media on X

“They beat my father so brutally that he struggled to breathe. He was beaten to death. They also took the money he was carrying,” says Bushra, daughter of Mohammad Sharif, who died on March 15 after allegedly being assaulted by a group of people for resisting Holi colors in Uttar… pic.twitter.com/A609tcCOPm

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) March 17, 2025

Taken to a hospital, Sharif was declared dead on arrival, leaving his family shattered and his community reeling.

The official narrative vs. family claims

The Unnao Police, under the Kotwali Sadar jurisdiction, swiftly took custody of Sharif’s body and ordered a post-mortem, conducted with videography by a panel of doctors. The report, as cited by the police, concluded that Sharif died of cardiac arrest, with no visible injury marks on his body. Additional SP Akhilesh Singh emphasized to Hindustan Times, “The police are investigating this case. There is no law-and-order problem as such” reported HT. The official stance suggested a natural death, starkly contrasting the family’s allegations of a violent assault.

This discrepancy ignited a firestorm of scepticism and anger. A relative, speaking anonymously to Maktoob Media, dismissed the post-mortem findings, “Bystanders saw him being thrashed. They spoke to the media, saying it happened right in front of them. How can there be no injury marks on his body?” reported Maktoob Media.

The family refused to allow the autopsy until the culprits were arrested, a stance that persisted into the late evening as police and administrative officers worked to persuade them otherwise.

Based on Minhaz, Sharif’s brother-in-law’s initial complaint, an FIR was filed against four named individuals—Kishan, Amarpal, Munnu, and Sanjay—along with others unidentified, under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and Section 190 (constructive liability within an unlawful assembly). Three individuals were detained, but no arrests followed, leaving the family’s demand for justice unmet.

A funeral turned flashpoint

Sharif’s death sent shockwaves through Qasim Nagar and beyond, drawing a large crowd to his funeral that night. Around 11:45 PM on March 15, as the procession reached the Lucknow-Kanpur highway near IBP Chauraha, mourners placed Sharif’s body in the middle of the road, blocking traffic.

What the family saw as a rightful expression of grief and outrage, the police framed as a disturbance. On March 16, a second FIR was lodged—this time against 117 individuals, including Sharif’s relatives Minhaz, Sameem, and Shadab, along with 100 unidentified persons. The charges included rioting (Section 191(2)), disobedience to a public servant’s order (Section 223), abetment (Section 49), obstructing a public servant (Section 221), and causing obstruction in a public way (Section 285) under the BNS. Investigating Officer SI Brajesh Kumar Yadav confirmed no arrests had been made, but the FIR itself felt like a betrayal to the grieving family.

Minhaz, now both a complainant and an accused, voiced his disbelief to Maktoob Media from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, where he was preparing to file two writ petitions against the Uttar Pradesh Police, said, “I don’t understand what kind of system this is. We lost a family member. We filed a complaint against those who assaulted Sharif, leading to his death, and now the police have booked us instead of taking action against the accused,” as reported by Maktoob Media

The incident unfolded against a backdrop of heightened communal sensitivity, with Holi coinciding with Jumu’ah Namaz on March 14, prompting increased security across Uttar Pradesh. Shahr Qazi Saqib Adeeb Misbahi, who travelled from Kanpur to mediate, as per Clarion India, “Such an incident has never occurred before in Unnao’s history. Holi passed off peacefully in the district until this” as per Clarion India. He affirmed the administration’s promise of a thorough investigation, yet the family’s plight suggested a deeper malaise.

UP CM Yogi Adityanath said, Muslims are the safest in UP

Amid the controversy, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, in an ANI podcast on March 26, claimed, “Muslims are the safest in UP.” He argued that a Muslim family among Hindus enjoys safety and religious freedom, contrasting it with the vulnerability of Hindus among Muslim majorities, citing Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as examples. “Before 2017, riots were happening in UP—Hindu shops were burning, and Muslim shops were also burning. But after 2017, riots stopped,” he added.

A Family’s Plea

For Sharif’s family, the fight is personal. Left without their provider, they demand the arrest of all accused, monetary compensation, and a job for Sharif’s minor son. The post-mortem report and police FIRs have only deepened their sense of injustice, turning their grief into a public battle against a system they feel has failed them. As protests flared and Rapid Response Teams descended on Unnao, the question lingered: in a state claiming safety for all, why does justice feel so elusive for Mohammad Sharif’s kin?

The Unnao tragedy is more than a single death—it’s a mirror to a society grappling with bias, accountability, and the fragile threads of coexistence. For now, Minhaz stands at the courthouse, petitions in hand, seeking answers in a system that seems to have turned its back on his family’s pain.

Related:

Uttar Pradesh: Police action to deter fight for Dalit rights, says jailed activist and former IPS officer

Inquiry into rights violations by UP police during 2019 anti-CAA protests: NHRC

Assam Police Firing: Support for victims grows

The post Unnao’s Mohammad Sharif Killing: A tale of grief, injustice, and systemic bias appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A film that holds up a mirror

Director Sandhya Suri, speaking to The Guardian, expressed her deep disappointment and frustration with the CBFC’s decision, calling it both “surprising and heart-breaking.” She pointed out that Santosh does not introduce new or unheard-of themes in Indian cinema—misogyny, caste-based violence, and police brutality have been explored before. However, the film’s raw and unflinching approach to these issues, particularly the intersection of caste and gender violence, appears to have made it a target.

The CBFC demanded extensive and widespread cuts that would have rendered the film incomprehensible. Suri explained that she had attempted to navigate the censorship process to ensure the film’s Indian release but found the demands too severe. “It was just too difficult to make those cuts and have a film that still made sense, let alone stayed true to its vision,” she said while speaking to The Guardian. This reflects a troubling trend where artistic expression is curbed when it critiques systemic issues, particularly those involving state institutions and caste oppression.

Santosh follows a young widow who joins the police force and investigates the murder of a Dalit girl, confronting the deep-seated biases within the police system. The film does not glorify violence or sensationalise its themes; instead, it holds up a mirror to the harsh realities of policing in India. This realistic depiction, however, seems to be what makes it “too dangerous” for Indian audiences in the eyes of the CBFC.

The selective policing of cinema

The timing of the CBFC’s decision is particularly alarming. India’s cultural sphere is increasingly policed, with politically sensitive films often facing severe pushback. Filmmakers have been subjected to hate campaigns, police cases, and even pre-emptive censorship by streaming platforms. The suppression of Santosh is part of this larger trend, where narratives that expose systemic issues—particularly caste and gender-based oppression—are stifled under the pretext of maintaining public harmony.

Meanwhile, films that align with ultra nationalist narratives receive not just clearance but state-backed promotions. On the same day Santosh faced rejection, the Parliament is set to host a special screening of Chhaava, a film that delves into the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and other key ministers will attend the screening, demonstrating the state’s endorsement of historical narratives that serve its ideological positioning.

This brazen double standard is not new. The Kashmir Files, a film widely criticised for its Islamophobic propaganda, was not only approved but personally endorsed by the Prime Minister and made tax-free in multiple BJP-ruled states. At government-organised screenings, officials and ministers publicly praised its narrative, weaponising cinema to push a divisive political agenda. Similarly, The Kerala Story, which fabricated and exaggerated figures on religious conversions to stoke anti-Muslim paranoia, received aggressive state backing, with leaders openly promoting it as “eye-opening” despite fact-checkers exposing its falsehoods.

Beyond mere approval, the state has actively turned these films into ideological instruments, using public resources and platforms to amplify their reach. Theatres were pressured to increase screenings, school and college students were urged to watch. Meanwhile, independent and critical films face endless scrutiny, unreasonable censorship demands, and outright bans, ensuring that only narratives serving the ruling dispensation’s interests dominate public discourse.

This isn’t just about film censorship—it’s about manufacturing consent. While Santosh and other politically inconvenient films are silenced, those that reinforce majoritarian victimhood, vilify minorities, and sanitise state violence are rewarded.

Notably, Chhaava has already been referenced in recent political discourse, particularly by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who linked the film to the recent Nagpur violence. The said communal clash erupted on March 17 after right-wing groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, called for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb—a demand seemingly re-fuelled by the film’s narrative. The state’s willingness to amplify such sentiments while silencing a film that critiques police violence and caste oppression exposes the glaring hypocrisy in India’s censorship policies.

The real threat to public discourse

The CBFC’s actions reveal an unsettling reality: films that challenge power structures and expose systemic failures are deemed threats, while those that reinforce dominant historical and ideological narratives are promoted. If Santosh had glorified police violence rather than critiquing it, or if it had focused on a sanitised version of reality, it would likely have faced no resistance. Instead, it’s honest and necessary portrayal of caste-based and gender violence has led to its suppression.

Suri, while acknowledging that she had anticipated challenges in securing an Indian release, remains committed to making the film accessible to Indian audiences. “It was vitally important for me that the very people affected by these issues were able to see it,” she said, reflecting on how the 2012 Nirbhaya case had initially inspired the film. However, with no appeals process available within the CBFC, the only recourse is legal action—a costly and time-consuming battle.

Santosh represents everything that the ruling party fears; that’s why they banned this film. https://t.co/9l5mUzmq6F pic.twitter.com/FqfjMfgJpC

— Nakshatra (@ghalibkakhayal) March 27, 2025

A disturbing pattern

The double standard is glaring. While Santosh is barred from Indian screens, Chhaava receives a state-endorsed platform. The former critiques state institutions and highlights marginalised voices; the latter reinforces a narrative that conveniently aligns with contemporary right-wing politics. The choice of which stories are allowed to be told—and which are deemed too “controversial”—reflects the increasingly constrained space for critical discourse in Indian cinema.

This is not just about one film. The suppression of Santosh signals a larger, more disturbing pattern: the systematic silencing of voices that challenge power while elevating narratives that serve ideological interests. If Indian cinema is to remain a space for artistic expression and social critique, these barriers to free expression must be challenged. Otherwise, India’s cultural landscape will continue to be shaped not by its artists, but by censors who fear the truth.

Related:

Fiction as history and history honestly portrayed: a tale of two films and a documentary

Congress Radio, the power of revolutionary change: Lessons from ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, the film

Films building up  a majoritarian narrative: Swatantraveer Savarkar

Déjà vu, a film that depicts the chilling effects of corporate-contract farming, resonates with Indian farmer’s protests

The post India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Arbitrary detention and arrest

As per multiple media reports, Mozumdar was covering a protest organised by the youth wing of the Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), which was demonstrating against an alleged recruitment scam at the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank (ACAB). The protest was directed at the involvement of key political figures, including Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who serves as the bank’s director, and BJP MLA Biswajit Phukan, the bank’s chairman.

While carrying out his journalistic duties, Mozumdar questioned the bank’s managing director, Dambaru Saikia, about the allegations. A video clip later released by The CrossCurrent shows Mozumdar attempting to engage Saikia, who then invited him to his office. However, once inside, Saikia allegedly asked him to convince the protesters to leave—a demand Mozumdar rightfully refused, asserting his role as an independent journalist. Shortly after exiting the bank premises, he received a call from the Pan Bazar police station, instructing him to report immediately. Upon arrival, he was detained without any explanation for nearly half a day.

During his detention, Mozumdar’s family had alleged that they were denied access to him, and his diabetic medication, along with iftar provisions during Ramadan, was initially withheld. It was only after repeated insistence from fellow journalists that his wife was allowed to meet him late at night. At around midnight, as per Hindustan Times, the police finally revealed that he had been arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on an unspecified complaint. The arrest slip, given to his wife, lacked the complainant’s name and specific details of the alleged offence, further fuelling suspicions of a politically motivated crackdown.

Manufactured charges to suppress journalism

The police later claimed that a security guard at the bank, a member of the Bodo community, had lodged a complaint against Mozumdar for allegedly making derogatory remarks. The FIR reportedly cited a single sentence attributed to Mozumdar: “Boro jati hoi tumi besi kora” (being from the Bodo tribe, you do too much). This claim has been widely ridiculed as an excuse to criminalise a journalist for asking uncomfortable questions about alleged financial mismanagement at the bank.

The flimsy nature of the allegations, combined with the prolonged detention without justification, indicates that this is not about protecting any community but about intimidating the press. The selective application of the SC/ST Act in this case is particularly disturbing, as it appears to be a tool for silencing a journalist rather than ensuring justice for marginalised communities. This kind of misuse only serves to delegitimise important legal protections meant to safeguard oppressed groups.

Widespread condemnation and protests

Mozumdar’s arrest has sparked widespread outrage among journalists, civil society groups, and opposition political parties. The Guwahati Press Club held an emergency meeting condemning the arrest, with members wearing black badges in solidarity. Prominent journalists and activists have decried the Assam government’s actions as an egregious assault on press freedom.

Senior journalist Sushanta Talukdar pointed out that Mozumdar’s “biggest crime” was attempting to present a balanced report by seeking answers from the bank’s management. The Editors’ Guild of India issued a strong statement condemning the arrest, highlighting that such actions reinforce the growing perception that press freedom is under siege in India. The Press Club of India (PCI) also denounced the police’s refusal to inform Mozumdar’s family and colleagues about the reasons for his detention, calling it a grave infringement of constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a).

Political leaders have also spoken out against the arrest. AJP president Lurinjyoti Gogoi called it an attempt to establish “Jungle Raj” in Assam, while the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee described it as a direct attack on press freedom. The North East Media Forum urged Chief Minister Sarma to intervene and prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act to settle political scores.

A pattern of media suppression

Press freedom is not a privilege—it is a cornerstone of democracy, and its systematic erosion threatens the very foundation of civil liberties in India. The detention and arrest of Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar is a dangerous escalation in the Assam government’s hostility towards independent journalism. It sends a chilling message to other reporters: question the state at your own peril. If Mozumdar is not released unconditionally, it will set a troubling precedent where fabricated charges can be used to silence journalists, ultimately eroding democratic accountability.

The fact that Mozumdar had previously reported on irregularities at ACAB raises serious questions about whether this was a pre-planned action to silence a journalist who had become inconvenient for the government. Notably, earlier this month, the Assam Cooperation Department had ordered an inquiry into the bank’s alleged financial mismanagement following a complaint sent to the Central Vigilance Commission. Instead of addressing these allegations transparently, the government appears to be prioritising retribution against those who expose them.

Related:

‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide

The post Assam: Journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar detained for 12 hours, arrested after covering protest against an alleged recruitment scam involving key BJP leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This decision sparked significant public outrage, with legal fraternity and child rights activists criticising the ruling as a gross misinterpretation of sexual offence laws. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the gravity of the issue, intervened suo moto. Hearing the suo-moto case, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih strongly rebuked the High Court’s observations, terming them “shocking” and indicative of a “complete lack of sensitivity” in the judicial reasoning.

Supreme Court’s observations

The Supreme Court took particular exception to the rationale of the High Court, noting that the judgment was not issued in haste but was delivered after being reserved for nearly four months. This indicated that the judge had ample time to consider the legal implications, making the insensitivity of the judgment even more alarming. The bench specifically pointed out paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of the judgment, stating that they reflected an “inhuman approach” and a complete departure from established legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court stayed these observations and issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and other parties involved in the proceedings before the High Court.

For reference, following are the mentioned paras from the judgment of the High Court:

“21. In the present case, the allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down lower garment of the victim and for that purpose they had broken string of her lower garments and tried to drag her beneath the culvert, but due to intervention of witnesses they left the victim and fled away from the place of incident. This fact is not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on victim as apart from these facts no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim.”

“24. The allegations levelled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”

“26. After giving a thoughtful consideration and meticulous examination of the facts of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that mere fact that according to prosecution version two accused Pawan and Akash grabbed the breasts of the victim and one of them namely Akash broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the culvert and in the meanwhile on interference of passersby/witnesses the accused persons fled away from the spot leaving the victim behind, is not sufficient to hold that a case of Section 376, 511 IPC or Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act has been made out against the accused persons.”

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also appeared before the Supreme Court and condemned the High Court’s judgment, calling it “disturbing” and “untenable.” The court took cognisance of the case based on a letter submitted by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta on behalf of the NGO ‘We the Women of India,’ highlighting the potential ramifications of such a ruling on child safety jurisprudence.

Facts of the case and High Court’s ruling

According to the prosecution, the accused persons, Pawan and Akash, assaulted an 11-year-old girl by grabbing her breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert. The trial court, considering this a case of attempt to rape or attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault, invoked Section 376 of the IPC along with Section 18 of the POCSO Act and issued a summoning order under these provisions.

However, when the accused challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court, the single-judge bench presided over by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra ruled that the allegations did not meet the threshold for attempt to rape. The court made a legally questionable distinction between preparation and attempt, arguing that the prosecution had not established that the accused had moved beyond the stage of preparation towards committing the offence. Instead, the High Court directed that the accused be tried under the lesser offence of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) along with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated sexual assault.

The High Court’s ruling has been widely condemned for its regressive and flawed interpretation of sexual violence laws. By holding that a greater degree of determination was required to establish an attempt to rape, the court demonstrated an outdated and restrictive understanding of sexual crimes. The ruling also suggested that unless complete disrobing or a near-penetrative act occurred, the offence of attempt to rape could not be established. Such an interpretation ignores decades of legal evolution, including Supreme Court judgments that have recognised a broader and more victim-centred approach to defining sexual violence.

Furthermore, the judgment was riddled with factual inconsistencies regarding the victim’s age. While at one point, the High Court referred to her as 14 years old, in another instance, it described her as “older than 11 years.” However, since the court invoked Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act—applicable in cases where the victim is below 12 years—it can be inferred that the court assumed the victim to be between 11 and 12 years old. This lack of clarity raises concerns about the judicial application of key statutory provisions.

More concerning was the High Court’s failure to consider the victim’s psychological trauma and the terror she must have experienced during the attack. Legal experts have pointed out that the court’s approach was not just legally unsound but also deeply insensitive to the lived realities of sexual violence survivors.

The judgment of the HC may be read below.

Previous dismissal of writ petition challenging the High Court order

In a separate but related development, the Supreme Court had on March 25 dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which sought to challenge the Allahabad High Court’s ruling. The petition was filed by an unrelated third party who was not part of the original criminal proceedings. A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale ruled that such a challenge should have been filed as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136, rather than as a writ petition under Article 32.

During the hearing, an advocate appearing for the petitioner attempted to invoke the government’s “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” campaign to highlight the case’s broader significance. However, Justice Trivedi immediately interjected, stating that “lecture baazi” (sermonising) would not be entertained in court. She also questioned the absence of the Advocate on Record (AOR) and the petitioner. Following these observations, the court summarily dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the view that procedural technicalities should not be bypassed in challenging judicial orders.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s intervention

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Allahabad High Court’s order is a necessary and urgent corrective measure for several reasons:

1. Judicial accountability: The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the need for High Courts to exercise sensitivity when adjudicating sexual offence cases. Judges must be held accountable for legal interpretations that dilute the protections granted to victims.
2. Gender justice: The ruling highlights the persistent challenges in ensuring a gender-sensitive legal system. The High Court’s flawed reasoning reflects a need for continuous judicial training on laws related to sexual violence.
3. Legal precedent: By staying the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has signalled that outdated and restrictive interpretations of sexual offences will not be allowed to shape legal discourse.
4. Child protection: The judgment serves as a reminder that courts must prioritise the best interests of children in cases of sexual violence, rather than engaging in overly technical distinctions that undermine victim/survivor rights.

This case is a stark reminder that while legal statutes provide a framework for justice, the judiciary’s interpretation of these laws plays a crucial role in determining whether justice is truly served. The Supreme Court’s intervention reassures the public that regressive judicial reasoning will not be allowed to weaken protections for survivors of sexual assault.

Related:

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

The illusion of the glamourous Malayalam cinema falls apart: Justice Hema Committee report provides insight into systematic harassment and exploitation of women actors

“How does dictating attire empower women?” Supreme Court partially stays Mumbai College’s Hijab Ban

Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention

The post Supreme Court intervenes in POCSO case, stays Allahabad HC’s “shocking” judgment that downplayed sexual assault against minor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The minister’s disclosure, made in response to a query from Congress MLA Dasarathi Gamango in the state assembly, has reignited scrutiny over KIIT’s handling of the case. Lamsal’s death on February 16, linked to alleged harassment by fellow student Advik Srivastava, triggered widespread protests by Nepalese students and diplomatic tensions between India and Nepal.

Nepal student had filed harassment complaint with KIIT authorities: Odisha minister

In a shocking revelation, Odisha’s higher education minister Suryavanshi Suraj stated on Friday that a 20-year-old student from Nepal, who tragically died by suicide at the KIIT campus in Bhubaneswar in February, had filed a “sexual harassment” complaint against the university authorities nearly eleven months prior. The minister’s statement came in response to a query by Congress MLA Dasarathi Gamango in the state assembly.

According to Suraj, in a written reply to the assembly, the woman had filed the harassment complaint on March 12, 2024. The minister further informed that a high-level committee formed by the state government is currently investigating the matter in detail. The university has confirmed the formation of an internal committee in line with UGC guidelines to address the issue.

Suraj also mentioned that the higher education department had not provided any grants to KIIT during the last financial year. As reported by The Indian Express, the investigation into the complaint is ongoing.

While KIIT formed an internal committee per UGC guidelines, critics, including the student’s father, Sunil Lamsal, accuse the university of negligence and mistreatment. The Odisha government has launched a high-level probe, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has ordered an on-spot inquiry, with a report due by March 10, 2025. As investigations deepen, questions loom over accountability and the safety of international students at KIIT.

NHRC to probe suicide case of Nepalese girl, ordered an on-spot inquiry into the death

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had ordered an on-spot inquiry into the death of a Nepalese girl student at KIIT University in Odisha and directed its officials to submit a report by March 10. The NHRC issued this order in response to a complaint stating that the 20-year-old student had died by suicide in her hostel room at KIIT University on the afternoon of February 16. The commission had specified that the investigation should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

“Considering the seriousness of the matter, the commission directed the Registrar (Law) to proceed with an inquiry at KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, to conduct an on-spot investigation along with a team comprising two officers from the investigation division, one not below the rank of SSP, and one officer/official from the Law Division, and submit its inquiry report to the Commission by 10th March, 2025,” the NHRC order had stated.

As reported by Hindustan Times, the complainant, Ashutosh B, in his petition, had alleged that the Nepalese student at Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) University had been harassed by her “ex-boyfriend” and that the university’s International Relations Office (IRO) had ignored her complaints, which he claimed ultimately led to her suicide.

Background

In February 2025, the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, was thrust into controversy following the suicide of Prakriti Lamsal, a 20-year-old Nepalese BTech student. On February 16, Lamsal was found dead in her hostel room, an act linked to alleged harassment by a fellow student, Advik Srivastava, who was later arrested for abetment. Lamsal had filed a sexual harassment complaint with KIIT’s International Relations Office 11 months earlier, in March 2024, but no significant action was reportedly taken. Her death sparked outrage among the university’s approximately 1,000 Nepalese students, who staged protests demanding justice and accountability from the administration.

The situation escalated when KIIT authorities allegedly evicted protesting Nepalese students, forcing them to leave campus without prior notice, some dropped off at Cuttack railway station without tickets. This heavy-handed response drew widespread criticism, leading to diplomatic tensions between India and Nepal. Nepal’s government intervened, with Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba calling for an impartial probe and the removal of involved staff. The Odisha government formed a high-level committee, and the National Human Rights Commission began investigating. Amid the unrest, over 150 Nepalese students returned to Nepal, while KIIT claimed most later resumed studies.

Sent daughter for higher studies: father of student who died by suicide

The father of the Nepali student, whose body was discovered in her hostel at the KIIT campus in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on February 18 (Tuesday), has accused the private engineering institute of “mistreating” undergraduates from Nepal. His statement follows allegations that KIIT had evicted a group of Nepali students from their hostel amid rising tensions on the campus following the tragic death of Prakriti Lamsal, a third-year B Tech student.

In response to the allegations, the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) issued an apology for the incident, asserting that it had “never done any disservice to its students” reported NDTV.

Related:

Tragedy at KIIT: The death of Prakriti Lamsal and the University’s controversial response

Academic Freedoms at Risk: Federalism and autonomy challenged by UGC’s VC appointment guidelines

Education for a Hindu Rashtra: UGC-NCERT pushing a divisive agenda

The post KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since March, action has been taken against 136 madrasas that were ‘not registered with the education department or the Madrasa Board.’ Reports suggest that, according to government estimates, the state has around 450 registered madrasas while 500 are operating without the recognition of these two departments. However, these institutions are being run under the Societies Registration Act.

A statement put out by the state reportedly said, “Action against illegal madrasas, unauthorised shrines, and encroachments will continue. Unregistered madrasas have been reported in towns bordering Uttar Pradesh, and such unauthorised institutions pose a serious security concern.”

In January 2025, the CM had first directed ordered a ‘verification drive’, and the district administrations have been surveying madrasas to ascertain various aspects, including their financial sources. In Udham Singh Nagar, the government has sealed 64 madrasas; in Dehradun, 44; 26 in Haridwar; and two in Pauri Garhwal, officials said.

Khurshid Ahmed, the state secretary for Jamiat ulema-i-Hind, claimed that the exercise is illegal as the managers of these institutions are not given notices before they are closed. “For a large-scale drive like this, the government needs to pass an order, but that has not happened. The sealing is taking place during Ramadan when the children are away at their homes. Several institutions had closed after the year-end exams. What needs to be seen is if the children will be able to assimilate with other schools and curriculum when they get transferred,” he said.

Madrasa Board chairperson Mufti Shamoom Qasmi said that the children from the sealed madrasas will be transferred to schools and madrasas nearby, and urged the administration to initiate this action. “We will look into how many children study here after the report on the drive is submitted. The children are entitled to the right to education and we will make sure it is not violated,” he said.

The issue of inequitable comparisons between educational qualifications in a madrasa and a school, Qasmi said the education department will try to resolve this. It may be recalled that, in Uttar Pradesh, the government has awarded equivalence to Munshi and Maulvi curricula in class 10 and Alim in class 12. “A set of guidelines have been formed, which will bring the congruence. The Education Board headquartered in Ramnagar will resolve this and accord recognition,” he said.

In Uttarakhand, it was the DMs (Collectors) who conducted the state-wide inspection in all 13 districts, yet, the findings are not public. Recognised madrasas come under the state boards for madrasa education, while unrecognised ones follow the curriculum prescribed by the bigger seminaries such as the Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and Darul Uloom Deoband.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Six Muslims killed after demolition of Madarsa, Haldwani MLA says officials rushed the process

Lucknow demolition drives resume a day after central government’s oath taking ceremony

Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty

Historic 600 year old Delhi mosque demolished without notice

The post 136 madrasas sealed, Uttarakhand CM Dhami now orders probe into funding appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shockingly, the bench noted that despite Khan challenging the said notice and mentioning the same before it on Monday morning (March 24), the authorities pulled down the house amid heavy security and drone surveillance in the entire area, on Monday afternoon. Advocate for the NMC argued that the demolition was already a fait accompli!

“We therefore, mentioned the matter again at 2:30 PM and the bench heard us. We apprised the bench of the facts of the case and how the NMC hurriedly demolished my client’s house. The bench was not at all impressed with the NMC. In fact, the bench questioned the authorities about their conduct and even pulled them for their high-handedness,” stated advocate Ashwin Ingole, who represented Khan in the HC.

Following brief arguments, the bench prima facie found the action in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, (the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures) wherein a bench led by Justice Bhushan Gavai had held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

“But for the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, further factual matrix appears to be identical and prima facie we are satisfied that the respondent-Authorities are conducting demolition in contravention of the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures,” the judges said in the order.

The bench noted that another accused Abdul Hafiz, too received a similar notice and his house was also partially demolished by the authorities. It therefore, stayed the operations of the demolition notice.

“That being so, the entire action pursuant to the notice dated March 21, 2025 issued to the petitioners shall remain stayed until further orders,” the bench ordered.

Besides the bench stated that, “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record.”

On the other hand, advocate Jemini Kasat representing the NMC informed the judges that the demolition action is already over. The bench recorded the statement. “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record,” the judges said while adjourning the hearing till April 15.

Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioner. Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate with Shri Amit Prasad, Advocate for respondents.

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement

The post ‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now, as the video uploaded by Kamra has gone viral, he is facing state-backed intimidation for daring to mock Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in a satirical stand-up routine. Within hours of uploading his show, an FIR was filed against him, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised a Mumbai venue, and senior political leaders issued open threats, warning that Kamra would not be allowed to move freely unless he apologised. Meanwhile, those responsible for the violence were swiftly granted bail, exposing the stark reality of political power shielding its own while silencing critics. This blatant abuse of state machinery to suppress satire sets a chilling precedent for free speech in India.

Political violence and the state’s selective action

In a blatant display of political intimidation, a group of Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised the Habitat Studio and Hotel Unicontinental in Mumbai’s Khar area, claiming the video had been filmed at these locations. Among those involved in the destruction were several party workers, including social media in-charge Rahul Kanal and leader Kunal Sarmalkar. While 11 individuals were arrested for vandalism, all were granted bail within hours, highlighting the leniency afforded to political loyalists engaging in violent retaliation.

Despite the clear criminality of their actions, Shiv Sena leaders faced minimal consequences, whereas Kamra, whose only ‘offence’ was a joke, is being subjected to legal action. This incident underscores a disturbing double standard: dissenters and critics face police action, while those committing politically motivated violence operate with near impunity.

Explicit threats and calls for retaliation

The campaign against Kamra took an even more sinister turn when Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel demanded an apology within two days, threatening that the comedian “would not be allowed to move freely in Mumbai” if he refused. Patel went as far as to say that if Kamra was seen in public, Shiv Sainiks would blacken his face—a direct incitement to mob violence. These threats were echoed by Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske, who baselessly accused Kamra of being a ‘hired comedian’ making comments for monetary gain.

Further fanning the flames, political leader Sanjay Nirupam—who recently joined the Shinde-led Shiv Sena—declared publicly that Kamra would be “taught a lesson” at 11 AM the next day. Such statements, made without fear of legal repercussions, indicate a deep-rooted culture of impunity among political actors aligned with those in power.

Adding to the outrage, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated that Kamra “should apologise” for his remarks and implied that comedy must have boundaries dictated by political sensibilities. “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot say whatever he wants,” he said, essentially arguing that speech must conform to the government’s approval. He also dismissed Kamra’s symbolic use of the Constitution, claiming, “Kunal Kamra has posted the same red Constitution book shown by Rahul Gandhi. Both of them have not read the Constitution.” His comments make it evident that Maharashtra’s leadership seeks to redefine free speech by placing political limitations on it.

Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot speak whatever he wants. The people of Maharashtra have decided who the traitor is. Kunal Kamra should apologize. This will not be tolerated. There is the right to comedy, but if it is… pic.twitter.com/g7UVXEyfDC

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Weaponising the law to suppress speech

The response from Maharashtra’s government further cemented the state’s role in enabling political censorship. Fadnavis’ remarks reflect an authoritarian mind-set where freedom of speech exists only within the confines of state approval. His claim that Kamra was attempting to ‘defame’ Eknath Shinde reveals a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misinterpretation—of free expression. Satire, political critique, and parody have historically been protected speech in democratic societies, and an elected official being offended by a joke does not justify state intervention.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar attempted to strike a neutral tone but ultimately reinforced the same logic, stating, “Nobody should go beyond the law, Constitution, and rules.” However, his remarks failed to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the state’s reaction—while Kamra faces legal scrutiny for satire, Shiv Sena workers responsible for actual violence were released on bail within hours.

Crushing artistic spaces through fear

In the wake of the controversy, Habitat Studio, a prominent venue for independent performances, announced a temporary shutdown. The studio issued a statement calling for “constructive conversations, not destruction” and condemning violence as an antithesis to art and dialogue. The forced closure of a venue due to political pressure illustrates the chilling effect such incidents have on creative spaces. When comedians, artists, and venues fear violent repercussions for hosting dissenting voices, the very essence of a democracy is undermined.

https://www.instagram.com/indiehabitat/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=2d583eff-8829-4cba-a143-187ff34afdcd

The dangerous precedent being set

The Kunal Kamra case is not an isolated incident but part of a worrying pattern where comedians, journalists, and dissenters are systematically targeted for criticising the ruling establishment. The use of legal mechanisms against Kamra, juxtaposed with the state’s lenient treatment of those who resort to violence, sets a dangerous precedent. It signals that speech critical of those in power will be met with legal harassment, while politically sanctioned violence will be tolerated and even encouraged.

In a functioning democracy, public figures—especially elected officials—must be open to criticism and satire. The weaponisation of state machinery against a comedian over a joke signals an alarming drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but actively punished. Kamra’s response to this intimidation was simple yet profound—he posted an image of himself holding the Constitution with the caption, “The only way forward.” In doing so, he reaffirmed a principle that the Maharashtra government appears eager to erase: the right to free speech is non-negotiable, and satire is not a crime.

The only way forward… pic.twitter.com/nfVFZz7MtY

— Kunal Kamra (@kunalkamra88) March 23, 2025

Related:

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

Arresting dissent: Punjab Government’s U-turn on farmer protests, protest site bulldozed, farmer leaders detained

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

“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”

The post Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde appeared first on SabrangIndia.