The stay was issued following the argument advanced by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing on the behalf of Maharashtra, that some parts in the high court order would have an impact on other pending MCOCA matters. MCOCA 1999 is a law that has, over the years since its enactment come up for several judicial indictments on its abuse.

Eleven of the defendants who are living (one of them passed away during the Cobid-19 pandemic, in 2021 while in jail) were released on July 21, as soon as the high court pronounced the judgement. Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, responding to the judgment, had said that it was “shocking” and within a day, the appeal before the apex court was filed. Two are still pending release in other minor cases.

In his arguments, Mehta told the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh that he was not asking that the defendants be sent back to jail but that the judgment be stayed. The court first said that the judgement can’t be used as a “precedent” in other matters. But when Mehta further pressed for staying the order, Justice Sundresh said, “Order stayed to that extent”.

The court observed in the order: “We have been informed that all the respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to the prison. However, taking note of the submission made by the SG (Mehta) on the question of law, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. To that extent, there is a stay of the impugned judgment.”

The acquittal came after 19 long years of incarceration. In 2015, the special MCOCA court had convicted 12 persons for their alleged role in the serial train blast case that had killed 189 persons and severely injured over 400 persons. Among those acquitted by the high court, five persons – Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan – were awarded the death penalty by the MCOCA court.

Seven others who were sentenced to life (unto death) by the MCOCA court are Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh. Kamal Ansari died in 2021.

One person, Abdul Wahid Shaikh, who was also arrested along with the 12 men, and after nine years of incarceration, was finally acquitted by the MCOCA court in 2015. The state government had not filed an appeal against his acquittal at the time. 

Today, during the hearing, the Supreme Court asked if any of those acquitted were Pakistani nationals. “You mention in your appeal that there are Pakistani accused in this case,” the court inquired. To this, special public prosecutor Raja Thakare, who handled the trial in the lower court, said the Pakistani nationals are shown as absconding accused in the case and the 12 acquitted men were all Indians. 

 The implications of the stay of the High Court order are significant. As stated above, the SC has not stayed the release of those wrongfully convicted (except two they were released day before yesterday). What has happened and this does set another precedent is that Bombay HC’s scathing observations on the (mis)use of MCOCA, procedural lapses etc., has been stayed and the 671 page judgement passed by one constitutional court, after 75 days of rigorous hearings, has been stayed. The scathing findings by the high court in the judgement on the misuse of the MCOCA law cannot be used as a precedent in other cases. The question of law in the matter may come up at any future date, even after years, given the pendency of the cases in the apex court.

Related:

Still Waiting in Grief: How the 2006 Mumbai train blast victims were denied closure and justice

A Spectacle of Injustice Undone: After 19 years, Bombay HC’s acquittal in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case recognises the (mis) use of ‘torture for confession’

The post 7/11 Bomb Blasts: Supreme Court Judgement says Bombay HC Order cannot be treated as Precedent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This inexplicable overnight explosion in a critical voter category, coupled with the overall increase in electors’ data marked for deletion from 35 lakh to 56 lakh in the same period (July 14 to July 23, 2025), unless the contrary proved.

A skyrocketing surge in just 24 hours

The initial phase of the SIR, as reported by the ECI on July 14, indicated that out of Bihar’s total 7,89,69,844 electors, enumeration forms from 6,60,67,208 individuals, or 83.66%, had been successfully collected. At that juncture, the ECI had identified specific categories for deletion, 1.59% of electors were found to be deceased, 2.2% had permanently shifted residence, and 0.73% were identified as having multiple entries. This initial accounting suggested that approximately 88.18% of the electorate was either verified or categorised for deletion based on these criteria.

The figures emerging from the SIR are indeed startling, particularly the overnight jump in “untraceable electors.”

However, subsequent data releases unveiled a concerning volatility. On July 22, the ECI reported 11,484 “untraceable electors.” In an astonishing and unexplained leap, this figure surged to a staggering 100,000 by July 23 – an astronomical increase of approximately 809% within a mere 24 hours. This sudden surge in a highly problematic category of voters has become a central point of contention, raising serious questions about the methodologies and consistency of data collection and classification during the SIR.

Furthermore, the overall number of electors marked for deletion also witnessed a significant escalation. On July 22, with voter coverage reportedly at 97.30%, the count of electors flagged for deletion stood at 52 lakh (5.2 million). Yet, by July 23, with coverage marginally increasing to 98.01%, this figure jumped to 56 lakh (5.6 million). This implies that an additional 3 lakh (300,000) voters were identified for deletion in just a single day.

The sheer magnitude and rapid rate of these proposed deletions, particularly in the final stages of the revision, are fuelling a suspicion that the SIR may extend beyond a routine clean-up, potentially impacting the democratic rights of a significant portion of Bihar’s electorate.

The ECI’s justification and the underlying concerns

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is currently undertaking a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, its first in 22 years, which it defends as crucial for maintaining the “purity of elections.” This exercise aims to remove deceased voters, permanent migrants, and duplicate entries, with ECI data as of July 23 showing 56 lakh electors identified for deletion.

Questions of timing and documentary requirements

However, this SIR has ignited a firestorm of criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups, who allege it’s a politically motivated attempt to disenfranchise marginalised communities. Their concerns are multi-layered, beginning with the highly suspect timing of the SIR just months before the Bihar assembly elections, which critics argue should have been conducted well in advance to avoid any perception of impropriety.

ALARMING DISCREPANCIES

Two glaring red flags have emerged from the Special Intensive Revision of the voter list in Bihar:

On 22nd July, the number of untraceable electors stood at 11,484. By 23rd July, that number suddenly exploded to 1 LAKH
At 88.18% voter… pic.twitter.com/3icF2UkZZt

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) July 24, 2025

Furthermore, the methodology and documentary requirements have drawn fire; despite the ECI’s claim that Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards are not mandatory, their limited use for identity verification raises worries for poor and migrant workers who often lack readily available official documentation. This also shifts the burden of proof onto individual citizens, a challenging process for those with limited literacy or resources, issues currently being heard by the Supreme Court.

Opposition may boycott Bihar poll, says Tejashwi Yadav

In a stunning declaration Thursday, July 24, RJD leader, Tejaswi Yadav again alleged the Election Commission is for “working at the behest of BJP and ruling NDA” and might boycott the polls after taking feedback from people and alliance partners. Dramatically, he, the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Assembly, Tejashwi Yadav, has indicated that Opposition parties might boycott upcoming State Assembly elections in Bihar after taking feedback from people and our alliance partners, reports The Hindu.

“We will see what people want and what our allies say. If the state polls are conducted in a partial and manipulative manner where it is already decided who would win what number of seats, what is the use of conducting such an election? We may consider boycotting the upcoming state assembly elections in Bihar after taking feedback from people and our (alliance) partners”, Mr Yadav, who is from the Opposition Rashtriya Janata Dal, told a news agency on Wednesday (July 23, 2025).

Earlier in the day on July 23, there was a verbal duel between ruling NDA and Opposition mahagathbandhan (grand alliance) legislators on the third day of monsoon session of the Bihar Assembly over the issue of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in the State. Thereafter, while addressing media persons, Mr. Yadav alleged the Election Commission for “working at the behest of BJP and ruling NDA” and claimed that “the possibility of deletion of 50-80 lakh voters from the voter list is alarming”.

“If we have so many deletions from the voters list, it is clear that there would be 3,000-4,000 names of voters who would be struck off from the electoral roll on each booth of the state and this is the conspiracy of the NDA to get favourable results in the poll,” alleged Mr. Yadav.

“If they (NDA) want to win elections through fraudulent means, then what is the point in conducting elections? Chunav mat karwao (don’t hold the elections),” he quipped while speaking to the reporters.

“We’ll consult our (alliance) partners and people before taking a final decision on this (boycotting the poll),” he added.

The Indian National Congress (INC), an ally also came out in support of RJD on the issue. “Yes, we’ll seriously discuss the issue (of boycotting the poll)… we could join any form of protest. If voters are denied their franchise, what remains in a democratic set-up of the country?” asked senior state Congress leader and legislator party leader in the State Assembly, Shakeel Ahmad Khan.

The ruling party (JD-U) leader and party spokesperson Neeraj Kumar, however, slammed Mr. Yadav for the “poll boycott threat”. “His (poll) boycott threat shows sheer desperation and hopelessness. Has he (Mr Yadav) forgotten that the people of the state had limited his party (RJD) to just four seats in the last Lok Sabha elections in 2024?”, said Mr. Kumar.

The Opposition mahagathbandhan (grand alliance) leaders are expected to “take a final call on poll boycott in days to come”, the other leaders of mahagathbandhan told The Hindu over a phone call.

“Possibly, after the ongoing monsoon session of the state legislature, which is scheduled to be concluded tomorrow on July 25,” said one of the senior Left party leaders while seeking anonymity. The three Left Parties — the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) and the Communist Party of India-Marxists-Leninist (CPI-ML) — are part of the Opposition mahagathbandhan in the State.

The State Assembly elections in Bihar are due in October-November later this year.

Bihar’s SIR: Impractical deadlines and opaque deletions

The remarkably short deadline for form submission, July 25, 2025, is deemed impractical, especially for Bihar’s significant migrant population, with 15 lakh voters yet to submit forms, risking the exclusion of legitimate voters due to logistical hurdles or lack of awareness, despite online and WhatsApp options. Finally, deep concerns persist regarding the opacity of the deletion process itself. The sheer volume of proposed deletions and limited time for verification, even with lists shared with political party-nominated Booth Level Agents, raise serious doubts about the thoroughness and fairness of the process, fuelling fears of erroneous deletions that could disproportionately impact specific demographic groups.

ECI’s stance on voter IDs and citizenship verification in court

he ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls has been further complicated by the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) recent affidavit to the Supreme Court. Filed on July 21, 2025, the ECI, through Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar, stated that Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPICs/Voter IDs) cannot be considered primary documents for new entries, categorising the SIR as a “de novo revision process.” While acknowledging Aadhaar’s utility for identification, the ECI reiterated it’s not a standalone proof of eligibility or citizenship. Furthermore, the ECI defended its right to verify citizenship, citing its constitutional mandate under Article 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to ensure only citizens are registered.

Divergence from Supreme Court’s concern and ground realities

This stance directly challenges the Supreme Court’s July 10, 2025, observation that EPICs, Aadhaar, and ration cards should be considered valid. The ECI justified excluding ration cards due to “widespread prevalence of fraudulent cards.”

This significant deletion rate, coupled with the ECI’s stringent documentary requirements and its assertion of citizenship verification powers, has fuelled concerns from opposition parties and civil society about potential widespread disenfranchisement, particularly of marginalised sections. Many reports have also reported ground-level procedural flaws. The next Supreme Court hearing on July 28, 2025, will be crucial in addressing these contentious issues.

Related

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

The post Bihar’s untraceable electors spiral by 809% in just one day, ECI reports 1 lakh ‘missing’, 15 lakh Bihar voters yet to submit forms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

• In Thane, Parbhani, and Kolhapur, opposition parties, including the Maharashtra Congress, and civil rights groups are rallying against the newly passed Maharashtra Public Safety Act (MSPS)—a sweeping law that criminalises democratic dissent.

जनसुरक्षा कायद्याला कडाडून विरोध करण्यासाठी कोल्हापूर जिल्हाध्यक्ष श्री.सतेजजी पाटील यांच्या उपस्थितीत आज कोल्हापूर जिल्हा व शहर काँग्रेसच्या वतीने काँग्रेसच्या कार्यालयाबाहेर जनसुरक्षा कायद्याची होळी करून संविधानिक मार्गाने काम करणाऱ्या विरोधी पक्ष संघटना, शिव- शाहू- फुले-… pic.twitter.com/Z8hz5JEODR

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) July 21, 2025

परभणी जिल्हा व शहर काँग्रेसच्यावतीने परभणीतील डॉ. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर यांच्या पुतळ्याजवळ जनसुरक्षा कायद्याला कडाडून विरोध करण्यासाठी संविधानिक मार्गाने काम करणाऱ्या विरोधी पक्ष संघटना, शिव- शाहू- फुले- आंबेडकरवादी संघटना, पुरोगामी, शेतकरी कामगार संघटना यांना संपवणाऱ्या आणि… pic.twitter.com/AG6GSGSzjT

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) July 21, 2025

• In Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Nanded, members of the Qureshi Muslim community have initiated a state-wide boycott of the cattle trade in protest against a decade of mob lynching, police harassment, and what they call a campaign of “economic strangulation.”
• And on the shores of Sassoon Dock in Mumbai, the Koli fishing community is resisting sudden evictions despite years of assurances, demanding protection of their ancestral rights and the right to the sea.

Together, these protests tell a larger story: of how state power, legal instruments, and vigilante violence are reshaping the rights, identities, and futures of working-class and marginalised communities across Maharashtra.

• The Public Safety Act: A law to silence the people

When the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 was passed by the Maharashtra legislature in June 2025, the government claimed it was a necessary measure to combat “urban Naxalism” and protect public order. But opposition parties, constitutional scholars, and over 12,500 citizens who submitted objections to the Joint Select Committee saw the law for what it is: a legal instrument to suppress protest, stifle opposition, and criminalise constitutional expression.

The law allows the state to declare any activity or organisation “unlawful” if it is seen to disturb “public order” or interfere with “established institutions.” But these terms are undefined, vague, and dangerously expansive. Jan Suraksha Vidheyak Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti approached the Governor of Maharashtra on July 16, 2025 and submitted a memorandum against the said Bill.

The memorandum stated that “The Sangharsh Samiti has strongly opposed the Jan Suraksha Bill (Bill No. XXXIII of 2024), as the Bill is a direct assault on the democratic and fundamental rights of the citizens of the State.  We believe that in the name of curbing Naxalism, due to its vague formulation, the Act is likely to be misused against common citizens, social activists and organisations who legitimately raise their voice against unjust government policies and actions.  The stifling of any form of opposition and dissent, is antithetical to the democratic frame of our Constitution. A more detailed note outlining our major objections to the Bill, is attached herewith.”

The additional memorandum submitted to the Governor on July 22, 2025 highlighting that Section 2(f), which defines unlawful activity argued that the state definition is so wide it could criminalise rasta rokos, satyagrahas, pamphleteering, or even social media posts.

The additional memorandum to the Governor provided that “The definition of “unlawful activity” is too broad and all-encompassing.  While the Chief Minister has repeatedly stated that morchas, andolans, and other democratic forms of protest will not be disallowed, the fact is that the definition of “unlawful activity” as defined in Sec 2 (f) of the Act is so broad that morchas, andolans etc. fall squarely within the said definition. It is necessary that the assurances in this regard as given on the floor of the House, must be translated into black and white on paper.”

Under Section 5, the Advisory Board, originally meant to serve as a constitutional check, has also been structurally weakened. Under amendments introduced by the Joint Select Committee, the Board may now include retired district judges and government advocates, compromising its independence.

Opposition erupted state-wide:

• In Parbhani, Congress leaders gathered at the Ambedkar statue to burn copies of the Bill and denounce it as an attack on Ambedkarite and Phule-Shahu ideals.
• In Kolhapur, 2,000 people blocked a police contingent and set fire to symbolic effigies of the law, calling it “black inside and out.”
• In Thane, a major public meeting on July 27 brought together journalist Kumar Ketkar, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut, former minister Jitendra Awhad, and retired judge Abhay Thipse, all calling for the repeal of the Act.

As reported by The Week, Congress state president Harshvardhan Sapkal, in a widely covered press conference at Gandhi Bhavan, alleged that the law was designed not to curb extremism but to protect industrialists grabbing land in Dharavi, or extracting mineral wealth from Surjagad in Gadchiroli.

“This law is draconian inside and out and is meant to suppress the common people… The only beneficiaries will be the government and the industrialists who support it — the ones who have grabbed land in Dharavi, looted mineral resources in Surjagad (Gadchiroli), and want red-carpet access to the Shaktipeeth highway corridor.”

The Governor is yet to grant assent, and civil society groups continue to demand that the Bill be returned to the Assembly under Article 200 of the Constitution. More such protests are planned in Maharashtra. On July 27, 2025 there is a protest meeting in Thane that will be addressed among others by former judge, Abhay Thipsay.

• The Qureshi Community’s economic boycott against mob violence

On July 1, 2025, a quiet revolution began in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. Members of the Qureshi Muslim community, who are traditionally involved in buffalo meat and cattle trade, announced they were ceasing all commercial activity indefinitely.

The reason? A decade of mob lynchings, extortion, and police collusion under the pretext of gau Raksha (cow protection). Haji Aslam Sultan Qureshi, president of the Maharashtra Jamat ul Quresh, spoke with Hindustan Times and stated that “We are legal traders, but gau rakshaks beat us, loot our vehicles, and often kill with impunity. Even when we transport buffaloes, which are legal, they attack us. And the police help them.”

The community cites multiple fatal cases:

• Rafeeq Tamboli, beaten to death in 2021;
• Affan Ansari, killed in 2024;
• Seven deaths in Washim district alone, the report provided, as per local community leader Nabi Qureshi.

Over time, slaughterhouses in many districts have been shut down or denied veterinary certification, making legal slaughter impossible. As per a report of The Wire, in Nanded, there are no functioning taluka-level veterinary officers. As a result, butchers are forced to slaughter in homes, illegal under the law, making them further vulnerable to FIRs and raids. “We are being pushed into illegality by design,” said a butcher from Parbhani, according to The Wire report, “then arrested for surviving.”

On July 15, the HT report provided, a Qureshi delegation met Minister of State for Home Yogesh Kadam and DGP Rashmi Shukla, demanding a written assurance of protection. Kadam refused, offering only oral promises.

Meanwhile, according to the report of The Wire, the government’s official position hardened. On July 14, Minister Pankaj Bhoyar announced:

• A new law to combat beef smuggling;
• Withdrawal of all cases against gau rakshaks;
• Possible invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against cattle transporters.

The report of The Wire provides that activists like Juned Atar have documented how vigilante groups coordinate across districts, sending tip-offs when cattle transport begins and ambushing vehicles with police support. “The state is now weaponising bureaucracy against us,” said Kaizer Patel, AIMIM lawyer, who estimates that ₹300 crore worth of trade has been halted state-wide. “The real victims are the poor—Qureshis, farmers, drivers, meat vendors, and even the hotel industry.”

• Sassoon Dock Standoff and the Fight for Coastal Rights

The third protest front opened in Mumbai—on the land and waters of Sassoon Dock, a historic fishing port that sustains tens of thousands of Koli fisherfolk, warehouse operators, ice vendors, and boatmen.

On July 23, a team from the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) arrived with police support to evict godown operators on the basis of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling. The MbPA claims the godown operators are unauthorised sub-lessees and that the original leaseholder is the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation (MFDC).

But, as reported by Hindustan Times, the Koli community sees this eviction as a betrayal of past assurances. In a 2015 ministerial meeting at Vidhan Bhavan, Nitin Gadkari and Eknath Khadse had assured that:

• Ready Reckoner rent rates would not apply, and
• No eviction would be carried out without consultation.

“If MbPA claims otherwise, they should give us that in writing,” said Krishna Pawle, president of Shiv Bharatiya Port Sena, reported Hindustan Times. 

“Today they’re coming for the warehouses. Tomorrow, they’ll come for our boats,” warned Bhaskar Tandel, former chair of the Machimaar Sarvoday Society, while speaking with HT, “We have been here longer than the Port Authority itself.”

The eviction was stalled by a mass protest of over 2,000 people, and Koli leaders have warned that 20,000 will occupy Sassoon Dock if the eviction continues after the seasonal fishing ban ends on August 1.

For the Koli community, this is about more than tenancy. It is about ancestral claims, survival, and identity in a rapidly gentrifying Mumbai.

Conclusion: Criminalisation as policy, resistance as survival

In all three protests, a clear pattern emerges:

• Legal frameworks—whether the MSPS Act, cow protection laws, or tenancy regulations—are being used to delegitimise, displace, or detain.
• Marginalised communities—Muslims, Tribals, Bahujans, and traditional coastal dwellers—are increasingly forced into protest just to survive.
• And when they protest, they are labelled as Naxals, smugglers, or encroachers.

These protests are not merely political reactions. They are defences of constitutional existence, carried out in courtrooms, streets, markets, docks, and under statues of Ambedkar and Shivaji. In Maharashtra today, protest is not dissent. It is self-defence.

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

TN: Sugarcane Farmers Protest, Demand Better FRP, Reintroduction of SAP

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22

The post From villages to docks, Maharashtra rises against a weaponised law, eviction & vigilante violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of California in its ruling on July 18 in response to an allegation by the Hindu American Foundation that had claimed that the California civil rights department’s enforcement of anti-caste policies violated the “constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans,” dismissed HAF’s contention.

While dealing with the allegations, the court dismissed the allegation, stating that HAF had neither standing nor any valid arguments to pursue the case. The judge also said that HAF was being hypocritical in claiming that caste is not integral to Hinduism, while also claiming caste-based protections infringe on Hindu religious rights.

The Ambedkar King Study Circle, USA (AKSC) – a California-based anti-caste and social justice organisation – has called the ruling is not only a legal win, but “a major victory for civil rights and social justice.”

The AKSC, in its statement on behalf of the Savera coalition in the US – a platform bringing together a multiracial, interfaith, anti-caste organisations and activists – writes that the ruling has four visible outcomes:

1. It affirms the California civil rights department’s constitutional power to take legal action on behalf of caste-oppressed individuals facing discrimination.
2. The court stated that the civil rights department’s litigation – such as in the Cisco case – is legitimate state action.
3. The court ruled that the civil rights department’s actions do not violate the religious rights, equal protection, or due process of Hindu Americans and said that the HAF’s argument was “entirely unpersuasive.”
4. The court rejected HAF’s claim to represent “all Hindu Americans,” noting the organisation failed to demonstrate any actual activities, funding mechanisms, or engagement with the broader Hindu American community that would grant it standing in this case.

The judgement dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed by HAF and eight individuals in September 2024 against California civil rights department director Kevin Kish.

“The court’s judgment makes it clear that enforcing civil rights laws does not infringe on religious liberty. This decision sends a strong message: caste-based exclusion and abuse have no place in our institutions, and those impacted can seek justice under the law in the USA,” Karthikeyan Shanmugam, convenor of the AKSC, said.

Roja Singh, who is president of the Dalit Solidarity Forum, stated that the judgement shows that “the decades-long campaign of caste-based oppression in the US is finally being confronted.”

Related:

Unsealed: Suhag Shukla’s Deposition in Hindu American Foundation’s Failed Defamation Case Against Us

Debunking Myths: A Critical Analysis of Hindu American Foundation’s Ram Temple Narrative

The post In a ‘major win’ for anti-caste activists, a US Federal Court upholds California Govt’s authority to act against caste oppression appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 7/11 blasts as the incident came to be known, preceded by over two years the deadly 26/11 (2008) blasts in south Mumbai, a deadly terror attack that targeted civilians at numerous sites in the southern part of Mumbai, including the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, the popular Leopold Café, two hospitals, and a theatre. While the initial spate of attacks ended within a few hours after they were launched around 9.30 p.m. on November 26, the terror kept unfolding at three locations where hostages were taken—the Nariman House (location of a Jewish outreach centre) the Oberoi Trident and Taj Mahal Palace & Towers five star hotels. Totally, at least 174 people, including 20 security force personnel and 26 foreign nationals, were killed. More than 300 people were injured. Nine of the 10 terrorists were killed, and one was arrested. 

The coordinated 7/11 train blasts in fact preceded the 26/11 multiple terror attacks on Mumbai. 

On July 18, 2024, 19 years down, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 men who had been wrongfully convicted in connection with the blasts, after having spent years in prison. The Court cited fabricated confessions, coerced evidence, unreliable witnesses, and procedural lapses so grave they amounted to a collapse of justice itself. Worse, these men were brutally tortured by squads of the police, treatment that is entrenched in a criminal justice system that shows communal and caste bias. Even as the innocent incarcerated walk free, acquitted by the High Court, after nearly two decade long incarcerations which in itself came with a cost, the families of the victims remain ensnared in the pain of loss—now coupled with the gnawing knowledge that the real perpetrators were never pursued with integrity or seriousness. An absence of closure that does not allow the real healing.

A verdict that reopened old wounds

“We waited for justice for 19 years,” said Yashwant Bhalerao, father of 23-year-old Harshal Bhalerao, who died in the blast on his first day of work at Ibex Software in Andheri, as reported by Free Press Journal. “When the police arrested the accused, they fought among themselves for credit. I realised then they had no real evidence,” the report provided.

Bhalerao’s frustration was echoed by other survivors and bereaved families. Saguna Bhalerao, Harshal’s mother, was in tears as she recalled the day: “I prayed he wouldn’t be on that train. His phone wasn’t ringing. But what happened was not what I prayed for. My son will never return, but the terrorists should have been punished.”

A State more eager for rushed processes than either closure or the truth

The Bombay High Court’s 671-page judgment offered an unflinching indictment of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which had investigated the case. It found that the prosecution relied on scripted confessions extracted under duress, unsupported forensic claims, and call records that were misrepresented or inconclusive.

As Justices Anil Kilor and S.C. Chandak noted, the investigation was marred by “serious infirmities,” making the convictions legally unsustainable. No eyewitnesses could place any of the accused at the blast sites. Alleged bomb-making materials were recovered without proper documentation or witnesses. As per the judgment, one witness had even testified in an unrelated blast case, calling into question the neutrality of key testimonies.

Grief meets disbelief

Anita Srivastava, whose husband Abhinav died in the blasts, now works at Malad station as a railway announcer. She was offered the job on compassionate grounds. Speaking to Hindustan Times, she said: “If those who were given the death sentence didn’t do it, why were they in jail for so long?”

Rajesh Parekh, whose father Mahendra survived with lifelong hearing damage, expressed rage at the state’s abdication of responsibility. “It has been proven again today that there is no justice in the country,” he said. “I’m moving my family abroad.”

Ameet Shrawagi, a chartered accountant who lost his father Mohan in the Bandra explosion, said the verdict was a “mockery of the justice system.” He added, as per the HT report, that “The trial court sentenced five to death and seven to life. A decade later, the High Court lets them all go free. It’s just unbelievable.”

Justice delayed, justice denied

The police and prosecution’s eagerness to close the case with a string of hasty arrests, led to a focus on vulnerable Muslim men from impoverished backgrounds, from all over India, based largely on custodial confessions. Defence lawyers and human rights groups had flagged these concerns for years.

According to LiveLaw, senior advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, who represented two of the acquitted, said during arguments: “In such cases where there is a public outcry, the approach by police is always to first assume guilt and then go from there. Investigating agencies have failed us miserably.”

Despite these early warnings, the Special MCOCA Court in 2015 sentenced five to death and seven to life imprisonment. Only now has the High Court reversed that, but it is a cold comfort to victims who watched nearly two decades pass by with no real accountability.

A House Named After a Martyr, a Justice System That Forgot Him

Harshal Bhalerao’s parents named their new home “7/11 Harshal Smriti,” believed to be the only such memorial to a blast victim. The name stands as a personal tribute—but also a haunting reminder that their son died without the State ever seriously pursuing his killers. His father, an Income Tax officer, shared with Free Press Journal how July 11 was Harshal’s first day at his job. “I told his boss not to go easy on him just because he was my son. That was the last thing I ever said about him.”

Conclusion: A justice system adrift

The acquittal of all 12 accused has raised profound questions about India’s approach to terror investigations. When the State closes a case not with evidence but expediency, it compounds the crime: first, by failing to prevent violence; next, by misidentifying perpetrators; and finally, by denying the victims and their families the dignity of truth.

What remains is a chilling silence. No fresh investigation has been announced. Rather, the acquittal by the Bombay High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court, within one day of the judgment being delivered, surely not a reasoned or studied decision. The ATS, discredited yet unaccountable, continues as if nothing has happened. Meanwhile, the real masterminds behind one of India’s deadliest terror attacks still walk free.

Related:

A Spectacle of Injustice Undone: After 19 years, Bombay HC’s acquittal in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case recognises the (mis) use of ‘torture for confession’

No innocent should ever be jailed, my life is dedicated to get other innocents released: Abdul Wahid Shaikh

2008 Jaipur blasts: Rajasthan HC acquits all four who were given death penalty

Malegaon blast case: Court rejects Pragya’s plea seeking exemption from appearing for trail

After 23 years in Prison on false charges, five Men walk out free in Samleti Blast case

The post Still Waiting in Grief: How the 2006 Mumbai train blast victims were denied closure and justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Crucially, the ECI has also adamantly defended its authority to verify citizenship during this revision. While not claiming to adjudicate citizenship like the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, 1955, the ECI maintains its constitutional mandate under Article 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to ensure that only Indian citizens are registered as voters. 

This stance directly addresses concerns raised during the Supreme Court’s July 10 hearing, where the bench had indicated that EPICs, along with Aadhaar and ration cards, should be considered valid documents. The onus, according to the ECI, remains on the individual to provide proof of citizenship for inclusion.

52, 30,126 electors (6.62%) were not found at their addresses so far, 18.66 lakh deceased says ECI

The hastily announced SIR—given that the state assembly elections are just a few months away have raised vocal opposition and concerns over the motive behind the process: whether mass exclusion of legitimate voters from the marginalised sections was underway, through this backdoor and unlawful method. Now the Commissions provisional figures lend strength to these accusations! The Election Commission’s provisional figures released yesterday, July 22, 2025, detailing Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, have ignited a political firestorm, raising profound concerns about potential widespread disenfranchisement. The ECI reported receiving 7, 16, 04,102 enumeration forms, representing 90.67% of the total electors. 

However, the concerning revelation that “52, 30,126 electors (6.62%) were not found at their addresses so far” has become the central point of contention. This significant cohort comprises 18,66,869 reported deceased, 26,01,031 permanently shifted, and 7,50,742 enrolled at multiple places, alongside a smaller but concerning 11,484 untraceable individuals. Together, these account for about 6.62 per cent of the electorate. With the ECI’s motives under suspicion, its methodology faulty and opaque, and its attitude one of non-transparency laced with institutional arrogance, Bihar’s electorate is on edge.

The ECI’s press note dated 22.07.2025 can be read here

ECI’s rationale: preserving the integrity of revision

The ECI’s affidavit explicitly states, “The EPIC cards are prepared on the basis of electoral rolls. Since the electoral roll, itself, is being revised, the production of EPIC Cards will make the whole exercise futile. The conceptual and procedural integrity of a de-novo revision would stand undermined if EPICs, which are merely reflective of prior entries, are used to validate entries in a roll that is required to be constructed anew. The EPIC, being a by-product of an earlier electoral roll, cannot substitute the verification process mandated for fresh preparation and reliance solely on the EPIC for inclusion or automatic continuance would be contrary to both the scheme and purpose of a fresh revision exercise” as Live Law reported 

#BREAKING In the #Bihar SIR matter, Election Commission tells Supreme Court that the Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot be accepted for inclusion in the voter rolls, as this process is a fresh revision.

Since Voter ID cards are issued based on existing electoral rolls,… pic.twitter.com/Uk4Y4GPKgm

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 21, 2025

Regarding Aadhaar, the ECI reiterated its long-standing position: it is not recognised as a standalone valid document for electoral roll inclusion as it primarily serves as proof of identity and does not establish citizenship. The Commission cited Section 9 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which explicitly clarifies that possessing an Aadhaar number does not confer citizenship. 

However, the ECI did clarify that Aadhaar can “supplement other documents to prove eligibility,” acknowledging its utility for identification purposes during the SIR process, as evident from the enumeration forms allowing voluntary submission of Aadhaar numbers.

The exclusion of ration cards from the list of acceptable documents for the Bihar SIR was justified by the ECI on the grounds of widespread prevalence of fraudulent cards. The Commission referenced a central government press release from March 7, 2025, which reported the removal of 5 Crore fake ration cards. According to Live Law, the affidavit noted, “That it is submitted that given the widespread existence of fake ration cards, it has not been prescribed within a list of 11 documents to be relied upon for screening eligibility under Article 326”  

Despite this, the ECI emphasised that the list of documents in the Enumeration Forms is indicative, not exhaustive. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs (AEROs) are obligated to consider all documents presented for proof of eligibility, including ration cards, with the final decision resting on the officer’s satisfaction as per Section 22 of the RP Act, 1950, and Rule 21(A) of the RER, 1960. The ECI clarified that these documents are primarily for “the limited purpose of establishing identity” during the SIR process.

ECI’s assertions on citizenship verification powers

A significant aspect of the ECI’s counter-affidavit is its determined defense of its authority to seek proof of citizenship during the SIR. This directly counters the petitioners’ argument that the ECI is overstepping its jurisdiction. The Commission asserted its statutory obligation to ensure only Indian citizens are registered as voters, deriving this power from Article 326 of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar’s affidavit stated, “ECI is vested with the power to scrutinize whether a proposed elector fulfils the criteria for being registered as a voter in the electoral roll, which includes, inter alia, an assessment of citizenship as per Article 326 of the COI. Such scrutiny is constitutionally mandated and crystallized by virtue of RP Act 1950. This power flows directly from the provisions of Article 324 read with 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950” Live Law reported 

The ECI dismissed the contention that the power to adjudicate citizenship rests solely with the central government. While acknowledging Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Central Government in cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, the ECI argued that “Other aspects related to citizenship can be inquired into by other relevant authorities for their purposes, including those who are constitutionally obligated to do so, ie., the ECI.” The Commission highlighted that establishing citizenship is the individual’s responsibility, as the necessary documents are within their personal knowledge.

Crucially, the ECI clarified that it is not undertaking any independent exercise of determining or adjudicating upon the question of citizenship, but merely discharging its duty to prevent non-citizens from being included in the electoral roll. This, it argued, is distinct from the process under the Citizenship Act, 1955. 

The Commission also rejected the idea that requiring proof of citizenship reverses the burden of proof, stating that under the electoral registration scheme, an applicant must establish eligibility by submitting Form 6. For existing names, removal occurs only after a detailed inquiry and when the ERO is satisfied of the person’s ineligibility, without implying termination of citizenship.

The SC’s July 10 intervention 

These recent ECI submissions come in the wake of a mid-vacation hearing on July 10, 2025, where the Supreme Court, while declining to impose an interim stay on the Bihar SIR, made crucial observations. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, had unequivocally directed the ECI to “consider the following documents such as the Aadhaar card, the EPIC voter ID card issued by the Election Commission, and ration card.” 

The Court had also noted that the ECI’s existing list of 11 accepted documents was “not exhaustive.” This directive came amidst a batch of petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging the SIR process as arbitrary, discriminatory, and a potential threat to the fundamental right to vote, particularly by effectively acting as a citizenship screening mechanism. 

Petitioners, represented by legal stalwarts like Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Kapil Sibal, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, had questioned the legality of the “Special Intensive Revision,” its unprecedented nature, the arbitrary distinctions made between voters (especially pre- and post-2003 registrants), and the immense burden of proof placed on individuals. Concerns were also raised about the short 30-day timeline and its proximity to the November 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, suggesting a political motive behind the exercise.

From about July 10, the Hindi daily, Dainik Bhaskar, as also independent journalist and You Tuber, Ajit Anjum have been flagging the issue of the problematic manner in which the SIR process is being carried out in Bihar.

Adding to the complexity and public scrutiny of the SIR process, senior journalist Ajit Anjum has faced legal repercussions for his investigative reporting. On July 13, 2025, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Anjum and his team in Balia, Begusarai, Bihar. The complaint, filed by a Booth Level Officer (BLO), alleged obstruction of government work and spreading communal animosity, citing sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. 

His video reports from the ground have meticulously detailed instances where ECI guidelines were allegedly circumvented, such as voters being denied acknowledgment receipts, BLOs receiving only single copies of forms, and incomplete forms being uploaded with only names and signatures, lacking photos or full details. Anjum’s persistent questioning of these procedural flaws, and his refusal to remove his videos despite alleged pressure from local authorities, has brought the ground-level challenges of the SIR into sharp focus. 

The road ahead: July 28 hearing and public scrutiny

The ECI’s detailed affidavit sets the stage for the next Supreme Court hearing on July 28, 2025. This hearing is expected to be crucial in determining the future direction of Bihar’s electoral roll revision. While the ECI asserts its constitutional and statutory mandate to conduct a thorough revision, including citizenship verification, and to set criteria for document acceptance, the Court’s previous observations indicate a strong emphasis on ensuring no eligible voter is disenfranchised. 

The challenge lies in balancing the ECI’s goal of “purity” in electoral rolls with the fundamental right to vote and avoiding processes that could disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. The ongoing legal battle, coupled with intense media and political scrutiny, underscores the significant implications of the Bihar SIR for democratic processes in India. The period from August 1 to September 1, 2025, earmarked for public objections to the Draft Electoral Rolls, will also be critical, as it provides a window for citizens to address any inaccuracies or exclusions.

Opposition parties staged protest outside the Parliament and Bihar Assembly

The release of these figures immediately galvanised opposition parties in Bihar. On July 22, 2025, dressed in black, opposition party legislators in the Bihar Assembly staged a protest for the second consecutive day against the ongoing SIR. The intensity of the protest escalated on July 23, 2025, leading to the adjournment of the Bihar Assembly until 2 p.m. after Chief Minister Nitish Kumar angrily intervened during a statement by Leader of the Opposition Tejashwi Yadav, plunging the House into turmoil.

#BREAKING In the #Bihar SIR matter, Election Commission tells Supreme Court that the Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot be accepted for inclusion in the voter rolls, as this process is a fresh revision.

Since Voter ID cards are issued based on existing electoral rolls,… pic.twitter.com/Uk4Y4GPKgm

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 21, 2025

Former CM Rabri Devi and other RJD MLCs mirrored this protest outside the Bihar Assembly. 

VIDEO | Patna: Former CM Rabri Devi (@RabriDeviRJD) and other RJD MLCs stage protest outside the Bihar Assembly over the issue of SIR.#BiharAssembly #BiharNews #BiharPolitics

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvrpG7) pic.twitter.com/jv6RiKAbwy

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 23, 2025

Tejashwi Yadav, addressing the media, stated, “Today, we spoke on SIR in the Assembly…Who has been in power since 2005? Everyone knew what the discussion would be on, but the CM kept speaking on what he wanted. CM is not state to run the state now. The way state is being run from Delhi on remote control…” 

#WATCH | Patna | On Bihar SIR, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav says, “Today, we spoke on SIR in the Assembly…Who has been in power since 2005?..Everyone knew what the discussion would be on, but the CM kept speaking on what he wanted. CM is not state to run the state now. The way… pic.twitter.com/hcfnlvhnuE

— ANI (@ANI) July 23, 2025

He further criticised the ECI’s “hasty” SIR, questioning, “Where will poor people get so many documents from?” Yadav also revealed, “The Speaker scolded the Deputy CM. Deputy CM Vijay Sinha made an inappropriate statement. Why are they allowed to speak in between?… The opposition will raise questions.”

The concerns over Bihar’s SIR have resonated across the national political landscape. Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, commenting on the ECI flagging 52 lakh missing voters in Bihar, broadened the scope of the accusation: “It is not just about those 52 lakh people. They have done cheating in Maharashtra (Assembly elections). We asked the ECI to show the voter’s list, but they refused. We asked them to show videography, but they changed the rules of videography. 1 crore new voters were added in Maharashtra. In Karnataka, we have caught a huge theft. I will show it to the Election Commission in black and white on how theft is done. They have understood that we are aware of their game now… Now, what they are doing is that they have deleted the voters, and a new voter list will be brought…”

#WATCH | Delhi: On Election Commission flags 52 lakh missing voters in Bihar, Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, “It is not just about those 52 lakh people. They have done cheating in Maharashtra (Assembly elections). We asked the ECI to show the voter’s list, but… pic.twitter.com/a8sqIx35rW

— ANI (@ANI) July 23, 2025

The consolidated opposition front views the SIR exercise not merely as an administrative cleanup but as a deliberate attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes by targeting specific demographics for disenfranchisement

The sheer scale of these “untraced” electors, when combined with the ECI’s firm stance that Voter IDs are unacceptable for fresh enrollment and its assertive claim of citizenship verification powers, paints a troubling picture. This policy framework, particularly for a “de novo” revision, places an immense burden on genuine voters, especially migrant workers and those with limited access to extensive documentation. 

The larger narrative

The ECI’s position, particularly on Voter IDs and citizenship verification, stands in direct contrast to the Supreme Court’s observations during the July 10, 2025 hearing. In that earlier proceeding, the Court had urged the ECI to be more inclusive, specifically indicating that Aadhaar, EPICs, and ration cards should be considered valid identity documents for the SIR. The current ECI affidavit, filed in response to this, demonstrates a firm resolve to implement its own interpretation of the revision process. This creates a legal challenge that the July 28 hearing will likely address.

The concerns about potential disenfranchisement, particularly for marginalised communities, are not merely speculative. As highlighted by journalist Ajit Anjum’s recent reporting and subsequent FIR, the ground reality of the SIR has revealed significant procedural inconsistencies and challenges, like the denial of acknowledgement receipts and the burden on citizens to photocopy forms due to BLOs having limited supplies. 

These on-the-ground issues illustrate the practical difficulties electors face in complying with the ECI’s demands, amplifying the fear that the roughly 52.30 lakh “untraced” electors might face an uphill battle to prove their eligibility. The ECI’s defense of its citizenship verification powers, while legally framed, is seen by many as adding another layer of scrutiny that could disproportionately affect those whose citizenship documentation might be less straightforward or readily available. The ongoing legal battle and the ECI’s detailed data point to a significant democratic exercise with far-reaching implications for voter rights and the integrity of the electoral process in Bihar and, potentially, across the nation.

Related

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The aggression extends to vandalism over trivial matters like food preferences, as seen in Muzaffarnagar, where Dhabas were vandalised and owners assaulted over the presence of onion and garlic. Furthermore, brutal physical assaults have occurred, including a widely condemned incident in Mirzapur where a CRPF jawan was attacked, and civilians and their property were not spared in Meerut and Haridwar.

Supreme Court declines to examine legality of UP Govt’s display of QR code mandate

Moreover, amidst alarming reports of assaults on eatery owners based on their identity, on July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court refused to go into the legality of directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand authorities requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes for pilgrims to know owner details, considering the pilgrimage was ending. A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh disposed of the applications challenging this mandate, clarifying that sellers must display their licenses and registration certificates as required by law. The bench stated, “We are told that today is the last day of the Yatra. In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage, we would only pass an order that all the respective Hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements. We make it clear that we are not going into the other issues argued. The application is closed” as Live Law reported

The applications, filed by Professor Apoorvanand and activist Aakar Patel, along with TMC MP Mahua Moitra and NGO Association for the Protection of Civil Rights, sought a stay on these directives, arguing they circumvented a previous Supreme Court order from last year prohibiting forced disclosure of seller identities and promoted religious discrimination. 

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that these directives were intended for religious profiling, not quality service, and were a “direct assault” on secularism. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Uttar Pradesh, argued the directions complied with FSSAI regulations, stating some dhabas misrepresented vegetarian food. Justice Sundresh noted that consumers should have the choice to know if a place exclusively serves vegetarian food, especially during a pilgrimage, as reported

Ultimately, the bench declined to delve into contentious issues, deeming the matter infructuous due to the Yatra’s conclusion, advising petitioners to approach the High Court if they wished to challenge it further.

A surge in lawlessness: incidents of hooliganism and violence

As per reports, in the various cities of the UP and Uttarakhand, the Kanwar Yatra has been plagued by a worrying surge in incidents of misconduct. Data from the Mela Police Force Control Room reveals that over 170 Kanwariyas were booked within the first five days alone for serious charges including hooliganism, rioting, blocking highways, obstructing police officials, breach of peace, and wrongful restraint, as Hindustan Times reported.

Targeted harassment of eatery owners and staff

A particularly disturbing trend observed during this year’s yatra is the targeted harassment and vandalism directed at hotel and dhaba owners, often fuelled by communal allegations. In a shocking incident in Muzaffarnagar, members of a saffron outfit, led by Swami Yashveer Maharaj, allegedly attempted to strip eatery staff at ‘Panditji Ka Dhaba’ to verify their religion after scanning a barcode revealed the owner was Muslim, as Deccan Herald reported.

The outfit had deployed hundreds of members to check eateries with Hindu names but Muslim ownership, following a state government directive for eateries to mention owners’ names. This incident, captured in a viral video, led to police booking six individuals, though Swami Yashveer Maharaj vowed statewide agitation if action was taken against his activists, unequivocally stating, “We will, under no circumstances, allow the Muslims to operate eateries along the Yatra route.”

This communal targeting was not isolated. In Haridwar, Kanwar pilgrims verbally abused and harassed a Sikh manager at a Muslim-owned eatery, accusing him of deception for serving tea from a “Muslim stall.” When the manager advocated for religious equality, he was told to “stop using logic.” 

Similarly, in Meerapur, a dhaba was vandalised by Kanwariyas who claimed the Muslim owners had not displayed their identities, further demonstrating a pattern of communal intimidation. 

In Loni, Ghaziabad, on July 10, BJP MLA Nandkishor Gurjar took matters into his own hands, shutting down a meat vendor, citing the Hindu month of Sawan and the Kanwar Yatra, threatening to “take matters into their own hands and break the law” if police didn’t act.

However, the Supreme Court, in July 2024, intervened to prohibit the enforcement of a public notice issued by Muzaffarnagar police, which had directed hotels, dhabas, and shops on the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners and employees, recognising its discriminatory nature. Vandalism over food preferences and other assaults

Beyond communal angles, Kanwariyas have engaged in vandalism and assault over trivial matters. In Muzaffarnagar on July 7, Kanwar yatris vandalised ‘Tau Hukkewalah Haryanvi Tourist Dhaba’ after alleging that the dal served contained onion and garlic, despite the owner, Pramod Kumar, explaining it was a worker’s mistake. The pilgrims, who had vowed to avoid these ingredients, assaulted staff, damaged furniture, and chased the cook. 

Another similar incident occurred at ‘Balaknath Dhaba,’ where owner Sadhana Pawar tearfully recounted, “I folded my hands but they broke my entire dhaba… They broke my servant’s leg, looted all the money,” simply because a dish accidentally contained onion.

कांवड़ियों का कहर
“मैंने हाथ जोड़े पर उन्होंने मेरा पूरा ढाबा तोड़ दिया”
“मेरे नौकर का पैर तोड़ दिया, पूरा पैसा लूट लिया”
ये बता रही हैं बालकनाथ ढाबे की मालकिन साधना पवार
इनके ढाबे में गलती से कांवड़ियों के खाने में प्याज़ आ गया,पूरा ढाबा ख़त्म
Ground report on our YT channel pic.twitter.com/PYhAHyhoqx

— Saurabh shukla (@Saurabh_Unmute) July 9, 2025

The aggression extended to physical assaults on individuals. In a widely condemned incident in Uttar Pradesh’s Mirzapur, seven Kanwariyas were arrested after brutally punching and kicking a CRPF jawan at the railway station over a dispute regarding train tickets. CCTV footage showed the saffron-clad pilgrims pinning the jawan to the ground in a public display of violence. 

Even innocent civilians and their property have not been spared. In Meerut, three Kanwariyas were injured when a bus grazed them, prompting their fellow pilgrims to vandalise the vehicle, break its window panes, and assault the driver, who subsequently fled. 

A bus driver was attacked by Kanwariyas in Muradnagar Ghaziabad because the bus touched the kanwad in the high traffic area.

Either the UP government should issue lock down orders for general public or stop public transport on the Kanwar route.

Why to put lives in danger? pic.twitter.com/VLJMdatRyi

— Kapil (@kapsology) July 13, 2025

On July 5, 2025, in Manglaur, Haridwar, Kanwar Yatra pilgrims attacked a car carrying a Muslim family, alleging it had hit a Kanwar, and proceeded to assault the driver and passengers while vandalising the vehicle.

Now, authorities, recognising the escalating issues, have attempted to rein in unruly behaviour. The Uttar Pradesh police banned Kanwariyas from carrying sticks, tridents (trishuls), hockey sticks, and similar items across major yatra routes in districts like Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, Saharanpur, Bulandshahr, Hapur, and Baghpat. 

Additionally, the use of motorbikes without silencers was prohibited to curb noise pollution and public nuisance. ADG (Meerut Zone) Bhanu Bhaskar affirmed strict enforcement, stating, “The govt has issued clear directives prohibiting it. We are enforcing these strictly, and FIRs are being registered against violators.”

The chief minister’s stance and its implications

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s statements regarding the Kanwar Yatra have been a subject of scrutiny, with critics suggesting they may have inadvertently emboldened some elements. On Sunday, July 20, 2025, the CM alleged that “miscreants” were infiltrating Kanwar groups to defame them on social media, urging “kanwar sanghs” to expose such individuals and keep them away. He stated, “We have to keep in mind that where there is enthusiasm and excitement, where there is faith and devotion, some elements are constantly trying to disturb that enthusiasm and to defame this devotion and faith.” He promised strict action against those captured on CCTV after the yatra concludes, as reported the Indian Express.

Just two days prior, on July 18, 2025, in Varanasi, CM Adityanath had doubled down, alleging the Kanwar Yatra was “deliberately defamed” and its participants labelled as “goons” by elements seeking to “humiliate the heritage of India.” He linked these critics to those who tried to separate tribal communities from India, emphasising, “Today, the Yatra is progressing peacefully and with devotion, yet some label it as unruly. These are the same forces that try to mislead and provoke tribal communities. We must remain alert to such divisive elements” The Hindu reported. 

He even recalled an incident where an arsonist wearing a saffron scarf was shouting “Ya Allah,” attributing such deceptive acts to anti-social elements.

While the Chief Minister condemned the actions of “miscreants” and called for law enforcement to take action, his narrative of external “defamers” and “anti-national elements” potentially provided a shield for unruly behaviour, shifting the blame away from the immediate actions of the Kanwariyas themselves. His public showering of flowers on Kanwariyas in Meerut, alongside other political figures, further projected an image of state endorsement and leniency, which critics argue might have been perceived by some as tacit approval, thus pushing the “courage of anti-elements” to act with impunity, knowing they might be defended as victims of defamation rather than perpetrators of crime.

Tainting the pious purpose 

The increasing reports of violence, aggression, and communal targeting profoundly taint the otherwise pious purpose of the Kanwar Yatra. Mahant Ravindra Puri’s assertion that the yatra is about “compassion” and “penance” stands in stark contrast to the acts of vandalism and assault witnessed. The Supreme Court’s refusal on July 22, 2025, to examine the legality of controversial QR code directives, particularly amidst ongoing reports of targeted assaults on eatery owners based on their identity, further highlights the disconnect between the pilgrimage’s spiritual intent and the real-world incidents. While the Court opted not to delve into the controversial directives, especially given the reported communal targeting, leaves questions about accountability for such violence. 

When a pilgrimage meant to symbolise devotion and sacrifice, following in the footsteps of revered figures like Lord Parshuram and Shravan Kumar, becomes synonymous with road blockades, harassment, and physical violence, its spiritual sanctity is eroded. The incidents not only disrupt public peace and order but also sow seeds of fear and division, fundamentally betraying the yatra’s core values of unity, devotion, and selfless service.

Related

Supreme Court stays directive of state forcing food sellers along Kanwar Yatra to display names, states authorities cannot usurp power without legal foundation

Kanwar Yatra episode: Pasmanda Muslims, ‘wooed’ by BJP, perhaps biggest losers

Two petitions filed in SC challenging UP and Uttarakhand governments’ directive to display name of shop owner and staff for being unconstitutional

The post How deviant acts mar the sacred Kanwar Yatra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The acquittal came nearly eight years after a special MCOCA court had sentenced five of the accused to death and the others to life imprisonment in 2015. The special, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Court had sentenced five of the accused to death sentence and the remainder seven to life imprisonment under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and Explosives Acts.In all, the accused were in jail for 19 years in jail without a break, with one of the 12 accused — Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari –dying in 2021 to COVID-19 infection while he was lodged in Nagpur prison.

This judgment is not merely a reversal of a trial court verdict—it is a stinging indictment of investigative lapses, prosecutorial failure, and judicial oversight. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from “serious infirmities,” rendering the conviction unsafe and unjust.

Through the 19 years of incarceration, these men have been denied bail. Even in acute situations like the Covid-19 pandemic or when they lost near relatives, the men were denied any relief from prison. Today, July 21, 2025, the high court has released them on a simple “Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond” which essentially means that they can walk out of jal without having to make any financial payment for their release.

Background of the case 

On July 11, 2006, a series of seven coordinated bomb explosions struck first-class compartments of Mumbai’s suburban trains during peak hours. The scale, precision, and horror of the attacks led to an immediate manhunt. Within months, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) –appointed by the Congress government that was in power at the time– claimed to have cracked the case and arrested 13 men, all of whom were Muslim and belonged to marginalised socio-economic backgrounds. Several cases handled by the ATS around that period under the Congress leadership, including the Malegaon 2006 blast case, have raised serious questions of the communal biases in the police and wrong implication of Muslim youth in terror cases. For instance, in the Malegaon 2006 blast case, the Muslim men were eventually exonerated after the National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over and the new line of investigations showed that the terror blast was the handiwork of accused persons belonging to Hindu community.

The prosecution in the 7/11 train blasts case alleged a cross-border conspiracy involving Pakistan’s ISI, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and operatives of the banned SIMI (Students’ Islamic Movement of India), with support from Indian collaborators. The case proceeded –as mentioned above –under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), along with charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Explosives Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA.

Trial, conviction, and sentencing

The trial began in 2007 before a special MCOCA court. Relying heavily on confessions, circumstantial evidence, call data records, and alleged recoveries, the prosecution secured convictions in 2015 for 12 of the accused.

• Five were sentenced to death
• Seven were awarded life imprisonment

One accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted in 2015 after nine years of incarceration.

However, right from the outset, defense lawyers and human rights groups flagged serious concerns:

• Most of the accused had retracted their confessions, alleging torture
• Witness testimonies were inconsistent and contradictory
• Key forensic links to explosives were weak or inconclusive
• Call data location mapping had been misrepresented or was scientifically insufficient
• Parallel investigations pointed to an entirely different group of perpetrators

The High Court’s Findings: A collapse of prosecution integrity

The High Court’s 671-paged judgment systematically dismantled the prosecution’s theory. The following were key findings:

1. Unreliable confessions: The Court held that confessions made under MCOCA, even if admissible, must be scrutinized with heightened caution. It noted that:

• The retractions by the accused were immediate and consistent
• There was credible evidence of custodial torture
• Medical records and affidavits indicated coercion
• Multiple confessions were similar in wording, suggesting scripting

2. Weak circumstantial evidence: The prosecution failed to convincingly link any of the accused to the procurement, assembly, or placement of the bombs. Among the failures:

• No eyewitnesses placed any of the accused at train stations
• Forensic tests on alleged bomb-making sites were inconclusive
• Travel routes and maps allegedly recovered from the accused were publicly available

3. Call data records and location mapping flawed: The ATS relied heavily on mobile phone data to show the accused were in contact and present near blast sites. But the Court found:

• Cell tower locations had been selectively interpreted
• Mapping did not conclusively place the accused at blast locations
• Some mobile numbers were never conclusively linked to the accused

4. Fabricated recoveries and witness inconsistencies

• Several “recovered” items were found to be planted or inadmissibly recovered without independent witnesses.
• Key prosecution witnesses, including police officers and panch witnesses, gave contradictory testimonies.
• One key witness had previously testified in an unrelated Ghatkopar blast case, casting doubt on impartiality

5. Discarded lead of pressure cookers

• Investigators originally flagged statements from shopkeepers about “Kashmiri-looking youths” buying pressure cookers, but dropped these leads during trial, without credible reason. Yet the prosecution later reintroduced the theory—revealing an arbitrary and inconsistent investigative approach

6. Illegal MCOCA sanction

• Per Section 23(1) of MCOCA, a senior official’s (Addl. CP S.K. Jaiswal) sanction was mandatory but not substantively proven—the sanction letter was never produced from the witness box. The High Court struck it down

The Acquitted: A decade lost in the shadow of guilt

The following table details the 12 acquitted men and their sentences:

Role of defence lawyers and long fight for justice

The acquittal owes much to a determined legal team and families that never gave up. At the start of the investigation itself, on September 29, 2006, over two months after the blast, the then police commissioner of Mumbai police, A.N. Roy had claimed that two Kashmiri men had gone to a local market and purchased pressure cookers from two shops. These pressure cookers, Roy had claimed, were used in assembling the highly explosive bombs. The blast came to be known as ‘pressure cooker blast case’. 

As what has increasingly become the norm for reportage of “terror cases”, media reporting since the blasts was almost entirely based on what the police would share in the press conferences. So for months after the ghastly blasts, all the men were accused of a whole range of things, from visiting Pakistan for arms training to storing Research Department Explosives (RDX), ammonium nitrate, nitrite and petroleum hydrocarbon oil in their houses. The pressure cooker theory soon vanished and it found no mention in the chargesheet. Eight years later, at the time of the final submission before the MCOCA court, the special public prosecutor in the case, Raja Thakare, reintroduced the theory. Advocate Ramakrishnan and her associate Rai, who appeared for the accused in the High Court, –in their final submissions– systematically punctured these gaps in the investigation. The police had claimed that two months after the serial bomb blasts, two men had come forward to claim that in May 2006, two ‘Kashmiri-looking youths’ had bought pressure cookers in large quantities. The statements of these two men were recorded. These two men should have been treated as crucial witnesses but the investigating agency decided to simply drop their statements at the time of the trial, terming them as “not credible”. What this meant was that a foundational brick in the prosecution’s ostensible theory was shaky.

“It is impossible to believe the version of witnesses that accused had mentioned pressure cookers in their interrogation in September, because the story of pressure cookers only occurred to ATS after 28.09.2006 after recording statements of shopkeepers that Kashmiri youths had bought pressure cookers en masse. Throughout this period, ATS said that the accused were giving them no lead. In fact, not a single remand application was taken on the ground that they had to identify pressure cookers or the accused had talked about pressure cookers,” the counsel for the accused had argued. The lawyers also raised questions about the application of the draconian MCOCA law in the case. Section 23(1) MCOCA, the lawyers pointed out, requires prior approval of a police officer not below the rank of the Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) before any information about a commission of an offence under MCOCA is recorded. The officer, S.K. Jaiswal, the then deputy Inspector General of Police/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai, who allegedly had given the required approval, was never examined.

The HC, accepting the argument, noted in its judgement: “Shri. Jaiswal, who granted the prior approval, did not enter into the witness box to prove the contents of the letter of prior approval. Mere identification of signature of Shri. Jaiswal by PW-174 does not prove the contents of prior approval.”

Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and senior advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar represented two of the accused — Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh. A string of lawyers, including arguing counsels Nitya Ramakrishnan, Yug Mohit Chaudhry, S. Nagamuthu and S. Muralidhar, along with Wahab Shaikh, Sharif Shaikh, Payoshi Roy and Stuti Rai, among many others, were also part of the legal team in the High Court on behalf of the accused. They had contended that the prosecution case was flawed and that the trial court erred in convicting the accused. Raja Thackeray was the special public prosecutor appointed in the case. 

In his submissions at the penultimate stage, as reported by LiveLaw, Muralidhar described the investigation as biased and media-driven, stating:

“Innocent people are sent to jail and then years later when they are released from jail there is no possibility for reconstruction of their lives. From last 17 years these accused are in jail. They haven’t stepped out even for a day. The majority of their prime life is gone. In such cases where there is a public outcry, the approach by police is always to first assume guilt and then go from there. Police officers take press conferences in such cases, and the way the media covers the case, it kind of decides the guilt of a person. In many such terror cases, investigating agencies have failed us miserably”.

He urged the court to consider the irreversible damage done — years lost, families stigmatised, and no closure for the victims or accused. Wahid Shaikh, who was acquitted in 2015, led the public campaign ‘Innocence Network’ and became a vocal critic of India’s terror trial processes. He published books, pursued a PhD, and coordinated legal aid for the remaining 12 accuse. 

A legal reckoning and its implications

This case serves as a searing indictment of:

• Investigative tunnel vision: The ATS prematurely closed the investigation around a preferred narrative and failed to pursue alternative leads.
• Judicial deference to state narratives: The trial court accepted questionable confessions and unreliable evidence without applying proper legal standards.
• Delays in appellate review: The eight-year delay in hearing the appeals effectively meant the accused had served most of their sentence even before acquittal.

The Bombay High Court’s verdict does more than acquit—it restores a sliver of institutional faith, while also raising deep concerns about how India investigates and prosecutes terror. For the acquitted, however, it may be too late. Years lost in prison, families destroyed, and reputations ruined—without compensation, without apology.

Systemic Implications: No closure for victims, no accountability for investigators

While the acquitted walk free, the victims of the 7/11 blasts are left without justice or answers. The ATS, which led the investigation, has now seen two major terror cases of that era — this and the Malegaon 2006 blasts — unravel due to procedural misconduct and communal bias.

In Malegaon, too, Muslim men were first arrested, only to be later absolved when the National Investigation Agency uncovered the role of Hindutva extremist groups. The parallels reinforce growing concerns that India’s terror probes are often driven more by political pressure and profiling than by forensic rigour.

Abdul Wahid Shaikh & the Innocence Network

Wahid, who was a school teacher at the time of his arrest, transformed into a fierce activist on his release in 2015. He started ‘Innocence Network’, a campaign for the release of the 12 others. He wrote books on his life in jail, researched on the Indian criminal justice system and obtained a PhD degree recently on the same. He, along with the  Jamiat Ulema-i-Hindu, also worked meticulously on the case. 

Conclusion: A broken system exposed

The 2006 Mumbai train blasts case will now be remembered not just for its brutality, but for the colossal miscarriage of justice it occasioned. The High Court’s judgment reaffirms the fundamental tenet of criminal law: that the burden of proof lies on the State, and every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The case calls for immediate reforms in anti-terror investigations, greater prosecutorial accountability, and the establishment of a robust compensation framework for the wrongfully accused.

What also remains a question is the crucial issue of reparation and or compensation for the accused and their families given the loss of lives, livelihood and utter ostracisation by society. The penalty that ought to be paid by police officers (in this case from the ATS Mumbai) responsible for the investigative lapses is also a loophole in the system that provides no succour to those wrongfully accused.

Related:

One More Innocent Terror Accused, One More Book But Will Our System Respond?

No innocent should ever be jailed, my life is dedicated to get other innocents released: Abdul Wahid Shaikh

Bombay HC grants bail to Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Members

2008 Jaipur blasts: Rajasthan HC acquits all four who were given death penalty

Malegaon blast case: Court rejects Pragya’s plea seeking exemption from appearing for trail

After 23 years in Prison on false charges, five Men walk out free in Samleti Blast case

The post A Spectacle of Injustice Undone: After 19 years, Bombay HC’s acquittal in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case recognises the (mis) use of ‘torture for confession’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Professor Mahmudabad, informed the Court that despite its clear directions issued on May 28, the SIT had not only seized his client’s personal electronic devices but had also begun investigating matters wholly unrelated to the social media posts—such as his foreign travel history for the past ten years.

Taking note of these submissions, the Court observed that the SIT appeared to be “misdirecting itself,” and reiterated that its purpose was strictly confined to examining the language and content of the two social media posts in question, and to determine whether the phrasing in those posts constituted any cognizable offence under law.

“We just want to know from SIT…for what purpose they have seized devices. We will call them (officers),” Justice Surya Kant pointedly asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the State of Haryana, as reported in LiveLaw.

When the ASG argued that the manner of conducting an investigation is within the prerogative of the investigating agency, Sibal countered that the SIT’s approach amounted to a prohibited “roving inquiry.” He also submitted that Mahmudabad had already been summoned four times, had fully cooperated with the probe, and had surrendered all personal gadgets.

The Court was unequivocal in its response, stating that the SIT must conclude its probe within four weeks, and that no further summons were to be issued to Mahmudabad, given that he had complied with all earlier directions. The Bench stated that “Though it may not be expedient or desirable for us to comment on the manner in which SIT has proceeded, we however deem it to remind it the mandate contained in our order dated May 28 and consequently direct the SIT to conclude its investigation with reference to the contents of the two social media posts as early as possible but not later than 4 weeks. Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation and handed over his personal gadgets, it seems to us that it may not be necessary to summon the petitioner again for joining the investigation.”

“You don’t need him, you need a dictionary,” Justice Kant remarked, as per LiveLaw, referring to the fact that the SIT appeared to be misunderstanding or over-interpreting the semantics of Mahmudabad’s posts, which included both a condemnation of terrorism and criticism of right-wing warmongering.

Background of the case

Professor Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, 2025, by the Haryana Police in connection with two FIRs that accused him of posting comments on Facebook that were allegedly provocative and anti-national. The posts were in the context of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and India’s retaliatory military action under Operation Sindoor.

The first FIR was filed based on a complaint by a private individual, invoking offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including:

• Section 196: Promoting enmity between groups.
• Section 197: Imputations prejudicial to national integration.
• Section 152: Acts endangering sovereignty and unity.
• Section 299: Culpable homicide (although the applicability of this section remains questionable).

The second FIR was filed by Renu Bhatia, Chairperson of the Haryana Women’s Commission, invoking:

• Section 79: Insult to a woman’s modesty.
• Section 353: Public mischief.
• Section 152: Repeated from the earlier FIR.

Mahmudabad was remanded to judicial custody but was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on May 21. At that stage, the Court refused to stay the investigation or quash the FIRs. Instead, it directed the Haryana Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed of senior IPS officers not hailing from Haryana or Delhi, to objectively assess whether the language used in the two posts warranted any criminal charges.

Concerns raised and Court’s May 28 clarification

Following Mahmudabad’s release, his counsel expressed concerns that the SIT might overstep its brief. Taking note of this, the Supreme Court, by its order dated May 28, had expressly clarified that:

• The SIT’s investigation must be limited strictly to the contents of the two FIRs and the two social media posts that form their basis.
• No “fishing or roving inquiries” should be undertaken.
• Accessing digital devices or delving into matters such as travel history would be impermissible.
• The Professor was barred only from writing on the sub judice matter, but remained free to express his views on other unrelated topics.

Despite these directions, Mahmudabad was called repeatedly for questioning and his devices were subjected to forensic analysis. These actions were brought to the Court’s attention during the July 16 hearing.

Detailed report on previous hearing may be read here.

Judicial concerns and oral observations

The Bench also made a number of critical oral observations during the hearing:

• Justice Kant questioned the SIT’s intent, as reported by Bar&Bench, asking “Why is the SIT, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They can say that the article is an opinion and does not constitute an offence or otherwise. But they cannot widen the probe.”
• When the ASG requested that the Court direct Mahmudabad to continue appearing before the SIT if needed, the Court refused, adding: “You do not need him. You need a dictionary.”
• Additionally, when ASG SV Raju sought more time for the investigation, the Court replied: “SIT can always say that there is nothing in this FIR. But we are examining other issues. Why take two months for this? Then this case can be closed.”

Court’s directions on July 16

In light of the SIT’s conduct, the Supreme Court issued the following clear and binding directions:

1. Time-bound conclusion of investigation: The SIT must conclude its investigation within four weeks, with no extensions.
2. Scope strictly limited: The SIT must restrict itself exclusively to examining the language, phrasing, and content of the two Facebook posts to determine if any offence is made out under the BNS provisions cited in the FIRs.
3. No further summons: The SIT cannot summon Mahmudabad again for questioning, as he has already cooperated fully and handed over his devices.
4. Continued interim protection: The interim bail and protection from arrest granted to Professor Mahmudabad will continue until further orders.
5. No blanket speech restriction: The Court reiterated that Mahmudabad is free to publish or express opinions on any issue except the specific posts or matters currently sub judice before the Court.
6. Reminder of prior judicial direction: The Court reaffirmed its May 28 order, warning the SIT not to exceed the limited remit it was assigned.

This hearing marks a crucial moment in the case, with the Supreme Court decisively upholding the principle that criminal investigations must not become disproportionate intrusions into constitutionally protected freedoms, particularly where expression is concerned. By restraining the SIT from engaging in a sweeping or speculative probe, the Court sought to protect both the integrity of the investigation and the petitioner’s rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In a case that straddles the fine line between national security, free speech, and academic freedom, the Supreme Court has now sent a strong signal against state overreach and in favour of judicially monitored, narrow-scope investigations.

Related:

‘Seeking peace, calling out hate crimes not a crime’: Former Civil Servants Group on Mahmudabad

In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad

SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor

How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred

Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad’s Posts that Haryana Police Calls ‘Sedition’

The post Supreme Court rebukes Haryana SIT for overreach in probe against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, reasserts narrow scope of investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Anjum’s recent YouTube series since Sunday, July 13, containing detailed ground reports from the interiors of Bihar suggested that in some blocks electoral forms were being accepted without photographs and documents or that forms in duplicate were not being supplies by the ECI to voters.

The ongoing ‘special revision’ of the electoral roll has come in for widespread criticism because of the ECI’s self-assumed “demand” that people prove their right to vote and, by implication, their right to citizenship by providing documents which the majority do not possess. The short timeline given for the entire exercise –given that the state assembly elections are due in a few months–is bound to lead to administrative irregularities, something that both journalists like Anjum and some newspapers have exposed through their reportage.

The DUJ statement says that “the fact is that the Bihar government has not cared to issue birth certificates to most of its citizens, few people have caste certificates or domicile documents, the majority do not own property or have documents to prove ownership of land, many are denied schooling and migration is the major survival strategy.” In these circumstances people anxious to stay on the electoral roll are providing whatever they possess. The Election Commission initially refused to accept the basic documents that the majority do have: Aadhar cards and voter identity cards.  It was only after the Supreme Court hearing last week on July 10, that the ECI was compelled to now accept the Aadhar card, or EPIC card or Ration Card. Receipts are not always being provided. The haste of the exercise means that many voters in all likelihood, be denied voting rights.

The DUJ statement asserts that it is evident that (ECI) officials were rattled by the reports of irregularities in the entire process and have, therefore resorted to the FIR against Anjum to deter other journalists from similar coverage. The statement ends by stating that the DUJ “salutes” Ajit Anjum for his bold reporting and demands that the FIR for criminal trespass, obstructing a public servant on duty and other grounds be immediately withdrawn and journalists be permitted to report freely from the state.

Related:

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post DUJ stands by journalist Ajit Anjum after Bihar government lodges an FIR against him for ground reportage on ECI’s SIR process appeared first on SabrangIndia.