sabrangindia | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/sabrangindia-14-19466/ News Related to Human Rights Wed, 21 May 2025 12:12:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png sabrangindia | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/sabrangindia-14-19466/ 32 32 SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor https://sabrangindia.in/sc-interim-bail-granted-to-professor-ali-khan-mahmudabad-sit-to-probe-posts-on-operation-sindoor/ Wed, 21 May 2025 08:49:55 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41856 During the hearing, the bench led by Justice Kant expressed some disapproval of the petitioner's post.

The post SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 21,  granted interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the Haryana Police FIR over his social media posts about ‘Operation Sindoor.’ He was arrested on May 18, has been two days in police remand and judicial custody since yesterday.

However, the Court refused to stay the investigation, reported LiveLaw. Moreover, the Court also directed the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to investigate and understand the true meaning of the post. One officer of the SIT should be a woman. The SIT should be constituted within 24 hours, stated the court. The SIT should be headed by an IG rank officer and the other two members must be of SP rank. The matter will now be heard on Friday.

Imposing some conditions for grant of interim bail, the Court restrained Ali Khan Mahmudabad from writing any posts or articles in relation to the social media posts which are subject matter of the case or from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by India. The Court also directed him to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. He has been directed to surrender his passport. The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh clarified that the interim bail has been granted to facilitate further investigation.

After the order was dictated, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, requested the Court to restrain the registration of further FIRs on the same issue. “Nothing will happen,” Justice Kant orally said. Justice Kant orally asked the State of Haryana to ensure that. The State was granted liberty to place on record any further incriminating materials they discover during the course of the investigation.

Bench queries the petitioner’s posts during the hearing

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, drew the bench’s attention to Mahmudabad’s comments posted on his Facebook and Instagram profiles. He read out the comments to the bench. “This is a highly patriotic statement,” Sibal said.

Referring to Mahmudabad’s comments about “right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi” and his statement that right-wing commentators must equally express concerns for victims of mob lynching, bulldozing etc., Justice Kant said, “So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!”

“Everybody has a right to express free speech. But is it the time to talk of this much communal…? The country has faced a big challenge. Monsters came all the way and attacked our innocents. We were staying united. But at this juncture.. why to gain cheap popularity on this occasion?” Justice Kant remarked.

Sibal, agreeing that Mahmudabad’s comments could have waited till May 10, however, asked what was the criminality in his comments.

“Everybody talks about rights. As if the country for last 75 years was distributing rights!” Justice Kant said.

Petitioner’s comments ‘dog-whistling’, he should have used ‘neutral and respectful’ language : Justice Surya Kant

About the petitioner’s comments, Justice Kant said, “This is what we call in the law – dog whistling!””Some of the opinions are not offending to the nation as such. But while giving an opinion, if you….” Justice Kant said.

“When the choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons, the learned professor cannot have the lack of dictionary words…he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others. Have some respect for the sentiments of others. Use simple and neutral kind of language, respecting others” Justice Kant said.

Sibal said that the comments had no “criminal intent”. He highlighted that the petitioner said that the press briefing of Operation Sindoor showed that the logic on which Pakistan was built has failed, and that the post ended with “Jai Hind.” He also added that the petitioner’s wife is nine months pregnant and expecting child delivery soon.

Justice Kant asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the State of Haryana, if the comments had the effect of insulting women army officers. Justice Kant said that the bona fides of the comment was a subject matter of investigation. “The entire projection is that he is anti-War, saying families of army people, civilian in border areas etc., suffer. But some words have double meaning also.,” he said.

ASG Raju said that the post was not as innocent as projected by Sibal

On May 20, a local court in Sonepat, Haryana sent Mahmudabad to judicial custody. While so ordering, the court rejected the State Police’s request for his 7-day custody. On May 18, the Magistrate had remanded the Professor to police custody for two days.

Mahmudabad has been charged with offences under Section 196, 152 etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), inter alia, pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty and words or gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty. He has also been summoned by the Haryana State Commission For Women which is headed by Renu Bhatia.

Detailed Background

Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor and head of the Political Science department at Ashoka University, was arrested on Sunday, May 18, in Delhi for his social media commentary on India’s recent military action dubbed Operation Sindoor. His arrest follows two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in Haryana and stems from allegations of inciting secession, insulting religious beliefs, and undermining national unity.

The arrest was made based on complaints filed by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and Yogesh Jatheri, the village sarpanch of Jatheri and general secretary of the BJP Yuva Morcha in Haryana.

He was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including:

  • Section 152– Act endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India
  • Section 353– Statements conducing to public mischief
  • Section 79– Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
  • Section 196(1)(b)– Promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds
  • Section 197(1)(c)– Assertions prejudicial to national integration
  • Section 299– Malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings

According to Sonipat DCP (Crime) Narinder Kadian, Mahmudabad was produced before a local court and remanded to two days’ police custody for investigation.

Widespread support for professor Mahmudabad

Students and faculty of Ashoka University came forward in widespread support and solidarity against his arrest that has been widely criticised the country over. Fellow teachers and professors even maintained a vigil outside the police station ensuring that all medication etc reached the arrested academic in time.

SC order can be read here.

Download PDF

Related:

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

Singing Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’ is ‘Sedition’: Nagpur Police Book Organisers of Vira Sathidar Memorial

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

The post SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred https://sabrangindia.in/how-high-is-the-price-of-criticism-professor-mahmudabad-arrested-for-his-criticism-of-politics-of-hatred/ Tue, 20 May 2025 05:09:44 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41821 The targeting of a respected scholar from the minority community, for a critical comment on the politics of hatred during a national security operation underscores the growing erosion of free speech, institutional autonomy, and dissent in contemporary India

The post How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor and head of the Political Science department at Ashoka University, was arrested on Sunday, May 18, in Delhi for his social media commentary on India’s recent military action dubbed Operation Sindoor. His arrest follows two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in Haryana and stems from allegations of inciting secession, insulting religious beliefs, and undermining national unity.

The arrest was made based on complaints filed by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and Yogesh Jatheri, the village sarpanch of Jatheri and general secretary of the BJP Yuva Morcha in Haryana.

He was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including:

  • Section 152 – Act endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India
  • Section 353 – Statements conducing to public mischief
  • Section 79 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
  • Section 196(1)(b) – Promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds
  • Section 197(1)(c) – Assertions prejudicial to national integration
  • Section 299 – Malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings

According to Sonipat DCP (Crime) Narinder Kadian, Mahmudabad was produced before a local court and remanded to two days’ police custody for investigation.

Background: ‘Operation Sindoor’, national briefing and the right to express opinions

On the morning of May 7, 2025, the Indian Armed Forces carried out coordinated missile strikes targeting nine terrorist camps situated in PoK and Pakistan. This operation was executed as a retaliatory measure following the mass killing of 26 civilians in Pahalgam. The campaign, named Operation Sindoor, marked a significant escalation in India’s counterterror strategy.

Later that day, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, along with Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, addressed the media. The press briefing, led by these two senior women officers, was widely covered and praised across media platforms and by political commentators, especially from the Hindutva spectrum.

On May 8, a day after the press briefing, Professor Mahmudabad posted a message on social media reflecting on the public reception of the briefing. In his post, he noted the irony of right-wing voices praising the two women officers, particularly Colonel Qureshi, while remaining silent on domestic issues such as mob lynchings, arbitrary demolitions, and religiously motivated violence.

“Perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens,” Mahmudabad wrote.

He further commented:

“The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground—otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.” (Detailed report may be read here.)

These remarks were interpreted by the complainants as a denigration of national military efforts and an attempt to communalise and politicise a national security operation.

Basis for arrest

Haryana State Commission for Women’s action: As per the report of Hindustan Times, The Haryana State Commission for Women took suo motu cognisance of Mahmudabad’s remarks, alleging that they were:

  • Insulting to women officers in the Indian Armed Forces
  • An attempt to create communal disharmony
  • A violation of public order during a sensitive national moment

The commission issued a summons to Mahmudabad on May 14, which he reportedly ignored. On May 15, commission officials visited Ashoka University, but he allegedly did not appear before them.

In her police complaint, Chairperson Renu Bhatia accused Mahmudabad of:

  • “Using the narrative of war” despite no official declaration of war
  • Calling a political party “a hate-mongering entity,” which she claimed was prejudicial and inflammatory

Second Complaint and BJP’s involvement: As per the report of Indian Express, the second FIR was based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, sarpanch of Jatheri village and BJP youth leader. He alleged that Mahmudabad’s comments had “deeply hurt him on a personal level” and were anti-national in tone.

Haryana BJP spokesperson Sanjay Sharma defended the FIRs and police action, stating:

“Security agencies are taking action as appropriate for the security of the country.”

Professor Mahmudabad’s response

Prior to his arrest and after receiving the notice of the Women’s Commission, in a public statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Mahmudabad had defended his comments and criticized the interpretation made by the Women’s Commission:

“I am surprised that the Women’s Commission, while overreaching its jurisdiction, has misread and misunderstood my posts to such an extent that they have inverted their meaning.”

He added that his academic and public work has consistently focused on promoting peace, protecting constitutional values, and supporting national unity. He emphasized that his intent was not to disparage the military, but to:

“Applaud the Indian armed forces for their resolute action, while criticising those who preach hatred and seek to destabilise India.”

 

Legal and institutional implications

On Monday, May 19, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared before a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih in the Supreme Court, seeking urgent hearing in the matter of Professor Mahmudabad’s arrest.

“He has been arrested for a patriotic statement,” Sibal submitted, as per LiveLaw, urging the court to take up the case without delay.

The bench responded that the matter would be listed for hearing on May 20 or 21, indicating a willingness to assess the legality and urgency of the arrest.

Professor Mahmudabad is an accomplished scholar and public intellectual known for his research, writings, and policy work. He has previously collaborated with senior bureaucrats, military officers, and policymakers and is recognized for advocating constitutional values, secularism, and national integration. His arrest has sparked discussions around academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the limits of lawful criticism during national security events. Many have raised concerns about the criminalisation of political commentary, especially when it involves criticism of the ruling party or state institutions.

Political Reactions: Widespread condemnation from the opposition

The arrest triggered a wave of criticism from across the Opposition spectrum, with political leaders from the Congress, Samajwadi Party (SP), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) calling it an assault on free speech and academic independence.

Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge issued a scathing statement on social media: “The arrest of Ashoka University professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, shows how fearful the BJP is of any opinion disliked by them.”

Kharge drew attention to what he described as the BJP’s double standards, noting that while Mahmudabad was arrested for a “thoughtful” post, no action was taken against Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Vijay Shah, who on May 12 made sexist and communal remarks referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as “their own sister (unki samaj ki behen ke zariye)” in the context of Operation Sindoor. (Details may be read here.)

In his social media post, Kharge added: “Instead of acting against their own ministers for disparaging the armed forces, BJP-RSS is determined to silence voices that support pluralism, challenge the government, or simply do their job with integrity.”

He concluded by reaffirming that for the Congress, national unity and democracy must prevail, and supporting the armed forces does not mean silencing dissent.

Congress media head Pawan Khera described the arrest as the criminalisation of dissent: “A historian and academic is jailed not for inciting violence, but for advocating against it. His crime? Daring to speak truth to power and calling out the BJP’s chest-thumping hypocrisy.”

Khera added that Mahmudabad’s “only mistake” was that “he wrote a thoughtful post—and his other mistake is his name.” He further reminded that Mahmudabad is the grandson of Padma Bhushan awardee Jagat S. Mehta, a former Foreign Secretary of India who served under Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

He accused the BJP of employing the state machinery to silence writers, professors, and critics, and warned that the “real enemy is democracy itself when dissent is treated as criminal.”

SP President Akhilesh Yadav joined the chorus of condemnation with a poetic critique: “Hukmaraanon kee badazubaanee par bhee aazaadee, aur kisee kee sach kahane par giraftaaree (Freedom when rulers use foul language, but arrest when someone speaks the truth.)”

According to the report of Scroll, Abdul Hafeez Gandhi, SP national spokesperson, also defended Mahmudabad’s right to dissent: “He is being unfairly targeted for exercising his constitutional right to free speech. This is a misuse of state power.”

AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi labeled the arrest “utterly condemnable”, arguing that Mahmudabad was punished for a reasoned opinion: “His post wasn’t anti-national or misogynistic. A mere complaint by a BJP worker was enough for Haryana police to act with such speed.”

Leaders from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) also weighed in, calling the arrest “deplorable”, “politically motivated”, and a “clear threat to freedom of expression” in academia and public discourse.

Ashoka University’s ambivalent stance amid controversy

Ashoka University has taken a cautious and somewhat distancing approach following the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. Prior to the arrest, the institution had made it clear that the professor’s social media posts were his personal opinions and did not represent the university’s official stance — a move that critics say reflects a reluctance to robustly defend academic freedom in a highly charged political climate.

As per the Indian Express, in its statement after the arrest, Ashoka University struck a neutral tone, stating it was “in the process of ascertaining the details” and that it would “continue to cooperate fully with the police and local authorities.” This measured response, while procedural, has been viewed by many as an insufficient show of solidarity with a faculty member facing what supporters call a politically motivated and disproportionate crackdown on free expression.

The university’s unwillingness to firmly oppose the arrest, especially when the charges appear tied to Mahmudabad’s academic and critical engagement with national issues, has raised concerns about institutional complicity in curbing dissent and the broader erosion of academic autonomy in India today. Those supporting Mahmudabad against this illegal arrest argue that in such times, silence or neutrality from educational institutions emboldens state overreach and undermines the very values universities are meant to uphold.

Academic and Civil Society Response: Outrage over “targeted harassment”

Ashoka University faculty and students stands by Professor Mahmudabad: As per the report of Indian Express, in an internal email circulated Sunday, the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) at Ashoka University denounced the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad as a “disproportionate punishment made on flimsy grounds” and labelled it a “fundamental attack on academic freedom”.

The Ashoka University Faculty Association also issued a formal statement condemning the arrest, describing the charges as “groundless and untenable”. The faculty detailed what they termed “calculated harassment”, saying Professor Mahmudabad was:

  • Arrested early in the morning from his Delhi home,
  • Taken to Sonipat without a transit remand,
  • Denied access to necessary medication, and
  • Driven around for hours without clear communication about his location.

The statement described him as “an invaluable member of the university community”, noting his scholarship, character, and commitment to Constitutional values, pluralism, and academic integrity:

“He has taught us what it means to be a citizen-scholar: rational, critical, yet deeply respectful and generous in engagement with the world… We demand his immediate and unconditional release and the dropping of all charges.”

Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s students wrote a strong message pf solidarity for him.

Over 1,000 scholars sign letter of support: A public letter of support, endorsed by over 1,000 academics and intellectuals, rallied behind Mahmudabad, calling the arrest a “preposterous” overreach that reflects the erosion of freedom of expression in India.

Prominent signatories include Romila Thapar, Ramachandra Guha, Jayati Ghosh, Nivedita Menon and Ram Puniyani.

The letter stated: “It is preposterous that we have come to such a pass in India that even praising the army, albeit while criticising those who clamour for war, can now invite such targeted harassment and attempted censorship.”

It praised Mahmudabad’s posts for recognizing the collapsing distinction between terrorists and the Pakistani military, while also celebrating India’s secular values through the representation of women officers in public briefings.

“Far from being misogynist or anti-national, Prof Khan’s posts are driven by a clear moral vision of what being a good citizen means… the words of a true patriot concerned with the lives of both soldiers and citizens.”

Voices from Academia: Delhi University professor Apoorvanand sharply criticised the legality of the arrest: “Haryana police has illegally arrested Dr Ali Khan. Taken from Delhi to Haryana without a transit remand. FIR filed at 8 PM. Police reached his home at 7 AM the next morning!”

Meanwhile, as per the report of The Hindu, the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) issued a strong condemnation:

“The JNUTA expresses its outrage at the wholly unwarranted arrest by the Haryana Police of Dr Khan. This arrest… follows soon after the Haryana State Commission for Women acted way beyond its jurisdiction in taking suo motu cognisance of some statements made by Professor Khan.”

Conclusion

The arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad represents a deeply troubling precedent in India’s democratic fabric, where the right to critique, question, and engage in reasoned public discourse is increasingly being criminalized under vague and politically motivated charges. This case starkly illustrates how academic freedom and freedom of expression—cornerstones of any vibrant democracy—are under siege. Instead of fostering dialogue and dissent as essential elements of national progress, the state apparatus appears to be weaponizing the law to silence voices that challenge the dominant narrative or critique government policies.

The swift and heavy-handed action against a respected scholar, whose academic work consistently upholds constitutional values, pluralism, and national integration, signals a dangerous erosion of institutional autonomy and intellectual independence. Moreover, the involvement of political actors and regulatory bodies in what should be academic and civil society debates raises critical questions about the misuse of power and the shrinking space for dissent.

As voices from academia, civil society, and political opposition unite in demanding Professor Mahmudabad’s immediate release and the dropping of all charges, this case must serve as a clarion call for safeguarding democratic freedoms in India. Upholding the principles of free expression and academic inquiry is not merely an academic concern—it is a vital defense against authoritarian tendencies that threaten the pluralistic and secular foundations of the nation. In defending Professor Mahmudabad, the right of every citizen to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal, and affirm the enduring strength of India’s democracy is being protected.

 

Related:

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

Apology and Accountability: CJP files complaint with six news channels for airing misleading war clips, false terror claims in ‘Operation Sindoor’ coverage

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

Pahalgam Tragedy and Rising Spiral of Hatred

The post How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> “No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order https://sabrangindia.in/no-one-is-above-the-law-supreme-court-demotes-deputy-collector-for-demolishing-a-slum-settlement-by-flouting-hc-order/ Tue, 20 May 2025 04:29:44 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41813 In a scathing yet balanced judgment, the apex court confirms contempt conviction of an Andhra Pradesh officer for defying a High Court order, orders demotion and fine in lieu of jail, and reaffirms that judicial authority is sacrosanct in a constitutional democracy

The post “No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a powerful and instructive judgment in a case involving the contemptuous disobedience of judicial authority by a serving bureaucrat. The Court ordered the demotion of a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh to the post of Tahsildar, and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh, after holding him guilty of wilful contempt of court for disobeying a subsisting order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The case, while centred on a specific act of disobedience, served as a larger platform for the Court to reassert two critical constitutional values: the supremacy of judicial orders and the principle of equality before the law.

Through strong language and principled restraint, the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih sent a clear message to public servants across India—no one is immune from the consequences of flouting judicial authority, and arrogance of power is no defense when confronted with the authority of law.

Factual background

The roots of the case trace back to the actions of the petitioner while serving as a Tahsildar in the Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. During his tenure, the petitioner oversaw a demolition operation targeting a slum settlement, despite the existence of a categorical direction from the Andhra Pradesh High Court prohibiting any such eviction or demolition.

According to records and the observations of the High Court, the petitioner orchestrated the demolition using a force of approximately 80 police personnel, thereby displacing numerous slum-dwellers, many of whom were from socio-economically weaker sections. The Court emphasized the inhumanity and callous disregard for judicial authority in his conduct.

Upon discovering this blatant breach, the Andhra Pradesh High Court initiated contempt proceedings, resulting in a finding of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment.

The petitioner, by then promoted to the rank of Deputy Collector, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, challenging the sentence imposed, though not disputing the conviction.

The May 6 Hearing: Disobedience, arrogance, and judicial rebuke

During the hearing on May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court, having earlier issued notice on the sentencing aspect, explored the possibility of adopting a non-custodial punishment, considering the petitioner’s family circumstances, particularly his two children studying in Classes XI and XII.

The Bench had asked Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka, appearing for the petitioner, to seek instructions on whether the officer was willing to accept demotion to his original rank of Deputy Tahsildar as a substitute for imprisonment.

However, when the matter resumed on May 6, Bharuka informed the Court that the petitioner had categorically refused to accept demotion. This response shocked and angered the Bench, which had already shown considerable leniency.

As per a report of LiveLaw, Justice Gavai observed:

“We were trying to save his career for the sake of his children. But his adamant attitude shows exactly how he must have treated the High Court’s orders—with defiance and contempt.”

Justice Gavai questioned the petitioner’s lack of remorse, invoking a piercing moral argument:

“When you led 80 policemen to demolish homes of the poor, did you remember God then?”

Even though the Court offered a middle path—to demote him only to the post of Tahsildar instead of the originally proposed Deputy Tahsildar—the petitioner remained unyielding. The Court warned that such arrogance and non-cooperation would not go unpunished.

The Bench went so far as to threaten dismissal and career-ending observations in the Court’s final order. According to the LiveLaw report, Justice Gavai issued a sharp caution:

“If he remains this adamant, not only will we dismiss the petition, but we’ll pass such stringent remarks that no authority will dare reinstate him. He thinks he’s close to the government—he must be a protocol director—but that doesn’t protect him from the law.”

Ultimately, on Bharuka’s request, the matter was adjourned to May 9, with the Bench giving a final opportunity for the petitioner to reconsider his position. Before adjourning the matter to May 9, the Court again urged Bharuka to convince the petitioner, stating that the window for leniency was quickly closing. Justice Gavai concluded the session with a damning indictment of the petitioner’s character:

“He threw people out of their homes. We don’t want to become like him.”

This moment revealed the Court’s moral compass—driven by law, but not devoid of empathy.

Arguments advanced by the parties:

Petitioner sought leniency in sentencing, citing:

  • The potential loss of livelihood if the officer was imprisoned.
  • The educational needs of the petitioner’s two children, studying in Classes XI and XII.
  • The economic impact on the family.
  • Emphasised the absence of malicious intent behind the demolition.

Respondent opposed leniency, arguing:

  • The act amounted to a gross abuse of power.
  • It was a deliberate, calculated disobedience of a judicial order.
  • The officer’s callousness towards poor slum dwellers demonstrated complete insensitivity.

The May 9 Judgment: Conviction confirmed, sentence modified

When the matter was resumed on May 9, the petitioner, through counsel, finally agreed to the Court’s proposal for demotion, prompting the Bench to adopt a measured sentencing approach. Emphasizing the sanctity of judicial authority, the Court declared that no public servant, regardless of rank, can flout court orders with impunity. The bench observed:

“When a Constitutional Court or for that matter, any court issues any direction, every person or authority regardless of rank, is duty bound to respect and comply with that order. Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.” (Para 16)

“The majesty of law lies not only in punishing but also in forgiving when appropriate.” (Para 11)

Though the Court took a lenient view of the sentence to protect the interests of the officer’s family—particularly his two school-going daughters—it maintained a firm stance on the principle of accountability. Justice Gavai explained that the lenient sentence was not because the petitioner was entitled to it, but because of the collateral impact on his innocent family:

“While we are of the considered view that the appellant does not merit any leniency on account of his adamant and callous conduct, we find that his children and family should not suffer as a consequence of his actions.” (Para 12)

A custodial sentence, the Court observed, would lead to dismissal from service and deprive his family of livelihood. Hence, a balance was struck by demoting the officer and fining him. The Court rebuked the petitioner for expecting humanitarian consideration while himself having acted in a “cruel and inhumane” manner toward vulnerable slum dwellers. The bench made it clear that compassion cannot be a one-way street:

“We are of the view that the appellant ought to have considered the consequences before demolishing the structures of the home dwellers and throwing them on the road along with their belongings and that too despite of the specific warnings given to him by the High Court in its order dated 11th December 2013.” (Para 8)

“The actions of the appellant were inhumane. If the appellant expects this Court to take a humanitarian approach, such conduct was not expected from him.” (Para 9)

The Bench made it clear that this order would be reportable, underscoring its precedential value and public importance.

Observations of the Court in its judgement

  1. Wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The judgment affirms the importance of strict liability in contempt cases involving public servants. The petitioner’s act of leading a demolition drive in defiance of a High Court order fits squarely within the statutory definition of civil contempt (Section 2(b))—i.e., “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.”

The petitioner neither denied the act nor contested the High Court’s finding—only the sentence. This posture itself demonstrated a lack of contrition, further justifying the Supreme Court’s harsh words and disciplinary outcome.

2. Constitutional Principles: Rule of law and judicial supremacy

The Court’s declaration—“No one, howsoever high, is above the law”—reiterates Article 14 (equality before law) and the rule of law doctrine, which anchors the Indian constitutional framework.

In asserting that all public authorities are bound to comply with judicial directions, the Court reaffirmed the idea that judicial decisions are binding, not advisory. Any defiance is not merely administrative overreach—it is a constitutional violation.

3. Doctrine of proportionality in sentencing

While upholding the conviction, the Court applied the doctrine of proportionality in modifying the sentence. It balanced:

  • The gravity of the misconduct (violence, illegal eviction),
  • The need to protect judicial authority,
  • And the mitigating circumstances (impact on the petitioner’s children, loss of livelihood).

By opting for demotion instead of jail time, the Court imposed a meaningful penalty that retains institutional deterrence, yet spares innocent dependents. This is a progressive model of judicial balancing, serving both justice and mercy.

4. Accountability in public office

This case signals a strong institutional message to bureaucrats and political functionaries: administrative power is not a shield against accountability. The petitioner’s reliance on political proximity and his title as “Director of Protocol” was dismissed as irrelevant to his duty to obey court orders.

Key directions and rationale of the court

  • The petitioner was demoted from Deputy Collector to Tahsildar, with a direction that future promotions may only be considered from this new post.
  • He must also pay a fine of ₹1 lakh within four weeks.
  • The Court underscored that serving 48 hours in jail would have resulted in automatic dismissal from service, potentially jeopardizing the livelihood of his entire family—including two school-going children. This humanitarian concern led the Court to temper the sentence, while not absolving the officer of guilt.

Conclusion: A Judicial Message for the Nation

This judgment is far more than a disciplinary order—it is a constitutional proclamation. It reasserts the inviolability of judicial orders, calls out bureaucratic impunity, and restores faith in the majesty of the law. It demonstrates how the Supreme Court can be stern without being cruel, compassionate without being weak.

Through sharp rebuke and calibrated justice, the Court has immortalized a powerful message:

“Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.” (Para 16)

This case will serve as a template for future contempt proceedings, a reminder to public officials about their constitutional obligations, and an example of how courts can defend the powerless against the powerful.

The complete judgement may be read below.

Download PDF

Related:

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

 

The post “No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe https://sabrangindia.in/fir-meant-to-fail-mp-high-court-calls-out-states-attempt-to-shield-bjp-minister-in-hate-speech-case-to-monitor-probe/ Fri, 16 May 2025 12:27:29 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41769 A day after directing registration of FIR against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for calling Col. Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of terrorists,” the Court pulls up the police for drafting a deliberately vague complaint as ‘gross subterfuge’, and steps in to ensure justice is not derailed

The post FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated May 15, 2025, marks one of the most forceful judicial interventions in recent memory against institutional sabotage and political impunity. Coming a day after the Court had directed the registration of an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his inflammatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the Court found itself compelled to confront what it described as a “gross subterfuge” by the State police. The FIR filed in response to the Court’s direction was, in the bench’s view, a deliberate attempt to defeat the purpose of judicial scrutiny by being so deficient and vague that it invited quashing.

In no uncertain terms, the division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla delivered a stinging rebuke to the State, noting that the FIR had been crafted in a manner designed not to prosecute, but to protect. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR—expected to lay out the minister’s actions and how they constituted the offences alleged—merely reproduced the concluding paragraph of the Court’s own order from the previous day, while omitting all factual and legal reasoning. This omission, the Court warned, opened the door for the FIR to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (the successor to Section 482 CrPC), effectively nullifying the judicial process.

What emerged from the May 15 hearing was the Court’s growing scepticism about the willingness of the State police to independently and impartially investigate a sitting Cabinet Minister. The bench did not shy away from calling out the subversion of process and the appearance of executive shielding. While stopping short of naming officials responsible for what it called a “clumsy attempt,” the Court made it clear that further proceedings would examine the chain of command involved in drafting the FIR.

To safeguard the integrity of the investigation, the Court took the extraordinary step of directing that its entire order from May 14 be treated as part of the FIR. It also announced that it would now monitor the investigation to ensure that the case is not quietly buried under bureaucratic evasions or political pressure. This order is not just a procedural correction—it is a firm statement that the judiciary will not tolerate the erosion of accountability when hate speech and communal slander are weaponised by those in public office.

Details of what transpired in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, along with the Supreme Court, are below.

May 15- Madhya Pradesh High Court slams state police for ‘Gross Subterfuge’ in FIR

I. The Hearing: Sharp rebuke to state over subversion of process

On May 15, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the state police for the manner in which it had complied with the Court’s earlier order to lodge an FIR against sitting BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his offensive remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla made it unequivocally clear that the Court would not allow the investigation to be derailed or diluted.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the contents of the FIR, criticising it for being drafted in a manner so skeletal and vague that it invited quashing. “I’m sure you’ve read it,” the bench remarked to the Advocate General. “It has been drafted in such a way that it can be quashed. Where are the ingredients? Who drafted this?” The bench questioned how an FIR could be considered valid when it lacked any specific mention of the minister’s actions or how those actions fulfilled the ingredients of the offences invoked.

While the Advocate General submitted that the state had complied with the Court’s May 14 direction and even handed over a copy of the FIR, the bench was not convinced. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR — which should have detailed the accused’s actions and how they constitute the alleged offences — was nothing more than a mechanical reproduction of the Court’s earlier order. Crucially, it failed to reflect the parts of that order that laid out the specific conduct of the accused and the legal basis for charging him under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The bench called this omission a deliberate design, a “gross subterfuge” meant to weaken the case and insulate the minister from future prosecution. “This FIR has been registered in such a manner…so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS), it may be quashed,” the Court noted sharply, as per the report of LiveLaw,

Despite submissions by Advocate General Prashant Singh assuring the Court that the state had no intention to shield the minister and would comply with all directions, the Court made clear that intent alone could not cure procedural sabotage. It remarked that it would be forced to monitor the investigation, not to interfere with the agency’s independence, but to ensure that the probe was not tainted by extraneous influences or politically motivated pressures.

II. The Order: Blistering indictment and judicial safeguards

Later that evening, the High Court’s written order laid bare the extent of its disapproval. In no uncertain terms, the bench described the FIR as an exercise in deliberate obfuscation, aimed at frustrating the judicial process.

“This Court has examined paragraph-12 of the FIR, which must necessarily lay down the ingredients of the offence by connecting it to the act of the offender. The FIR is brief. Having gone through the FIR in its entirety, there is not a single mention of the actions of the suspect, which would satisfy the ingredients of the offences which have been registered against him,” the Court noted in the FIR.

Notably, Section 152 of the BNS, notably, criminalises any speech or act that incites secessionist sentiments or undermines national unity — an offence punishable with up to life imprisonment. Sections 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) further address attempts to incite communal disharmony and acts against national integration. These provisions relate to acts endangering India’s sovereignty and integrity, disturbing communal harmony, and undermining national integration — all serious charges triggered by Shah’s remarks describing Colonel Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists”.

However, the FIR, the Court noted, was drafted to look superficially compliant while omitting essential content that could withstand judicial scrutiny. In a scathing indictment, the bench wrote:

“This FIR has been registered in such a manner leaving sufficient space open so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of Cr.P.C (section 528 BNSS), the same may be quashed because it is deficient in material particulars of the actions which constitutes each of the specific offences. This is gross subterfuge on the part of the of the State. The FIR has been drawn in a manner so as to assist the suspect Mr. Vijay Shah to be able to have the FIR quashed on a later date.”

The Court declined, for now, to name those responsible for what it termed a “clumsy attempt” to dilute accountability, but made clear that it would examine this further in subsequent proceedings.

“At this juncture this Court desists from embarking on a journey to find out as to who was responsible in the chain of command of the State police for this clumsy attempt. This Court shall endeavour to find out the same in future proceedings.”

To safeguard the case from being derailed, the Court issued a unique direction:

“However, in order to ensure that said subterfuge is nipped in the bud, this Court directs that the entire order of 14.05.2025 shall be read as part of paragraph 12 of the FIR for all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating process henceforth.”

This directive ensures that the contents of the Court’s earlier order — including its detailed reasoning on how Shah’s remarks constitute criminal acts — are deemed to be part of the FIR itself, immunising it from legal infirmities arising from the police’s omissions.

Lastly, recognising the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter, the Court announced that it would continue to monitor the investigation. While clarifying that this would not impinge on the police’s autonomy, the bench made it clear that judicial oversight was now essential to ensure a fair and unbiased probe.

“In view of the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR has been registered, which does not inspire confidence of this Court, and the Court is of the opinion that if the case is not duly monitored, the police would not investigate fairly in the interest of justice in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, this Court feels compelled to ensure that it monitors the investigation without interfering in the independence of the investigating agency but only to the extent of monitoring that it acts fairly in accordance with law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or directions.”

The matter is scheduled to be listed immediately after the vacation, ensuring continuity in judicial supervision.

Key findings of the Court through its order:

1. Failure to articulate offence

The Court unequivocally states that the FIR, while brief, omits the essential content required to constitute a valid FIR under law. Paragraph 12 of the FIR, which should describe the suspect’s actions in terms of legal ingredients, is merely a reproduction of the final operative part of the Court’s own order from May 14 2025.

2. Strategic deficiency and subterfuge

The Court goes beyond identifying technical gaps and alleges intentional subversion of judicial direction, and does not merely suggest incompetence; it attributes intent—asserting that the FIR was drawn up in a way designed to assist the accused in securing a quashing of the FIR at a later date.

3. Postponed attribution of responsibility

While noting that the drafting of the FIR amounted to a “clumsy attempt,” the Court refrains from immediately naming those responsible within the police hierarchy. However, it clearly reserves its right to do so in the future.

4. Judicial incorporation of prior order into FIR

In a decisive move to prevent the FIR from being rendered legally ineffective, the Court directs that its order dated May 14, 2025 be treated as part of the FIR. This step is unusual and noteworthy. Courts typically do not rewrite executive documents. By judicially supplementing the FIR with its own prior reasoning, the Court ensures that the FIR now contains the essential legal and factual ingredients to support the investigation and prosecution.

5. Judicial monitoring of investigation

The Court, expressing a clear lack of confidence in the police to act fairly without oversight, announces its intention to monitor the investigation. One should note that the same is not interference with investigative autonomy but a supervisory mechanism to preserve the integrity of the process. The Court’s language carefully respects the institutional independence of the police while simultaneously asserting the necessity of judicial vigilance.

The complete order may be read below.

Download PDF

May 15- Supreme Court declines interim relief to BJP Minister Vijay Shah

On May 15, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief to BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in connection with the FIR registered against him for his inflammatory remark referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists.” The FIR had been filed following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The matter came up through an urgent mentioning by Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing Shah, who questioned the maintainability of the High Court’s suo motu order and urged the apex court to intervene. However, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, heading the bench along with Justice AG Masih, refused to interfere at this stage. CJI Gavai made a pointed observation:

“A person holding such an office is expected to maintain a certain standard. Every sentence uttered by a minister carries responsibility.”

Makhija informed the bench that Shah had already issued an apology and claimed his remark had been widely misinterpreted and taken out of context by the media. She requested that no coercive action be taken against him until he is heard.

However, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court was told that an FIR had already been registered. In response, the bench declined to pass any interim orders and directed Shah to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief, noting:

“Go and apply to the High Court. We will have it tomorrow.”

The Supreme Court thus refused to stay the proceedings or provide protection at this stage, keeping the door open for judicial review by the High Court. The matter is likely to be taken up again shortly.

May 14– MP HC orders FIR for hate-laden remarks against Col. Sofiya Qureshi

I. The Hearing: Unparalleled judicial censure against BJP Minister’s “disparaging” speech

On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of a highly offensive remark made by BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The Court acted swiftly and firmly, ordering the immediate registration of an FIR against the Minister under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The division bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla, unequivocally condemned the Minister’s statement as not only “disparaging” and “dangerous” but also constituting “language of the gutters.” It held that the remarks went far beyond personal insult and, in fact, were a grave denigration of the Indian Armed Forces as an institution.

The Court emphasised the importance of the armed forces as perhaps the country’s last bastion of integrity, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, and courage—qualities which any patriotic citizen must hold dear. It noted with particular gravity that Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh had been the visible face of the armed forces’ briefing to the media and the nation during Operation Sindoor, the military operation against Pakistan. Therefore, the Minister’s remarks targeted not just the officer but the very honour and dignity of the armed forces. The Court described Shah’s comments as “unpardonable” innuendo aimed squarely at Colonel Qureshi.

On the legal front, the Court carefully examined the prima facie applicability of the offences alleged against Shah under the BNS, 2023. It held that Section 152, which criminalises acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, was clearly attracted. The Court reasoned that by labelling Col. Qureshi—an officer who is Muslim—as the “sister of terrorists,” Shah implicitly encouraged separatist sentiments and suspicion against Muslims, thereby endangering national unity. The remark, the Court observed, imputes a separatist identity to anyone belonging to the Muslim faith, a dangerous insinuation with the potential to undermine the country’s sovereignty.

Further, the Court found that Section 196(1)(b), which punishes acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups, was triggered. It observed that deriding Col. Qureshi on communal grounds could disturb the delicate social fabric and public tranquillity. By invoking her religious identity in a disparaging way, Shah’s remarks risked fuelling communal tensions.

The Court also held that Section 197(1)(c) was prima facie attracted. This provision criminalises any assertion or plea that causes or is likely to cause enmity or ill-will between communities. The Court noted that the Minister’s comments had the clear “propensity” to stir disharmony and hatred between members of the Muslim community and others, regardless of the selfless service of individuals like Col. Qureshi.

In light of these serious prima facie findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minister Shah forthwith—no later than that very evening. It warned that failure to comply would lead to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the DGP. The Advocate General was instructed to immediately transmit the Court’s order to the police authorities and ensure compliance.

The report of the LiveLaw provided that Justice Sreedharan, while addressing the Advocate General during the hearing, expressed impatience with any delay, stating with striking urgency:

“Register, register right now… I may not be alive tomorrow… I am giving you four hours… Let this order be stayed by the Supreme Court, or be complied with by tomorrow.”

When the Advocate General suggested that the Court’s findings were based mainly on media reports and that the statements might have been misunderstood or taken out of context, the Court decisively rejected this. It said it had itself reviewed the video of the remarks and would incorporate the YouTube links into the order, explicitly calling Shah’s speech “venom” and underscoring the seriousness with which it was treating the matter.

This unequivocal and stern order demonstrated the Court’s resolve to uphold the sanctity of the armed forces and the rule of law against hate speech, especially when it emanates from individuals holding public office. By acting suo motu and invoking relevant provisions of the BNS, the Court sent a clear signal that communal slander, particularly from politicians, will not be tolerated and must be met with swift judicial action.

The Court’s approach also underscored the constitutional principle that freedom of speech carries responsibility—especially for public figures whose words can inflame division and undermine national integration. This decision reinforced the judiciary’s role as a vigilant guardian against hate speech and communal disharmony, affirming that the armed forces deserve the highest respect and protection from defamatory and incendiary remarks.

II. The Order: A constitutional rebuke against hate and slur by a Minister

In its order dated May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a powerful and unequivocal direction to register an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for publicly calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of terrorists.” Triggered by media reports and publicly available video footage, the Court acted suo-motu, viewing the Minister’s speech as not only deeply offensive but also a prima facie criminal act under the BNS 2023.

At the heart of the order is the Court’s scathing assessment that Shah’s words were more than a personal insult—they amounted to an attack on the institutional honour of the Indian Armed Forces. The bench described the Minister’s language as “scurrilous,” “disparaging,” “dangerous,” and “language of the gutters.” The Court further held that the attack was not isolated but directly aimed at a senior military officer who was publicly representing the armed forces during a sensitive national operation, Operation Sindoor.

“The armed forces, perhaps the last institution existing in this country, reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage with which any citizen of this country who values the same can identify themselves with, has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi.” (Para 2)

Drawing from news reports and video material, the Court found that Shah’s reference to Col. Quraishi as the “sister of terrorists” who killed 26 Indians at Pahalgam was not vague or general—it was a clear innuendo directed at her, as she was the only person who matched the description in the speech. The Court remarked that Shah had, in effect, suggested that the Prime Minister had “sent the sister of terrorists to sort them out,” a statement that it found both incendiary and deeply damaging to public confidence in the armed forces.

“At that public function, he has referred to Col. Sofia Quraishi as the sister of the terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam. Further, the newspaper reports and a plethora of digital material available on the internet in which the speech of the minister is clear and unequivocal, where he has referred to the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, for having sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out. His comments are disparaging and dangerous, not just to the officer in question but to the armed forces itself.” (Para 3)

In its legal analysis, the Court invoked three provisions of the BNS and held that all three were prima facie attracted.

Section 152 BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, was the first invoked. The Court found that by insinuating that a Muslim Army officer was affiliated with terrorists, the Minister had encouraged feelings of separatist activity and undermined national unity. The Court emphasised that imputing separatist sentiment to Muslims serving in the armed forces is both unconstitutional and subversive:

“Prima facie, the statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feeling to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.” (Para 6)

Section 196 (1)(b) BNS, which penalises acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different communities, was the second provision cited. The Court noted that the Minister’s remark could give rise to the perception that Muslims, regardless of their loyalty or contribution to the nation, remain forever suspect. This, the Court held, was likely to disturb public tranquillity and reinforce religious fault lines.

“Prima facie, this section would be applicable as Col. Sofia Quraishi is an adherent of the Muslim faith and deriding her by referring to her as the sister of terrorists may be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions groups as it has the propensity to fuel an impression that irrespective of the selfless duties of a person towards India, such a person could still be derided only because that person belongs to the Muslim faith. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the offence under Section 196(1)(b) is also committed.” (Para 8)

Section 197(1)(c) BNS, which criminalises assertions likely to cause disharmony between religious groups, was also found to be applicable. The Court stated that the Minister’s remarks had the potential to deepen religious division and provoke hostility between communities, especially by invoking a communal stereotype in a public and inflammatory setting.

“The statement made by Minister Vijay Shah prima facie has the propensity to cause disharmony and feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between the members of the Muslim faith and other persons who do not belong to the same religion.” (Para 10)

On the strength of these findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR against Vijay Shah under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS forthwith, by the evening of May 14. It made clear that non-compliance would invite contempt proceedings.

“On the basis of what has been observed herein above this Court directs the Director General of Police of Madhya Pradesh to register forthwith an FIR against Minister Vijay Shah for offences under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the B.N.S. The same must be done by today evening, failing which tomorrow, when the matter is listed, the Court may contemplate proceeding against the Director General of Police of the State for contempt of this Order.” (Para 11)

Further, the Court directed the Advocate General’s office to transmit the order immediately to the DGP and asked the Registrar (IT) to collect and place on record the video links of Shah’s speech for the next day’s proceedings.

Key findings of the Court through its order:

  1. Use of suo-motu powers to uphold constitutional integrity: The Court acted on its own motion, recognising that the matter was too serious to wait for a formal complaint. This reinforces the judiciary’s role in addressing hate speech by those in public office.
  2. Characterisation of the armed forces as a constitutional institution under attack: The Court positioned the armed forces as a symbol of national values, and it viewed any attempt to denigrate them—especially by communalising their members—as a grave constitutional breach.
  3. Identification of communal intent and legal applicability of BNS provisions: The Court methodically applied new penal code provisions and found that Shah’s statement not only offended basic decency but, prima facie, satisfied the legal requirements for offences threatening national integrity and communal harmony.
  4. Urgency and judicial accountability: The Court gave the State police a same-day deadline for FIR registration and made clear that non-compliance would be treated as contempt of court. This reflects a demand for immediate accountability from state institutions.
  5. Condemnation of political hate speech: The order sends a strong signal that hateful, communal rhetoric by elected representatives—especially when directed at uniformed officers—is not protected political expression, but punishable criminal conduct.

The order stands as a significant constitutional moment: a court drawing the line where political speech turns into criminal propaganda, and affirming that even the highest offices must answer to the law.

The complete order may be read here.

Download PDF

Background

On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took up the matter on its own motion after coming across disturbing reports in multiple newspapers and digital platforms. News items published in Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar (Jabalpur edition), and Nai Duniya on the same date, along with video footage circulating online—including a YouTube link cited by the Court—revealed that a sitting minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, Vijay Shah, had made an offensive and communal remark during a public function held in Raikunda village, Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow.

The remark in question was aimed at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a senior officer in the Indian Army. Referring to her indirectly but unmistakably, Minister Shah called her the “sister of the terrorists” responsible for the killings in Pahalgam, in an apparent reference to her role as one of the Army’s spokespersons during Operation Sindoor. The Court noted that the language used was not only scurrilous and derogatory but also carried dangerous communal undertones. It held that the speech did not merely target an individual officer, but amounted to a broader attack on the armed forces—an institution that, the Court observed, still embodies values such as discipline, sacrifice, and integrity.

In view of the serious nature of the comment and the threat it posed to communal harmony and institutional dignity, the Court initiated proceedings without waiting for a formal complaint.

 

Related:

Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire

Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire https://sabrangindia.in/trolled-for-duty-foreign-secretary-vikram-misri-locks-x-account-amid-right-wing-abuse-over-india-pakistan-ceasefire/ Mon, 12 May 2025 10:59:27 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41726 From grieving widows to uniformed officers and veteran journalists, a toxic online ecosystem—enabled by silence at the top—continues to vilify those who speak truth, show empathy, or simply do their jobs

The post Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri was forced to lock his X (formerly Twitter) account on Sunday, March 11, after becoming the target of a coordinated wave of online abuse. The trolling came in the wake of India’s announcement of a ceasefire with Pakistan, following a tense four-day military standoff that had included missile and drone strikes under Operation Sindoor.

Despite being the public face of the Ministry of External Affairs during the conflict, Misri faced intense backlash from right-wing social media accounts who labelled him a “traitor” and accused him of “surrendering” India’s military advantage. These attacks came after he officially announced the ceasefire on the evening of May 10, and continued through the next day with personal, often vicious, trolling.

The abuse escalated as trolls dug up old posts of Misri’s family, specifically targeting his daughter, Didon Misri, who is based in London and works at the global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills. Her brief internship with the UNHCR in Myanmar during her law school years was misrepresented by trolls as “legal support for Rohingya Muslims”, with coordinated narratives accusing both father and daughter of being sympathetic to causes seen as ‘anti-national’ by the far-right. In reality, Didon Misri specialises in international arbitration and has represented the Indian government in several legal matters abroad.

Misri had been at the forefront of delivering calm and measured briefings from the Ministry of External Affairs throughout the Operation Sindoor conflict. He had publicly defended democratic values, saying that “criticising the government is the hallmark of democracy”—a position at odds with the aggressive nationalist rhetoric from BJP supporters and affiliated online influencers. As per the report of The Wire, Misri’s refusal to confirm unverified claims—such as the death of Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Abdul Rauf Azhar, which the BJP had already broadcast as fact— might have further enraged right-wing circles.

After the ceasefire announcement, Misri became the scapegoat for what many online trolls framed as a strategic retreat. Many media reports, including The Wire, Times of India, LiveMint, showed how personal attacks turned abusive, accusing him of jeopardising national security, “prostrating before Pakistan,” and even targeting his daughter’s career choices abroad. As the trolling crossed into threats and doxxing, Misri was left with no choice but to lock his account—a rare move for someone in his position.

The backlash has been widely condemned by the IAS Association, journalists, and opposition leaders, who have pointed to the dangerous precedent of targeting civil servants for carrying out official duties. Yet, top government functionaries have remained silent. Notably, at the time of the publishing of the present article, neither External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar nor Defence Minister Rajnath Singh—who posted multiple times about BrahMos and Operation Sindoor—have publicly supported Misri or addressed the abuse.

The government’s silence has drawn sharp criticism and raised serious concerns about its unwillingness to protect bureaucrats from politically motivated social media attacks. At a time when foreign policy decisions are being dissected in real-time on volatile digital platforms, the abandonment of a senior diplomat in the face of such vitriol sends a chilling message about the costs of public service.

Background: The ceasefire announcement

On Saturday, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced a significant breakthrough: India and Pakistan had agreed to a ceasefire across land, air, and sea following a week of dangerous military escalation involving drones and missile strikes. Speaking at a press briefing, Misri stated that the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both nations had reached an understanding during a phone call and that the next round of talks are scheduled for today, May 12. The announcement came shortly after US President Donald Trump posted on social media, claiming the talks had been “mediated” by the United States.

The outpouring of support

Political Leaders Defend Misri: The vitriol prompted an outpouring of support from across the political spectrum. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi reminded the public that civil servants function under the executive and should not be blamed for political decisions. “Mr Vikram Misri is a decent and honest, hardworking diplomat working tirelessly for our nation. Our civil servants work under the executive—this must be remembered. They shouldn’t be blamed for decisions taken by the executive or any political leadership running Watan-e-Aziz,” he posted on X.

The Congress party’s Kerala unit also condemned the trolling, noting the pattern of hate attacks. “Last week, Modi bhakts launched a vicious character assassination campaign against Ms Himanshi Narwal… Now, they’re targeting Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, as though he unilaterally decided on the ceasefire, not Modi, Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh or Jaishankar… Modi is now grappling with the Frankenstein’s monster he created in the form of the IT Cell,” the statement read.

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav slammed the government for its silence, writing: “It is the government’s responsibility to make decisions – not individual officers… but neither the BJP government nor any of its ministers are coming forward to protect his honour and respect.”

PDP spokesperson Mohit Bhan called the abuse an eye-opener, stating: “Calling this hate ‘nationalism’ is the biggest lie of our time. For a decade, patriots, soldiers, scholars, and diplomats have been attacked for rejecting bloodlust. The right-wing hate engine is India’s real threat, and this rot must end before it ends us.”

The video included in this post shows the kind of vile remarks that were made against Misri and his family.

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, in an interview with NDTV, called the trolling “preposterous.” “Young Vikram Misri has done an outstanding job. He worked very hard, very long hours and is an extremely effective voice for India. I can’t understand who on earth would troll and why?” Tharoor added that the dignified conduct of officers like Wing Commander Vyomika Singh and Colonel Sofia Qureshi should be celebrated, not attacked.

TMC MP Mahua Moitra posted on X: “Disgusting to see social media trolling of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri & family—no professional diplomat doing his job should be subjected to this. Stand strong, Sir—not everyone in this country is as vile as AndhBhakts.”

Congress leader Sachin Pilot wrote: “It’s unacceptable to target our professional diplomats and civil servants — those who work dedicatedly to serve the nation.”

Support from former diplomats and bureaucrats: Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao labelled the attacks “utterly shameful,” noting they “cross every line of decency.” She defended Misri’s professionalism and condemned the doxxing and harassment of his daughter.

Former diplomat Navdeep Suri echoed this, saying: “It is absolutely disgusting to see the trolls target Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and his family. He has been a picture of professionalism—calm, composed, measured and articulate. But that’s not enough for the bloodlust of a section of our society. Shameful!”

 

Several senior bureaucrats rallied behind Misri. V Srinivas, Union Secretary of Administrative Reforms, praised him as one of India’s “most celebrated diplomats” who exemplifies a “Nation First” approach.

As per the report of The Indian Express, Srinivas Katikithala, Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs and Misri’s batchmate, stated: “Highly regrettable that dedicated & sincere civil servants are targeted for performing their duties. His devotion to duty must be applauded & his family’s dignity must be defended.”

The IAS Association also issued a formal statement: “Unwarranted personal attacks on civil servants performing their duties with integrity are deeply regrettable. We reaffirm our commitment to uphold the dignity of public service.”

Solidarity was also shown by others:

Statements from civil society, media, and others: Prominent journalist Madhavan Narayanan recalled working with Misri during his stint in the Prime Minister’s Office under Manmohan Singh. “Pity that such composed career diplomats are being trolled for doing a thoroughly professional job. Something is terribly wrong somewhere in a country that cannot salute excellence,” he wrote.

Comedian and actor Vir Das commented: “Vikram Misri was amazing, so were Colonel Sophiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.”

Fact-checker Mohammed Zubair highlighted the organised nature of the attacks: “First they went after Himanshi Narwal… Now the same trolls are going after Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and his daughter, abusing and sharing her mobile number.”

A symptom of a larger problem?

The abuse directed at India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and his family is not an isolated incident—it is part of a broader and disturbing pattern of coordinated online targeting, often against individuals who speak truth to power, advocate peace, or simply fulfil their public duties with integrity.

Journalist Raju Parulekar summed it up starkly in a tweet titled “Time to Rethink”, where he wrote:

“India’s Foreign Secretary and his family are targeted by RW troll army. That’s not surprising, as the traits of the Leadership percolate. ‘Congress ki vidhwa’, ‘50 crore ki girlfriend’, ‘jersey gaay’ etc show a glimpse into the patriarchal, misogynistic and regressive mindset of Narendra Modi.

If he can say this despite occupying a constitutional office, the trolls working to bolster his image can definitely stoop to the lowest.

Hopefully, the Babus learn something from this. Their political master is not the man worth dying for. And he’s certainly not going to stand for their honour against his troll army.”

 

Parulekar’s tweet captures the climate of impunity in which online abuse flourishes—a climate set from the very top and maintained by a digital ecosystem that treats dissent, empathy, and professionalism as offences worthy of punishment.

The episode has laid bare the toxicity of online discourse in India, especially when it intersects with nationalism, diplomacy, and military matters. Misri’s abuse is not an isolated incident but a continuation of a pattern where professionals who speak or act in favour of peace are vilified by right-wing online ecosystems.

Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin and The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani both reported receiving rape threats for their public stances. Bhasin, whose newspaper has consistently upheld a no-war position and has extensively documented the suffering of people living near the Line of Control, found her X account blocked amidst the threats. Sherwani, a senior journalist known for her integrity, also faced a barrage of abuse intended to silence and intimidate.

Defence spokespersons Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh were criticised by online trolls for allegedly “fumbling” during official press briefings. Several X accounts falsely claiming to be operated by the two officers began circulating soon after their appearances. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) was forced to intervene, publicly clarifying that both officers are not present on the platform and disavowing the impersonator accounts.

The widow of Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, Himanshi, also became a target after she spoke out against the communalisation of grief and the scapegoating of Muslims in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack. Her calls for peace and unity were met with vicious online character assassination, further highlighting the entrenched intolerance for dissenting or humane voices in a deeply polarised digital environment.

Together, these instances underscore the cost of empathy, integrity, and professional duty in today’s India. Whether one is a bureaucrat, journalist, officer, or a grieving family member—any expression that disrupts the dominant narrative risks being met with vitriol. In this environment, the state’s silence—or worse, complicity—only emboldens the attackers.

The refusal to hold those responsible for such coordinated harassment campaigns accountable raises critical concerns about the protection of civil servants, the weaponisation of digital hate, and the government’s unwillingness to condemn such behaviour when it comes from its support base.

As calls grow louder for action against the trolls, the dignified silence of Vikram Misri and his continued commitment to duty have earned him admiration from across ideological lines, proving once again that professionalism, integrity, and courage in public service still command respect.

 

Related:

Treading Carefully: Illusion of Accountability in an age of social media content creation

Censorship: The Wire, India’s credible news and analysis portal blocked, widespread condemnation

How Indian commercial media channels are using the provocative thumbnail to boost viewers and worse, provoke vicarious viewer response

Following executive order from government, X asked to block 8000 accounts in India

Pahalgam: Voices of peace and reason in times of war

The post Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Censorship: The Wire, India’s credible news and analysis portal blocked, widespread condemnation https://sabrangindia.in/censorship-the-wire-indias-credible-news-and-analysis-portal-blocked-widespread-condemnation/ Fri, 09 May 2025 11:59:14 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41698 The Wire, founded by Siddharth Varadarajan, MK Venu and Siddharth Bhatia a decade ago, was served blocking orders by the government of India on the morning of May 9; the censorship action has been widely condemned

The post Censorship: The Wire, India’s credible news and analysis portal blocked, widespread condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The morning of May 9 saw news of a crackdown on free speech by the Modi 3.0 regime as 8,000 twitter (X) accounts, access to Pakistani opinion and a blocking order received by The Wire, were greeted with condemnation. The Wire, founded by Siddharth Varadarajan, MK Venu and Siddharth Bhatia a decade ago, will turn ten on May 12, three days from now. The web platform was served blocking orders by the government of India on the morning of May 9 and the censorship action has been widely condemned.

Siddharth Varadarajan, founder of The Wire, has condemned the actions against his platform and Bhasin’s account. He called the blocking of the website and account a clear violation of press freedom in India. Varadarajan’s statement read:

“Dear readers of The Wire, in a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to thewire.in across India.”

The Chennai Press Club has, in a strong statement condemned the blocking of both The Wire and Maktoob Media

The statement of the Chennai press club may be read below

Chief Minister Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin, in strong words, condemned the action. “Silencing the media at a critical juncture undermines the spirit of democracy. I hope the Union government reconsiders and lifts the ban on @thewire_inLet not press freedom be strangled in the world’s largest democracy.

 

Comrade MA Baby, newly elected general secretary of the CPI (M) has strongly condemned the act of censorship in a tweet. “When media outlets that are continuously peddling fake news on #OperationSindoor are being allowed to run uninterrupted, credible news portals are being blocked. Such attacks on the freedom of the press are not acceptable, Baby wrote.

Seema Chisty, editor at The Wire tweeted, “Why freedom of the Press matters to non-press janta is an essay. But briefly – because voices of the Press are canaries in the coalmine. What protects the Press in India is what protects the average citizen. Your allowing it to get gagged is allowing yourself to go down”


Digipub Condemns Blocking of The Wire’s Website, CPI’s D. Raja Writes to Ashwini Vaishnaw

‘We urge the Ministry to act decisively against channels and platforms that promote communal hatred and spread falsehoods. Access must be restored to platforms which are responsible and act to maintain national unity.’

Following the government blocking users’ access to the website of The Wire, Communist Party of India general secretary D. Raja has written to Union minister of information and broadcasting while digital news body Digipub has condemned the move.

The Wire has learnt that the block on its website is according to the orders of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Various internet service providers are saying multiple things.

Raja’s letter

In his letter to minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, D. Raja has highlighted how misinformation was allowed to run rampant during ‘Operation Sindoor’.

I, on behalf of the Communist Party of India, register my deep concern over the inflammatory and misleading content being aired by several television news channels following Operation Sindoor. While the nation stands united against terrorism, we are witnessing a dangerous trend where certain channels are communalising the issue, spreading unverified claims, and promoting war hysteria—without any official confirmation from the Government or Armed Forces.

Raja said that such coverage creates panic and fear. Here, he mentioned that responsible news portals like The Wire have been blocked, in contrast.

Such coverage not only undermines responsible journalism but also poses a direct threat to national cohesion. Warmongering and targeting of communities erode trust, create fear among citizens, and play into the hands of those who seek to destabilize the country. Public anxiety is being inflamed, not addressed. Even public broadcasters have echoed this irresponsible tone, failing the basic duty of informing people with accuracy and dignity. The Armed Forces themselves had to counter claims made by such news channels on many occasions. At the same time, access to responsible news portals like TheWire.in has been blocked.

Raja noted that the CPI rejected attempts to turn the tragedy of Pahalgam into a spectacle of hate and division. “Conflict must not become a tool to distract from facts or delegitimize fellow citizens. The cost of such narratives is paid by ordinary people in the form of insecurity, polarization, and long-term damage to the democratic fabric,” he wrote.

He urged for decisive communication from the government.

We urge the Ministry to act decisively against channels and platforms that promote communal hatred and spread falsehoods. Access must be restored to platforms which are responsible and act to maintain national unity. We also call for coordinated and periodic, fact-based briefings from your Ministry, in consultation with the ministries of Defence, Home Affairs, and External Affairs, to counter misinformation and provide the public with credible updates.

Raja added that it is rightly said that truth is the first casualty of war, but “today, truth is being sacrificed even before a war exists—buried under noise, prejudice, and sensationalism.”

The airwaves must not become battlegrounds of distortion when the nation needs calm and clarity. We hope this urgent and pressing matter concerning national unity in challenging times will find your immediate attention.

Digipub statement

DIGIPUB, a group of digital news websites of which The Wire is a member, said that it strongly condemns the blocking of The Wire’s website. It said:

DIGIPUB’s founding member The Wire has released a statement on Friday, May 9 stating that the access to their website has been blocked by some Internet Service Providers following government orders. One of the ISPs says the block has been done by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the IT Act, 2000.

If the Indian government has indeed blocked access to The Wire, then it is a blatant attack on press freedom. Silencing independent media doesn’t protect democracy-it weakens it.

The statement noted that this “is a critical time for the nation and such actions impede rational thinking. The urgency and horrors of battle cannot be used as an excuse to silence independent journalism.”

It added that a free media is the best antidote to misinformation and fake news and said:

“We demand the immediate reversal of such censorship, the orders for which have not even been made public. The Indian Government must uphold constitutional values of free speech and restore unrestricted access to independent media democracy cannot survive in silence.”

Related:

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

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava

The post Censorship: The Wire, India’s credible news and analysis portal blocked, widespread condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check https://sabrangindia.in/not-fragile-not-silent-sc-chooses-principle-over-punishment-in-response-to-bjp-mp-dubeys-outburst-reasserts-role-as-constitutional-check/ Fri, 09 May 2025 11:09:01 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41694 Court underscores its strength and accountability, refusing to be baited by scandalous rhetoric while sounding alarm over communal provocation

The post Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a significant order delivered on May 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly rebuked Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey for his incendiary and derogatory remarks against the Chief Justice of India and the institution of the Supreme Court. The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar termed his statements “highly irresponsible” and attention-seeking, reflecting not only an ignorance of constitutional functioning but also a wilful attempt to scandalise and delegitimise the judiciary.

“In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution.” (Para 5)

The observations came in response to a writ petition filed under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution by Advocate Vishal Tiwari. The petition sought the initiation of suo-moto criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey for making scandalising remarks against the Court and the CJI, and also sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs to register FIRs under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against political leaders delivering provocative speeches related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

While the Court ultimately refrained from issuing notice or initiating contempt proceedings, it delivered a strong and detailed order that firmly asserted the judiciary’s role and constitutional mandate, and simultaneously condemned hate speech in the strongest terms.

Dubey’s remarks intended to scandalise, Court asserts

The Court scrutinised the content of Dubey’s public remarks, in which he accused Chief Justice Khanna of being “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India” and claimed that “it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country.” The bench unequivocally held that such statements “tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India” and exhibit an intent to obstruct the administration of justice.

“We have examined the contents of the assertions made by respondent no. 4, which no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice.” (Para 4)

The Court noted that these statements amounted to a direct imputation of motives to a sitting bench of the apex court. It also clarified that the statutory exemptions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—which relate to fair and accurate reporting or innocent publication—did not prima facie apply in this case. It added with emphasis, “There is no civil war in India.”

“The statements made reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the Bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India” and “in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible”. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act carve out exceptions which, prima facie, are not attracted. There is no ‘civil war’ in India.” (Para 4)

Despite this, the Court chose not to initiate contempt proceedings, noting that judicial power must be exercised with discernment and restraint.

“We, therefore, refrain from taking any action. This Court in, In Re S. Mulgaokar,3 observed that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when criticism is an obvious distortion or a gross misstatement, which is made in a manner designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence, it should not be ignored. However, the power to initiate contempt is discretionary in its unsheathed exercise.” (Para 6)

Referring to the landmark precedent In Re: S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339], the Court acknowledged that while the judiciary is not immune from criticism, the exercise of contempt powers is a matter of judicial discretion—not compulsion.

“…we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so.” (Para 5)

Judiciary draws strength from constitutional values, not coercive power

In defending its decision to not invoke contempt powers, the Court issued a profound reaffirmation of the role of courts in a constitutional democracy. It stressed that judges are guided by values, not ego, and derive legitimacy from transparency, open proceedings, and reasoned judgments—not force.

“Judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection.” (Para 6)

The Court underlined that institutions are accountable not through suppression of criticism, but through reasoned decisions, transparency, and public trust. It observed that decisions are made in open court, subject to scrutiny, appeal, review, and even curative jurisdiction, which are all mechanisms that ensure accountability in a democratic society.

“Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned.” (Para 6)

Judicial review is a constitutional mandate, not judicial activism

Responding to the broader climate of political criticism targeting judicial review—particularly in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act—the Court categorically stated that constitutional courts are not acting beyond their remit. Judicial review is not merely a power but a constitutional duty, expressly enshrined under Articles 32 and 226.

“Each branch of the State in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts within the framework of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us.” (Para 7)

The Court reaffirmed that the role of constitutional courts is to test the legality and constitutionality of statutes and executive actions, not on political, religious or community grounds, but strictly according to legal principles. It cautioned that to deny this role would be tantamount to rewriting or nullifying the Constitution itself.

“To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution, as the power of judicial review is one of the cornerstones of democracy. This power is conferred in express terms by Articles 32 and 226 by the framers of the Constitution and hinges on the system of checks and balances.” (Para 9)

Reasserting the foundational role of constitutional courts in a democracy, the Supreme Court emphasised that judicial decisions are grounded in legal reasoning, not influenced by political, religious, or communal considerations. The Court clarified that when citizens approach it seeking the exercise of judicial review, they do so to vindicate their fundamental or legal rights—not to invite the judiciary into political debates. In entertaining such pleas, the Court is not overstepping its role but performing its constitutional duty. This clear articulation serves as a reminder that judicial review is a core element of the constitutional structure—intended not to oppose the legislature or executive, but to ensure that all state action adheres to constitutional mandates.

“Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations. When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court’s consideration of such a prayer is the fulfilment of its constitutional duty.” (Para 9)

Hate speech must be dealt with an ‘iron hand’

While the petition was dismissed, the Court did not leave the issue of hate speech unaddressed. In a pointed and unambiguous observation, the bench declared that any attempt to incite communal disharmony through hate speech must face resolute legal consequences.

“While we are not entertaining the present writ petition, we make it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand. Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.” (Para 10)

Such speech, the Court affirmed, is not protected expression. Rather, it causes alienation and humiliation, making it a criminal offence that the State must deal with “accordingly” and decisively.

Conclusion: A judicious defence of Constitutional authority in divisive times

Though the Supreme Court ultimately chose not to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey, the gravity and clarity of its reasoning left little ambiguity. The judgment stood as a powerful affirmation of judicial strength—not through punitive reaction, but through principled restraint. The Court made it clear that while it will not dignify absurd provocations with prosecution, it equally will not allow such provocations to go unanswered when they attempt to delegitimise the judiciary or inflame public sentiment through falsehood and communal rhetoric.

By firmly denouncing the baseless allegations against the Chief Justice and the institution of the Supreme Court, the bench sent an unmistakable signal: constitutional courts are neither weak nor indifferent. They are resilient, guided by law and reason, and capable of distinguishing between fair criticism and deliberate attempts to undermine the judiciary’s credibility. Crucially, the Court’s strong condemnation of hate speech—and its declaration that such divisive rhetoric must be met with an iron hand—also reflects its acute awareness of the growing threats to social cohesion and democratic integrity.

At a time when public discourse is increasingly polluted by communal polarisation and institutional mistrust, the judgment reinforced the judiciary’s dual role: as a guardian of constitutional values and as a bulwark against intolerance and authoritarianism. In choosing wisdom over outrage and clarity over confrontation, the Court not only upheld its dignity but reminded the nation that the rule of law, not the rule of noise, remains the bedrock of Indian democracy.

 

Related:

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

A System Under Strain: India’s police and prisons in crisis shows Indian Justice Report 2025

“Let the Suspension Not Continue Further”: Supreme Court allows Dalit scholar to resume PhD at TISS

Waqf Amendment Act 2025: An erosion of rights under the garb of reform

 

The post Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Following executive order from government, X asked to block 8000 accounts in India https://sabrangindia.in/following-executive-order-from-government-x-asked-to-block-8000-accounts-in-india/ Fri, 09 May 2025 10:51:24 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41688 Social media platform ‘X’ (former Twitter) informed on its Global Affairs account that, “we have begun that process, however, we disagree with the government’s demands, blocking entire accounts is not only unnecessary—it amounts to censorship of both existing and future content,” X acknowledged the decision wasn’t easy but “keeping the platform accessible in India is vital to Indians' ability to access information,” X also added it had received no evidence or justification for the sweeping block order, in a controversial move, even X’s own @GlobalAffairs account was temporarily withheld in India—though later restored

The post Following executive order from government, X asked to block 8000 accounts in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On May 8, 2025, social media platform X announced that it has begun blocking over 8,000 accounts in India, in compliance with executive orders issued by the Indian government. The announcement was made through X’s official Global Government Affairs handle, where the company confirmed that the directive comes with serious legal threats, including “potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company’s local employees.”

X informed that “X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company’s local employees.”

Targeted accounts include international media and prominent users

According to X, the orders require blocking access to a broad range of accounts, including those belonging to international news organisations and prominent users on the platform.  Notably, the government has not provided specific details about the alleged legal violations committed by many of these accounts.

“The orders include demands to block access in India to accounts belonging to international news organisations and prominent X users. In most cases, the Indian government has not specified which posts from an account have violated India’s local laws. For a significant number of accounts, we did not receive any evidence or justification to block the accounts,” X said.

We disagree with the Indian government’s demands: X

To comply with the government’s directives, X stated it will withhold the specified accounts exclusively in India, ensuring they remain accessible from outside the country.

“We have begun that process. However, we disagree with the Indian government’s demands. Blocking entire accounts is not only unnecessary, it amounts to censorship of existing and future content…” X said

X raises concerns over censorship and transparency

While moving forward with compliance, X strongly criticised the nature of the orders. It emphasised that blocking entire accounts amounts to pre-emptive censorship and threatens the free flow of information. X reiterated the importance of transparency in such matters and expressed frustration that legal constraints prevent it from publishing the executive orders.

“We believe that making these executive orders public is essential for transparency – lack of disclosure discourages accountability and can contribute to arbitrary decision-making. However, due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders at this time,” it said.

Legal action and advice to impacted users

X also revealed that it is exploring all possible legal avenues to contest the government’s directives. However, it acknowledged limitations in challenging these orders under Indian law and urged affected users to seek redress through the courts.

“Unlike users located in India, X is restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges against these executive orders. However, we encourage all users who are impacted by these blocking orders to seek appropriate relief from the courts,” the post by X said.

We have no knowledge of the reason for the government’s arbitrary action: Maktoob

Following a government directive, X has withheld the X account of Maktoob Media in India. The platform has not provided a clear explanation, and the reasons behind this action remain undisclosed.

Aslah Kayyalakkath, founding editor of Maktoob Media, condemned the move, calling it an arbitrary act that strikes at the heart of press freedom.

“We have learned that @MaktoobMedia’s X account has been withheld in India in response to a legal demand. We have no knowledge of the reason for the government’s arbitrary action. It is an assault on press freedom,” he stated. He further added that publication’s continued commitment to independent journalism despite mounting pressure.

“Maktoob pledges to continue its crucial work at a time when truth is becoming a casualty. At this hour of crisis, we ask our allies to share links from our website to help people access our reporting. We are many, many more than them” he said

The withholding of Maktoob Media’s account comes amid a growing pattern of restrictions on digital media platforms, raising fresh concerns over freedom of expression and the silencing of critical voices.

X account of senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin suspended, TheWire also faces crackdown

The X account of senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, has been suspended. Bhasin, known for her independent and fearless reporting from Kashmir, has been a significant voice for credible journalism, often providing verified, on-the-ground information that challenges official narratives.

Along with Bhasin’s account suspension, The Wire, one of India’s few remaining independent digital news outlets, has been blocked nationwide. But later visible.

Journalist Mandeep Punia has raised concerns over the growing crackdown on independent voices. He criticised the suspension of Bhasin’s account and the blocking of The Wire‘s website, stating:
“Credible journalists are being blocked, while those spreading fake news are being promoted. The Wire’s website has been blocked, and senior journalist @AnuradhaBhasin_’s Twitter account, which consistently provided credible information, has also been suspended.”

Siddharth Varadarajan of The Wire responds to the crackdown

Siddharth Varadarajan, founder of The Wire, has condemned the actions against his platform and Bhasin’s account. He called the blocking of the website and account a clear violation of press freedom in India. Varadarajan’s statement read:

“Dear readers of The Wire, in a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to thewire.in across India.”

After post, X’s Global Affairs account temporarily withheld in India, later restored

After the Indian government directed the blocking of approximately 8,000 accounts on X (formerly Twitter), citing national security concerns, the platform made this information public through its official global affairs handle, @GlobalAffairs. The move sparked widespread discussion and debate across the internet about the nature and transparency of such governmental block orders. In a surprising development, shortly after these discussions gained traction, the @GlobalAffairs account itself was briefly withheld in India.

Reacting to the development, ALT News co-founder and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair posted on X, “Wait! @GlobalAffairs is withheld in India.”

However, the account became visible again soon after.

Pakistan-based news outlets blocked on X amid heightened India-Pakistan tensions

The X (formerly Twitter) handles of prominent Pakistan-based news organisations such as Dawn and GeoNews are currently inaccessible in India, marking a continuation of the government’s broader clampdown on digital content originating from across the border. This move comes in the wake of Operation Sindoor, India’s recent military action, and reflects a growing strategy of information control during times of national security concerns.

In a rare disclosure, X revealed the volume of content takedown requests issued by Indian authorities, shedding light on the expansive scale of censorship tied to the operation. The restrictions follow a similar move last month when, after the Pahalgam terror attack, the Indian government banned 16 Pakistani YouTube channels—including major broadcasters like Dawn News, Samaa TV, ARY News, and GeoNews—accusing them of spreading provocative, communally sensitive content and disinformation targeting India and its security forces.

Disinformation surge on social media during ‘Operation Sindoor’

As Operation Sindoor unfolded in the early hours of Wednesday, platforms like X became a breeding ground for disinformation. Unverified visuals of airstrikes, exaggerated claims of retaliatory attacks, and even repurposed footage from video games were widely circulated, contributing to confusion and misinformation.

The Press Information Bureau’s (PIB) fact-check unit actively intervened, debunking several viral posts. One such claim involved a forged letter allegedly written by a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist about a supposed BrahMos missile failure—PIB confirmed the letter was fake and that no such scientist exists.

In another instance, old footage of a crashed aircraft was falsely linked to a recent Pakistani strike, alleging the downing of an Indian Rafale jet near Bahawalpur.

PIB verified that the footage was outdated and the claim baseless.


Related:

Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints

The curious case of Twitter suspensions

Will Twitter fly away from India soon?

The post Following executive order from government, X asked to block 8000 accounts in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Poonch Victims: Civilians as targets of shelling https://sabrangindia.in/poonch-victims-civilians-as-targets-of-shelling/ Thu, 08 May 2025 13:05:49 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41668 Four minors fell victim to the shelling while a hymn singer, tabla player, shopkeeper and homemaker were also killed and a gurdwara was also struck and suffered damage to its wall; hasty irresponsible reportage included slurring of an innocent civilian killed as a ‘terrorist’; preliminary reportage has counted the victims in Poonch alone to be 15 though numbers are expected to rise further

The post Poonch Victims: Civilians as targets of shelling appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Four minors were among the 15 persons identified as victim of cross border (read Pakistani) shelling in Poonch district of Jammu on May 7. While the Sikh community reeled in shock at the lives lost in the cross border shelling post May 7, the Gurudwara Nangal Sahib that was hit re-opened to devotees on the morning of May 8 itself. Besides, while both the traditional, entrenched legacy media post May 7 were full of triumphant details of India’s ‘targeted attacks’ on ‘terror camps’ across the border, it was social media that highlighted the human losses suffered in the Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir. Locals posted news and losses reported from Poonch to Akhnoor in the Jammu division which they say were being pounded by heavy artillery and mortar. There have been serious casualties and loss of life on the Indian side after civilian areas in Poonch town were the main targets of the Pakistani retaliation, something not seen earlier. By 7 p.m. yesterday, May 7, most of the population in Poonch town had fled towards Jammu.

While Poonch is reportedly the worst hit, several sectors in Kashmir Valley were also reportedly rocked by shelling. The Indian Army confirmed that a soldier had died on Wednesday. “GOC and all ranks of White Knight Corps salute the supreme sacrifice of L/Nk Dinesh Kumar of 5 Fd Regt, who laid down his life on May 7 during Pakistan Army shelling. We also stand in solidarity with all victims of the targeted attacks on innocent civilians in Poonch sector,” the 16 Corps, Indian Army, posted on X.An unconfirmed list of other civilians killed by Pakistani shelling (totalling 15) – published by Maktoob Media includes: Balvinder Kaur alias Ruby (aged 33), Mohd Zain Khan (aged 10 years), Zoya Khan (12), Mohd Akram (40), Amrik Singh (55), Mohd Iqbal (45), Ranjeet Singh (48), Shakeela Bi (40), Amarjeet Singh (47), Maryam Khatoun (7), Vihaan Bhargav (13), Mohd Rafi (40) and three identified.

The local Sikh community suffered a heavy loss as at least four of its members were killed and the wall of a gurdwara was damaged when Pakistan reportedly launched heavy shelling early Wednesday in the Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir. Eyewitnesses described the intensity of the bombardment as worse than during the 1999 Kargil War. Social media first reported that according to officials, Amreek Singh and Ranjit Singh—local shopkeepers—ex-army official Amarjeet Singh, and homemaker Ruby Kaur were killed instantly when a shell exploded near them, sending shockwaves through the community.

Meanwhile, the family of Mohammad Iqbal, who was killed in the shelling at Poonch, and who worked as a teacher at the Jamia Zia Ul Uloom has taken strong objection at news channels ABP News, Zee News and TV 18 for dubbing the slain victim as a ‘terrorist.’ They have urged the Poonch District Collector and the Poonch police to also initiate action, and have now been reported to have decided to initiate legal action against the errant channels themselves.

On May 7, the shelling took the roofs of Amreek Singh’s shop reducing it to rubble while the nearby gurudwara, Nangali Sahib was also struck during the shelling. Situated in the lap of a picturesque hill on the banks of the Drungali Nallah, it is situated about four kilometres from Poonch town and in Poonch distrct in the Jammu region. It is also recognised as one of the oldest shrines for the Sikhs in northern India.

Amarjeet Singh (50), a devout Granthi who regularly performed Paath at the gurdwara is a former army person who, died in the shelling. He is survived by his wife, a son in Class 6, and a daughter. Amarjeet Singh also played the tabla at the gurdwara, while another victim, Amreek Singh, was a raagi who sang hymns from the Guru Granth Sahib at another gurdwara in Poonch. Both were killed at different locations.

Amreek Singh (39) also ran a small grocery shop below his house. He was the sole breadwinner of his family and is survived by two daughters and a son. He was with Ranjit Singh at Syndicate Chowk when a shell exploded in front of them, reported Indian Express. Both died on the spot. Amreek Singh had gone to open his shop. Meawnhile, Ruby Kaur (32), a homemaker, was killed in Mankote. She had three children, the youngest just a year and a half old.

The local Sikh population in Poonch, is estimated between 25,000 and 30,000, has been left shaken. “We have never witnessed such heavy shelling in Poonch before. We saw the Kargil war, but civilian establishments largely remained untouched. We thought we had learned to live under shelling. Today, that illusion was broken,” said Narinder Singh.

Following the incident, Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj, Acting Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib, condemned the shelling. “The attack on Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha and the loss of Sikh lives is not just an event—it is a blow to humanity,” he said. He has also called for diplomacy, Jathedar Gargaj urged both India and Pakistan to reduce tensions. “Both governments must act with wisdom, not weapons,” he said. “Since 1947, this conflict has caused suffering, including to Hindus and Sikhs near the border. How many more must pay for a conflict they did not create?” asked Gargaj. “War always devours the innocent. Peace is not weakness—it is the strength we must summon.”


Related:

Homes Destroyed, Mass Detentions Following Pahalgam Attack

A Tranquil Paradise Shattered: The Pahalgam terror attack

The post Poonch Victims: Civilians as targets of shelling appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Faith Knows No Religion: Banke Bihari Temple again rejects boycott call against Muslim artisans and businesses https://sabrangindia.in/faith-knows-no-religion-banke-bihari-temple-again-rejects-boycott-call-against-muslim-artisans-and-businesses/ Thu, 08 May 2025 11:53:44 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41662 Banke Bihari Priests reject boycott calls against Muslim artisans and businesses, hail Muslim artisans as vital to temple traditions, embrace unity over division, and uphold faith as the highest virtue in Brijmandal—where even Raskhan sang for Krishna, and craftsmen of all faiths continue to serve the divine with devotion, senior priest said "Bhakti is supreme in Brijmandal. If someone has faith and comes for darshan, why should we oppose it?"

The post Faith Knows No Religion: Banke Bihari Temple again rejects boycott call against Muslim artisans and businesses appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a strong rebuke to calls from right-wing groups urging a boycott of Muslim traders and artisans following the recent Pahalgam terror attack, the revered Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan has stood firm in its commitment to communal harmony and legacy of the temple tradition. The temple’s administration has emphasised the deep-rooted and indispensable role of Muslims in the upkeep and traditions of the shrine, rejecting any notion of exclusion based on religion.

Muslims are integral to temple traditions

Speaking on behalf of the temple administration, Gyanendra Kishore Goswami, a senior priest and committee member, clarified that any call to boycott Muslims was neither practical nor aligned with the spiritual values of Brijmandal, the sacred region encompassing Vrindavan.

“It is not practical. Muslims, particularly artisans and weavers, have deep-rooted contributions here. They’ve played a major role in weaving the dresses of Banke Bihari for decades,” Goswami said. “Many of them have a strong belief in Banke Bihari and visit the temple too” he said, reported Times of India.

For generations, skilled Muslim craftsmen have produced intricate crowns, bangles, and garments for the deity. Their craftsmanship, honed over decades, is vital to the temple’s rituals and daily adornment of the idol. Their devotion, Goswami notes, transcends religious labels.

The response came after some fringe groups held protests in Mathura and Vrindavan, urging Hindu shopkeepers and devotees to boycott Muslim-owned businesses. These groups reportedly demanded that Muslim traders display the proprietor’s name on their shop signboards—an act widely perceived as coercive and discriminatory.

However, Goswami was unequivocal in his stance and said that, “Yes, those terrorists (in Pahalgam) should be punished severely, and we’re totally with the government. But in Vrindavan, Hindus and Muslims live together in peace and harmony” TOI reported.

His message was echoed by several priests and local residents, who expressed solidarity with the Muslim artisans and business owners who have coexisted peacefully in the holy town.

“Bhakti is supreme in Brijmandal”

Goswami, who also serves as the Rajbhog Seva Adhikari at the temple, further emphasised that devotion—bhakti—is the highest principle in the spiritual ethos of Vrindavan.

“Bhakti is supreme in Brijmandal. It rises above knowledge or even detachment (vairagya). If someone has faith and comes for darshan, why should we oppose it?” Goswami asked, reported The Hindu.

Support for Muslim shopkeepers

Just steps away from the temple, Javed Ali, a Muslim shopkeeper who has been selling religious items for over two decades, shared his experience of intimidation by protesters. He was asked to visibly display his name on his shop’s signboard or vacate.

“They came to my shop and asked us to put the name of the proprietor on the signboard. I’ve been running this shop for over 20 years. My father worked here as a tailor. Whenever a customer buys things, I usually give them a bill with my name and mobile number. We have nothing to hide,” Ali said. “With the blessings of Banke Bihari, this place is always peaceful” TOI reports.

His neighbouring shop owner, Nikhil Aggarwal, affirmed that the local community has never had any issues and often supports one another irrespective of faith.

“We’ve never had any problem. We work together and support each other,” Aggarwal noted.

When ‘God’ didn’t stop Raskhan or Rahim from composing bhajans

Lala Pandit, priest at the Danghati Temple in Goverdhan said that, “When God didn’t stop Raskhan or Rahim from composing bhajans, who are we to stop anyone from praying?”

“Lord Krishna is the god of love. There’s no room for hatred in his land” he added

Mahant Dinesh Chaturvedi of the Kali Temple in Mathura echoed the sentiment: “How can anyone prevent a devotee from entering a temple? Temples are public spaces. Every religion has both good and bad people.” Commenting on the impracticality of such boycotts, he added, “You can’t go around asking every shopkeeper about their religion before buying something. Besides, many Muslims have helped tourists in Kashmir. We shouldn’t paint everyone with the same brush” as reported The Hindu.

Govind Pandey, priest of the Dauji Temple in Baldev, also saw no issue with buying from Muslims.

Rejection of discriminatory demands

Earlier, temple priests had also strongly rejected a demand by Dinesh Sharma of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Sangharsh Nyas to stop using garments crafted by Muslim artisans. Sharma argued that only those who followed “religious purity” should be allowed to make Lord Krishna’s attire.

Terming the demand both “impractical” and “misguided,” Goswami pointed out that about 80% of the temple’s attire—including crowns, garments, and zardozi work—are made by Muslim artisans. He also highlighted the logistical challenge of replacing such skilled labour, noting that the deity requires nearly a dozen ornamented outfits each day.

“How can we assess the personal purity of every artisan?” he asked. “If Prahlad could be born in the family of a demon king, and Kansa in the same lineage as Lord Krishna’s grandfather, then how can we judge artisans by their birth or religion?”

Goswami further emphasised that devotees themselves ensure purity when commissioning attire and offerings, reinforcing that faith, not exclusion, lies at the heart of temple customs.

A legacy of shared heritage

The involvement of Muslims in temple traditions is not new. Historically, Muslim artisans have played a vital role in creating the visual grandeur of the Banke Bihari deity. From intricate embroidery to metalwork, their contributions span generations. In similar traditions elsewhere—like the crafting of Rudraksha garlands in Kashi—Muslim families play key roles in Hindu religious life.

Even today, Goswami noted, Muslim musicians perform traditional instruments like the nafiri during festivals. Several acclaimed bhajan singers from the Muslim community continue to offer devotional service to Lord Krishna, embodying the spiritual unity Vrindavan is known for.

 

Related:

Vrindavan’s ISKCON temple sealed as priests, and many others test Covid-19 positive 

Allahabad HC bats for tolerance, but refuses to strike down meat and liquor sale ban

Ram Navami violence: PILs seek SC monitored investigations, transfer of cases to NIA

The post Faith Knows No Religion: Banke Bihari Temple again rejects boycott call against Muslim artisans and businesses appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>