Since the start of 2026, harmful content targeting Muslims across social media platforms has escalated at an alarming pace. For much of January and February, Islamophobic posts maintained a steady and persistent presence, continuing the deeply hostile climate that has built since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza in October 2023.

The onset of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, says the study, has accelerated this trend sharply, sending Islamophobic content targeting Muslim Americans to new extremes.

Political rhetoric has compounded the crisis. Senior Trump administration officials and some members of Congress have framed the war in overtly religious terms, drawing on Christian nationalist narratives, and inflaming anti-Muslim hatred. Secretary of War (a term coined to replace the more accepted, Secretary of Defence) Pete Hegseth even described Iran as driven by “prophetic Islamic delusions.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a US watchdog group, has reported receiving complaints that military commanders told service members the war with Iran was “all part of God’s divine plan” and suggested it would “cause Armageddon.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, while referring to Iran, stated that “we’re the Great Satan in their analogy and their misguided religion.” Muslim civil rights groups have condemned such language as dangerous and inflammatory. Political leaders at the highest levels framing a military campaign in language that indicts an entire faith and draws on Christian nationalist rhetoric contributes to an environment in which Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim become targets of suspicion, hostility, and violence.

On March 1, a mass shooting in Austin, Texas, further intensified the online discourse. A gunman with a reported history of mental health issues opened fire at a bar, killing three and wounding fifteen. The shooter was reportedly wearing clothing referencing Iran and Islam.

The combined effect of the US-Israel war on Iran and the Austin shooting resulted in an explosion of anti-Muslim content across social media platforms.

An Analysis of the Data

To assess the scale of Islamophobic discourse online, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) analysed posts on X (formerly twitter) using a comprehensive query designed to capture language associated with dehumanisation, incitement, and exclusionary rhetoric targeting Muslims.

The dataset includes original posts, quote posts, and replies containing Islamophobic content from January 1 through March 5, 2026.  The data reveals a sharp spike beginning on February 28, the day the US-Israel war on Iran began.

Between February 28 and March 5, a total of 25,348 Islamophobic posts targeting Muslims were recorded on X.

Figure 1: Volume of Islamophobic Posts on X (Original Posts, Quote Posts, and Replies), January 1 – March 5, 2026

However, the reach of these posts expands significantly once reposts are included. Reposts dramatically amplify the visibility of harmful content, allowing it to spread far beyond the original accounts that generated it.

When reposts are counted, the total mention volume of Islamophobic content rises to 279,417, representing an 11-fold amplification of the harmful original posts.

Figure 2: Volume of Islamophobic Posts on X (Including Reposts), January 1 – March 5, 2026

This amplification is illustrative of how relatively lower volumes of explicitly harmful content can reach extremely large audiences through network effects and platforms’ engagement-driven algorithms. While the volume of Islamophobic content has shown some decline from its initial peak, the underlying conditions that fuelled this surge remain firmly in place.

What are the Patterns of Harmful Content

A qualitative review of the dataset reveals several recurring patterns of harmful discourse. These are not exhaustive categorizations of the full dataset but representative samples that illustrate the nature and severity of anti-Muslim content circulating on X and other social media platforms.

One of the most deeply disturbing patterns running through the posts we reviewed is the use of dehumanizing language, referring to Muslims as “rats,” “pests,” “vermin,” and “parasites.” Such language has historically preceded and enabled the most extreme forms of violence against targeted communities.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as “rats“}

The prevalence of dehumanising language targeting Muslims should be recognized as a significant indicator of escalation risk.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as “vermin”}

Closely related to dehumanisation is the framing of Muslim communities as an “infestation.” Posts using this narrative portray Muslims as a spreading contagion threatening American cities and institutions.

This framing mirrors historical propaganda used against numerous minority communities, in which the targeted group is depicted as a disease or infestation that must be eradicated.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as an “infestation”}

Beyond dehumanisation, we found posts that cross the line from hatred into explicit incitement to violence, including direct calls to exterminate Muslims. Some posts frame the elimination of Muslims as an act of self-defense or civilizational survival, lending a veneer of patriotic duty to the genocidal rhetoric. In the current climate, this content functions as a call to action directed at a community that is already experiencing rising rates of bias, harassment, discrimination, and hate-fuelled violence.

_{Examples of violent and eliminationist posts}

Some of the most extreme posts advocate placing Muslim Americans in internment camps. Others call for the creation of a “Muslim Exclusion Act,” proposing that Muslims be barred entirely from entering the US.

_{Examples of internment camps posts}

A large volume of posts demand the removal of all Muslims from the US. The rhetoric ranges from blanket calls to “deport all Muslims” to specific calls for stripping citizenship from Muslim Americans through mass denaturalization. This category of content is significant not only for its volume but for the way it blurs the line between extremist fantasy and policy advocacy. Many of these posts are framed as actionable demands directed at elected officials.

_{Examples of mass deportation posts}

The CSOH also found posts advocating the destruction of mosques, treating Muslim houses of worship as enemy infrastructure. These posts frame mosques as “mini military bases” and “terrorist centres.”

Mosques in the US have long been targets of arson, vandalism, threats, and shootings. The circulation of content that frames them as legitimate targets increases the risk of violence against Muslim communities and religious institutions.

_{Examples of posts calling for the destruction of mosques}

Failure to Enforce Platform Rules

As part of this analysis, we reported 30 posts featured as examples in this brief to X using the platform’s own reporting categories, including “Violent Speech” and “Hate, Abuse or Harassment.”

These posts included language describing Muslims as “rats” and “vermin,” calls for extermination, demands for internment camps, and calls to destroy mosques. Of the 30 posts reported, 11 were removed. The remaining 19 remain live on the platform as of March 9.

This enforcement gap underscores a critical disconnect between platform policies and their application, particularly when it comes to combating dehumanization and incitement targeting Muslims. The failure to act proactively and to leave up violating content even after it has been reported suggests that existing enforcement mechanisms are either inadequate or inconsistently applied.

Recommendations

The findings in this brief illustrate an environment of anti-Muslim hate and incitement that, while already volatile, has reached a critical tipping point due to the convergence of several factors. These developments underscore the need for urgent action across multiple fronts.

Platform Accountability: Social media companies must strengthen enforcement against harmful content that dehumanizes or incites violence against Muslims. Much of the content documented in this brief appears to violate existing platform policies but remains widely accessible and amplified. Platforms must ensure that enforcement mechanisms respond quickly and consistently during periods of geopolitical crisis, when harmful online content tends to surge.

Establish a Trusted Flagger Network: Platforms should establish Trusted Flagger status for Muslim civil rights organizations with a dedicated reporting channel for flagging mass incitement and threats, bypassing slow standard reporting queues that allow harmful content to spread unchecked during crisis periods.

Political Responsibility:  Public officials must exercise extreme caution in how they frame geopolitical conflicts. Language that conflates a military confrontation with a religious or civilizational struggle, or draws on Christian nationalist narratives, risks inflaming domestic hostility toward minority communities. Political leaders have a responsibility to ensure that their rhetoric does not endanger Americans by framing global conflicts in ways that stigmatize entire religious communities.

Community Protection: Civil society organizations, law enforcement agencies, and community leaders should increase monitoring of threats against Muslim communities and institutions. With the heightened risk of targeted violence, there is an urgent need for increased protection of mosques, Islamic centres, and Muslim community organizations across the country.

Stakeholder Briefings and Information Sharing: Relevant stakeholders, including elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and social media companies, should engage with researchers studying Islamophobia to better understand emerging trends in online hate and incitement. Briefings on findings such as those presented in this data brief can help facilitate accurate and timely information sharing. Such engagement can support more informed responses to online narratives and incidents that have the potential to translate into violence targeting Muslims, individuals perceived to be Muslim, and their institutions.

(This data brief represents an initial analysis of an ongoing crisis. CSOH will continue to monitor social media platforms for anti-Muslim incitement, and subsequent briefs will follow.)

Related:

India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran

Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights

Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

The post US-Israel War on Iran sees spirals in Hate against Muslim Americans: CSOH appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Hindustan Times, Manesar walked out of Sewar (Sevar) Central Jail in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, on the evening of March 8, 2026, after the Rajasthan High Court granted him regular bail earlier that week. He had spent approximately two-and-a-half years in judicial custody after being arrested in September 2023 in connection with the deaths of the two cousins whose charred bodies were discovered in Haryana’s Bhiwani district in February 2023.

His release was marked by a conspicuous public welcome. As provided by Indian Express, wearing a bulletproof vest and escorted by police, Manesar travelled by road from Bharatpur to his native village in Gurugram district, Haryana, where supporters greeted him with garlands, drum beats, and celebratory slogans. A large gathering of supporters—including individuals identified as cow vigilantes—had also assembled outside the jail during his release, prompting authorities to deploy additional police personnel to maintain law and order.

Background: The February 2023 killings

The case traces back to the night of February 14–15, 2023, when cousins Junaid (35) and Nasir (27), residents of the Pahadi area in Rajasthan’s Bharatpur region, went missing.

A day later, their charred bodies were discovered inside a burnt vehicle in Loharu in Bhiwani. The killings were widely suspected to be linked to vigilante groups who patrol highways in the region under the pretext of preventing illegal cattle transport.

According to police investigations, the victims were intercepted by cow vigilantes who suspected them of transporting cattle. However, investigators said that when the vigilantes allegedly found no cattle in the vehicle, the two men were assaulted and later killed.

Senior police officials later stated that interrogation of some accused indicated that Junaid died first after being assaulted in Ferozepur Jhirka. Nasir was allegedly strangled in Bhiwani before the attackers attempted to destroy evidence by dousing the vehicle and the bodies with petrol and setting them on fire, according to statements made by Bharatpur Range Inspector General Gaurav Srivastava during the investigation.

Forensic analysis later confirmed that the charred remains and blood stains recovered from the burnt SUV—later traced to a cowshed in Jind district—belonged to Junaid and Nasir.

Reports may be read here, here and here.

The criminal case and investigation

The criminal case was registered at the Gopalgarh Police Station based on a complaint filed by Khalid, a relative of the victims. The FIR named Manesar and several others as accused in the abduction and murder of the two men.

The case included charges under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to abduction, abduction with intent to cause grievous hurt, wrongful confinement, and related offences.

During the investigation, police announced a reward of ₹5,000 each for eight suspects and circulated their photographs publicly. Two suspects were subsequently arrested in May 2023 from Dehradun, as per Hindustan Times.

The case also became politically contentious in 2023. At the time, Manesar had gone absconding, triggering a public dispute between the then Congress-led Rajasthan government under Ashok Gehlot and the Haryana government led by Manohar Lal Khattar. Gehlot accused the Haryana Police of failing to cooperate in apprehending the accused, while Haryana authorities in turn registered a case against the Rajasthan Police over jurisdictional issues, as reported by The Indian Express.

Manesar was eventually detained by the Haryana Police in September 2023 in connection with communal violence in Nuh. He was subsequently handed over to Rajasthan Police, who arrested him in the Junaid–Nasir case.

The bail order

A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to Manesar on March 5, 2026.

The court noted several factors while allowing the second bail application. Most prominently, it observed that despite more than two years having passed since the accused’s arrest, not a single witness out of the 74 prosecution witnesses had been examined during the trial, according to The Indian Express.

The judge also took note of the fact that a co-accused, Anil Kumar, had already been granted bail earlier by the Supreme Court of India on January 28, 2026.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court concluded that the prolonged incarceration and slow progress of the trial justified granting bail.

Manesar was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh along with two sureties of ₹50,000 each. The court imposed conditions requiring him to appear before the trial court whenever summoned and to mark his presence at the concerned police station once every three months until the trial concludes.

The order also warned that, given his criminal antecedents, he must not become involved in any other offence while on bail.

Defence and prosecution arguments

Manesar’s legal team, led by advocate Ashvin Garg and others, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case. They contended that he stood on “better footing” than co-accused Anil Kumar, whom they described as the principal accused, while Manesar was alleged only to be part of a conspiracy, reported The Indian Express.

The defence also pointed out that he had been in custody since October 7, 2023, and had already spent more than two years and four months in jail without trial progress. They further submitted that although three criminal cases had previously been registered against him, he had been acquitted in two and granted bail in the third.

Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Vijay Singh and Senior Advocate Syed Shahid Hasan—appearing for the complainant—argued that the gravity of the alleged offences and the evidence collected during the investigation warranted continued detention.

Fear and despair among the victims’ families

The bail decision has deeply distressed the families of the two men killed in the incident.

Jameel Ahmed, a relative of Nasir, said the development had intensified their grief and created anxiety about the safety of witnesses.

“The families are disappointed and panicked with Monu Manesar’s bail. Our sorrow has increased. There is apprehension that they can do something untoward in the future and pressurise our witnesses. There is immense despair,” Ahmed told reporters of The Indian Express.

Family members of the victims have long maintained that Junaid and Nasir were kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered by members associated with the right-wing group Bajrang Dal—an allegation the organisation has denied.

A case that continues to test the justice system

Despite the bail order, the legal proceedings in the Junaid–Nasir case remain ongoing. However, the fact that none of the 74 prosecution witnesses have been examined even after more than two years has drawn attention to the chronic delays that often plague criminal trials in India—particularly in cases involving communal violence and vigilante attacks.

Related:

Monu Manesar, 20 others named in Bhiwani Double Murder: Rajasthan

The poster boy of cow vigilantism, Monu Manesar, is back

Monu Manesar not an accused in Junaid Nasir murder

Haryana Horror: Migrant worker lynched and teenager fatally shot amid rising violence

2024: Cow vigilantism escalates in July and August with rumour-driven raids and violent assaults on Muslim while legal consequences for perpetrators missing?

Anatomy of Violence in the Hitherto peaceful Nuh

Indian minorities must be protected, GOI needs to take steps: IAMC report

The post Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An ASI survey in November 2024 on court orders had triggered a violent clash between locals and police in which four people died of bullet wounds. The court had been hearing a plea by Hindus claiming that the mosque was built by demolishing a Shiva temple during the rule of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. There had been allegations that some of those accompanying the survey team were chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, nettling the area’s minority population.

Several people are still in jail in connection with the violence.

A commission appointed by the Sambhal district court had reportedly said in a report in 2024 that symbols associated with Hinduism had been found at Sambhal’s Shahi Jama Masjid, protected by the ASI since 1920.

Now, in an RTI application, Sambhal resident Satya Prakash Yadav had sought to know whether the Mughal-era mosque was built by demolishing any ruins or on vacant land, along with the name of the landowner at the time and the documents granting ownership rights.

The ASI, in its reply, stated that “no such information is available in this office”. On questions relating to the nature of constructions at the site at the time the mosque came under the ASI’s protection, any subsequent constructions, and past disputes associated with the shrine, the ASI said such information was not available in its records.

However, during the first appeal proceedings before the Central Information Commission, the ASI had said that although no new construction is permitted within a centrally protected monument, an “illegal” steel railing was being erected at the Jama Masjid site in 2018 and that the department had issued orders to stop the work.

The applicant had also asked about the period of construction of the mosque. The ASI replied that according to its records, “Jama Masjid Sambhal was constructed in the year 1526”, and referred to supporting material.

On whether the structure was known by any other name earlier, the department said the mosque has been protected by the ASI under the same name. In response to a query on the present nature of the structure, the ASI stated: “At present, it exists as a mosque.” It further said the Jama Masjid was taken under the protection of the ASI in 1920, citing a gazette notification.

During the hearing before the Central Information Commission, the appellant had argued that key information had been wrongly denied on the ground of non-availability. The ASI maintained that it had provided all information available on record and that it could not be compelled to create or collect information not maintained by it.

Upholding the ASI’s stand, the commission observed that the RTI Act obliges public authorities to disclose only existing records and does not require them to generate fresh information. It cited judicial precedents to underline that a public authority cannot be directed to furnish information not held by it.

Finding no grounds for further intervention, the commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the ASI’s replies — including its statement of having no records on whether the mosque was built over ruins or vacant land — were in accordance with the law.

Sabrangindia has consistently reported on the issue, and its reports may be read here, here and here.

According to Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, the protest on November 24, 2024 was peaceful until CO Anuj Chaudhary responded to concerns with verbal abuse and an unprovoked lathi charge. The police, allegedly led by CO Anuj Chaudhary, responded with verbal abuse, a lathi charge, and then tear gas. As people began to flee, the police escalated, firing live ammunition. Tear gas followed, and then live rounds were fired. The crowd began to disperse, but police pursued them into lanes and homes. Eyewitnesses reported police using slurs, destroying property, and shooting indiscriminately.

Five Muslim men were killed, including a minor:

• Kamran (17), shot in the chest.
• Nasir, Abbas, Basim, and Nabeel—each with fatal injuries, many allegedly from police bullets.

Related:

Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony

Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

The post Sambhal, UP: ASI has no records to prove that Shahi Jama Masjid was built after demolishing earlier structure appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Police said Mohammed Arif, 25, and Syed Imran, 31, were allegedly attacked while they were out for a walk. Deputy police superintendent Madolappa said five suspects were arrested in connection with the assault. “The accused were reportedly under the influence of alcohol,” Madolappa said. Names of the accused have not been released by the authorities.

Unfortunately, the news reports are based only on police sources. HT reports that the police said the incident took communal colour as the Muslim community alleged it was a targeted attack. They cited the complaint filed in the case and said that six to seven assailants made death threats and attacked Arif and Imran with stones, causing head injuries.

Further, the newspaper also reported that the police stated that tensions escalated when protesters gathered outside the station. Some protesters allegedly attacked police personnel, including assistant sub-inspector Mukhtar Patel, and threw stones. “Another case has been registered against 49 Muslim community members for attempting to lay siege to the police station, assaulting Patel, other police staff, and throwing stones,” Madolappa said.

Though the situation was reportedly brought under control thereafter, the original assault on teachers who happened to be Muslim and the motive of the attackers remains a mystery, unreported.

Related:

Why Communal Tension in Tamil Nadu’s Thiruparankundram is Another Warning Signal

Communal Tensions Erupt in Bihar’s Jamui: Alleged stone-pelting during religious procession leads to violence

Attempts to create communal tension reported during Ram Navami celebration in parts of Bengal and UP

The post Bidar, Karnataka: Two school teachers assaulted in Karnataka’s Bidar, triggering communal tensions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Within the country, India, opposition to the US-Israeli war has not only come from left parties, but also mainstream opposition. The Indian National Congress (INC), India’s main opposition party, said in a statement on Sunday, March 1 “The targeted use of force to destabilize the leadership and governing structures of the sovereign state-whether in Iran or earlier in Venezuela-signals a disturbing revival of regime change doctrines and coercive unilateralism.” INC leaders called the Indian government’s failure to issue condemnation against the assassination of Khamenei “shameful and political cowardice.”

Chief of the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP), Sonia Gandhi in a powerfully worded Op-Ed in The Indian Express On Tuesday, March 3, was damning. Titled, Government’s silence on killing of Iran leader is not neutral, it is abdication, the article states, “India has long invoked the ideal of vasudhaiva kutumbakam — the world is one family. That civilisational ethos is not a slogan for ceremonial diplomacy; it implies a commitment to justice, restraint and dialogue, even when doing so is inconvenient.”

Most vocal, in action and deed, have been the left, the Communist parties in India also issued condemnation to Israeli-US aggression and demanded the Indian government to take a proactive stand against the war. Besides, the left parties organized protests in different parts of the country to oppose the Israeli-US aggression against Iran and demanded the Indian state take a clear stand in support of UN Charter and international law. The protesters urged people to “stand against the attack” and express solidarity with the Iranian people.

Shia Muslims take to the streets in protest

Ordinary people, Shia Muslims and masses of people took to the streets in anti-war demonstrations in Srinagar and Kargil in the north, to Hyderabad and Chennai in the south. One of the largest demonstrations was recorded in the northern city of Lucknow, the capital of India’s largest state Uttar Pradesh. The Hindistan Times, The New Indian Express and The Hindu have reported these protests.

On February 28 and March 1, the US and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Tehran in what they called a pre-emptive attack — Operation Epic Fury and Operation Lion’s Roar respectively.

Khamenei was killed at his workplace in the early hours of Sunday, and Iran’s Tasnim News Agency and state television confirmed this. Thereafter, Iran declared 40 days of national mourning and launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes, targeting 27 American military sites according to the IRGC.

Delhi

On Tuesday, March 3, it was the left parties that held a protest at Jantar Mantar against the US-Israel attack on Iran and the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, accusing the Union government of maintaining silence on the issue.

At the protest, Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat said that through the protest they were raising their voice against United States President Donald Trump’s “imperialist bullying” and against “Zionist Israel’s aggression”. Brinda Karat also questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel a day before the strike on Iran.

“Why is Narendra Modi silent regarding Trump’s imperialist aggression towards Iran? Why is he quiet about the attack carried out on Iran? Holding the bloodstained hands of Netanyahu of Israel, he said this is the voice of the people of India. Which people’s voice is this? Did you go to Israel to offer support? Moreover, within 24 hours, there was an attack on Iran. Did you go there to give India’s approval stamp to it?” Karat said. She added that India’s foreign policy is guided by certain principles and that Modi should view foreign relations from the perspective of national sovereignty.

All leaders in the protest have also urged people to express solidarity with Iranians.

“The silence of the government over (U.S. President Donald) Trump’s imperialist hooliganism, the attack on Iran… Why is Narendra Modi quiet,” asked CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat. “He held (Israel Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu’s bloodied hands and said it is the voice of the people of India… How is this the voice of the people? You went to Israel to help a genocide,” she said. Ms. Karat said the attack on Iran came within 24 hours of Prime Minister Modi’s return from Israel. “Did you go there to give a stamp of approval,” she asked.

“We are raising our voices against the bullying of the U.S. and Zionist Israel,” she said, adding that Mr. Modi should look at foreign relations from the perspective of national sovereignty. “You (Mr. Modi) have bowed to Trump, and (are) silent over the issue. This is pro-imperialist foreign policy,” she said.

“We demand that the government of India take steps to stop the war and restore peace… Modi ji was in Israel, the war started after he returned. It is our responsibility to ensure India has no role in this war,” Mr. Bhattacharya said.

He said the war will “impact India” as many Indians work in West Asian countries. “Iran is an ancient civilisation with friendly and cultural relations. This has happened with Palestine, and now with Iran. It is clear Iran is ready to fight back,” he said, adding that the people of India stand with Iran. In the context of Modi’s visit to Israel, he said the Indian government must immediately take steps to stop the war and work towards peace.

“We know that Modi ji went to Israel. He came back and the war started. Therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that there is no partnership with India in this war. In Iran, we saw that the Supreme Leader was assassinated. The Supreme Leader of Iran is not only the leader of Iran but also a religious leader for the Shia community worldwide,” he said. These Left leaders alleged that the United States was “shedding crocodile tears in the name of women”.

“We saw that in Iran, women are fighting for their freedom. In the same Iran, more than 100 girls were killed in a primary school. America and Israel did it. Thousands have lost their lives in the last four days in Iran. This war will have a severe impact on India after Iran, as many Indians work in West Asian countries,” Bhattacharya said.

In Delhi, the Imam of Shia Jama Masjid, Maulana Mohd Ali Mohsin Taqvi, warned of a dangerous new precedent. “Every person in favour of justice and sovereignty of a country is deeply saddened today. The world is about to witness worse days. The President of any country can be abducted; any country’s leadership can be killed with bombs. It was Iran today, tomorrow it may be Türkiye, Saudi Arabia.”

Taqvi described Khamenei as “a simple man and a major scholar of the Islamic world who never bowed in front of the oppressors”, and announced a condolence gathering at the mosque.

The Iranian Embassy in New Delhi lowered its flag to half-mast. The J&K Shia Association stated: “We mourn the martyrdom of the family members of Imam Khamenei. Our prayers are with the Leader and the people of Iran.”

Hyderabad

The CPI-M also held protests at Hyderabad, capital of Telangana against the US-Israel attacks on Iran. On Monday, March 2, the CPI-M organised a protest rally at Sundarayya Vignana Kendra here, condemning the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran. At the protest rally, addressing the gathering, CPI(M) Politburo member B V Raghavulu alleged that the US had turned into an “international terrorist force” by carrying out aggressive actions against several countries. Raising slogans against American imperialism and war hysteria, party activists expressed solidarity with the Iranian people. CPI-M State Secretary John Wesley, also accused the US of destabilising nations, destroying economies and violating international law, citing attacks on Gaza, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. He also criticised the union government for remaining silent on the attacks and questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s stance, calling for intensified protests to pressure the Centre.

Besides, CPI(M) leaders R. Arun Kumar, T. Jyothi, M. Eshwarayya and several state and mass organisation leaders participated in the protest.

Protest rally, mourning over death of Iran’s Khamenei in Hyderabad’s old quarters

Meanwhile, also in Hyderabad, Shiite muslims mourn the death Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a demonstration against US and Israel forces attack on Iran, organized by Tanzeem-e-Jafferi from Mazaar-e-Ibne Khatoon, Purani Haveli, in Hyderabad on Sunday, the very next day after the Us-Israel attacks.

A wave of grief spilt onto the streets of Hyderabad’s old quarters as the news of the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei spread in the morning. By afternoon, summoned by social media messages, hundreds of men, women and children in black turned up near the grave of Ibne Khatoon. Some men wailed as they addressed their gathering, while others shouted “Shahdat, shahadat” (martyrdom, martyrdom); reported The Hindu.

“The U.S. is mistaken if it thinks Iran is finished with this bomb attack. Iran is alive, and we are with Iran. America murdabad,” shouted one speaker as reported by The Hindu. “He is our spiritual leader. That is why there is so much grief. That’s why I have turned up here,” Mujahid, a resident of Dar ul Shifa. The protest in the afternoon was organised by Tandem-e-Jafferi.

Later in the evening, post-Iftaar, there were two similar protests in the locality with hundreds of other protesters and grief-stricken residents marching beating their chest with their right arm. The protest started from Ibadan Khan and culminated near Alawa-e-Sartouq in Darulshifa at 8 p.m..The Dar ul Shifa area is an old quarter with many residents living from the time Hyderabad was designed and built.

The Hindu also recalled how Hyderabad has cultural ties to Iran that go back to the foundation of the city. One of the architects of Hyderabad, Mir Momin, an Iranian emigre, who became the prime mover during the rule of Mohammed Quli Qutb Shah in the 1590s, called the city, ‘Isfahan-e-Nau’ or a new Isfahan, the Iranian city known for its architecture. Incidentally, Iranian city of Isfahan was hit by the American missiles on Saturday.

Kashmir

The Times of India reported on widespread protests in Kashmir against killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei in US‑Israel strike.

In several parts of Kashmir, especially Srinagar, the US-Israel killing of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israel strike, led to widespread protests. Hundreds of demonstrators, particularly from Shia-majority areas, took to the streets, marching peacefully while raising anti-US and anti-Israel slogans, as reported by news agency PTI. Gatherings were seen at Srinagar’s Lal Chowk and the capital’s Saida Kadal area. Protests also were observed at Budgam, Bandipora, Anantnag and Pulwama. In some locations, the police had reportedly used lathi charge against protesters. In Budgam district, hundreds of women and children joined marches shouting slogans against Israel and US.

Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, urged protesters to remain calm and “avoid any actions that could lead to tension or unrest”. Demonstrations were also reported in Sonawari, Bandipora, and Baramulla, where men and women marched peacefully carrying portraits of Khamenei, raising black flags, and leading traditional lamentation processions known as Nauha.

Former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and Kashmir’s chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq also condemned the strikes.

Lucknow, Aligarh, Meerut, Bhopal, Raipur, Ajmer, Ludhiana

In Uttar Pradesh’s Lucknow, protesters chanted slogans against the US and Israel. “They kept deceiving with talks and threatened about war, but our leader did not get afraid and did not bow,” one demonstrator told ANI. “A thousand Khameneis will rise. Trump cannot win easily.”A leader of India’s Shia community leader Syed Samar Kazmi said: “He was killed only because he raised his voice for the killings in Palestine while the world was silent.”

‘Try America in the World Court’

All India Imam Association President Sajid Rashidi demanded international accountability: “America has killed Iran’s Supreme Commander Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They should be tried in the World Court and convicted. America does whatever it wants, whenever it wants.”The Shia community has declared a three-day mourning, during which people will wear black, hoist black flags at their homes and organise special prayers, Abbas added.

In Aligarh, it is reported that a large number of people gathered near the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and held a demonstration against the attack on Khamenei.The protesters, who were joined by many students from the AMU, submitted a memorandum addressed to the president of India, demanding that India express its clear protest against the brutal killing of dozens of schoolchildren in Iran by the US military.

Former AMU student leader Mehboob Alam told reporters, “Ayatollah Khamenei was not only the spiritual leader of the Shia community but also the voice of all those who stood against the imperialist forces posing a serious threat to world peace. His death is a grave loss to humanity.” In western Uttar Pradesh, around 200 km away in Muzaffarnagar, thousands of Shia Muslims marched with Khamenei’s photographs from Kidwai Nagar to Fakharshah Chowk, and submitted a memorandum to the district magistrate addressed to the president of India.

In Meerut, also in western UP, members of the Shia sect, including women and children, staged protests at Abdullahpur, Railway Road, Mansabiya and Zaidi Farm, mourning the killing of Iran’s supreme leader. Prayer meetings were also held at the Imam Bargah Panjetani and Darbar-e-Hussaini in Zaidi Farm.

A similar protest was witnessed in Jhansi, where a large number of Shia Muslims gathered at Masjid-e-Imamiya in Mewatipura to mourn the killing of Khamenei, calling it an attack on world peace. Cleric Haider Zaidi told the media, “Our community opposes any form of oppression. The military action (in Iran) is a form of bullying and against humanity. We will continue to raise our voice in a non-violent manner.” Reports of protests also came from Ambedkar Nagar, Rampur, Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Ghaziabad.

In Bhopal, a mass condolence meeting and protest were held by Shia Muslims to mourn and condemn Khamenei’s death reported The Indian Express. The condolence prayers were held at the Shia Mosque in Bhopal’s Karond area, where Imam Syed Bankar Hussain and prominent religious leader Syed Azhar Hussain Rizwi said Khamenei’s “martyrdom” in the holy month of Ramadan and his contributions to Islam would be remembered. After the meeting, more than 100 members of the community took out a protest march, raising slogans against the United States and Israel.

Punjab, which has a small Muslim population, saw protests and effigies being burnt in Ludhiana. Shahi Imam Maulana Mohammad Usman Rahmani Ludhianvi, who led the protest, demanded that the central government declare a week-long national mourning.Rehmani urged Muslims worldwide to unite against such challenges, terming Khamenei a great martyr and condemning his killing in the strongest terms.

The Shia community in Ajmer also announced the observance of a three day mourning over the killing of Khamenei, said The Indian Express. The announcement was made by Syed Asif Ali, a community leader, who appealed to members of the Shia community to observe mourning and refrain from celebrations during the period. Media reports also said that condolence meetings were also organised at Dargah in Dorai and Taragarh in Ajmer, where members of the community offered prayers and expressed grief over the incident.

Alipur, Karnataka

The most unique form of mourning was reported in Alipura town, 75 km from Bengaluru turned gloomy and declared a three-day mourning. Located in Karnataka’s Chikkaballapur district of Karnataka where Khamenei once visited, observed silence, and shops and commercial establishments voluntarily closed.

Residents of the town, Alipur, located in Karnataka’s Gauribidanur taluk, speaking to The New Indian Express, emphasised the region’s deep spiritual, cultural, and educational ties with Iran. They said the area is also known as ‘Mini Iran’ or ‘Baby Iran’ for boasting a 25,000-strong Shia population. To voice protest against Khamenei’s killing, the residents carried out a march wearing black dresses on Sunday. Some were seen sobbing in grief while holding onto the photo of Khamenei. Also, shops in Alipur shut their shutters to mark their protest. Locals recalled that Khamenei himself visited Alipur in 1981-82 to inaugurate a hospital built with Iranian government support. Many from this town have been to Iran to pursue education, and some are still stranded in Iran. Many locals also run businesses in Tehran. Media reported how the district police deployed additional force and also held meetings with local Muslim community leaders. Chikkaballapur Superintendent of Police Kushal Chouksey visited the village. “The Shia Muslim population is about 90 per cent, and the rest are Hindu families. We have held a meeting with Anjuman-e-Jafaria Committee members. They held a prayer after the procession in which 3,000 people participated. The situation is under control, and the protests were peaceful,” Chouksey told media.

Related:

Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

Israel bombs Iran, targets nuclear facilities, military leaders, scientists; US claims it’s not involved

The post India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his over, one-hour recitation cum talk Naseeruddin Shah introduced the audience to the charm and possibilities of Urdu and recited from many of the greats like Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Mirza Ghalib, Sahir Ludhianvi, Allama Iqbal and Imtiaz Ali Taj. Through narration, reflection and dramatic nuance Naseeruddin Shah revisited an era when literature shaped social thought and human values, celebrating poetry that spoke of love, injustice, hope and collective dreams

The Lectures That Needed to Happen series by Mumbai for Peace provides a platform to deserving lectures and events that are cancelled due to uncalled & non democratic interference by the State or non-state actors. “Mumbai for Peace” is a citizens’ platform formed by concerned Mumbaikars committed to safeguarding the city’s plural character and nurturing communal harmony.

Preet Nagar was a presentation that was scheduled in Mumbai University on February 1 but was unceremoniously cancelled at the last minute with no explanation. Earlier MFP had collaborated with other organisations to hold the Father Stan Swamy Memorial Lecture by Fr. Prem Xalxo that was similarly cancelled

Related:

450+ Citizens from all walks of life stand by Javed Akhtar, Naseeruddin Shah

Why ‘Progressive’ Muslims are wrong in Condemning Naseeruddin Shah’s Anti-Taliban Video

Naseeruddin Shah & backlash for Hijacked Political Narrative of Muslims

The post Censorship Broken: Naseeruddin Shah speaks on the Urdu language at Kalina, Mumbai & recites from its rich poetry appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Official figures spark political firestorm

During Question Hour, former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Bhupesh Baghel sought detailed information on custodial deaths over the preceding 13 months. He asked whether judicial inquiries — mandatory in custodial deaths and guided by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) protocols — had been completed in all cases, as reported by The Hindu.

Responding on behalf of the government, Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma, who also holds the Home portfolio, confirmed that 66 inmates, including convicted prisoners, had died in custody during the specified period. He stated that:

• 18 cases have completed magisterial inquiries, and
• 48 cases remain under investigation.

Sharma assured the House that investigations were being conducted as per procedure and that action would follow if negligence was established.

However, the confirmation of the figures did little to calm tensions.

Opposition alleges overcrowding and healthcare breakdown

Baghel launched a sharp critique of the state’s prison administration, arguing that the figures pointed to a systemic crisis rather than isolated incidents.

According to him, prisons in Chhattisgarh are functioning at approximately 150% of their sanctioned capacity, severely undermining access to medical care and essential services. He questioned how such a high mortality figure could be divorced from structural conditions inside jails.

“How has law and order deteriorated to this extent?” Baghel asked in the House. “How many deaths have occurred in the last year, and what are the reasons?”

He further alleged that serious crimes — including murder, robbery, and extortion — had risen by nearly 35%, contending that rising crime rates coupled with prison overcrowding signal a deeper governance breakdown.

Opposition members argued that overcrowding, stretched medical infrastructure, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms could be contributing to preventable custodial deaths. They demanded immediate structural reforms, urgent strengthening of prison healthcare systems, and independent oversight.

The death of tribal leader Jeevan Thakur

The debate intensified when Baghel raised the case of tribal leader Jeevan Thakur, who died on December 4, 2025, while in judicial custody — a case that has drawn protests across Bastar, as reported by The Hindu.

According to Deputy CM Sharma’s statement in the House:

• Thakur was initially lodged in a jail in Kanker district.
• He was later shifted to a prison in Raipur following a court order.
• After his health deteriorated, he was admitted first to the Raipur district hospital and subsequently to the state-run Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, where he died during treatment.

Sharma said the jail superintendent informed the District Judge as per procedure, following which a committee was constituted to conduct an inquiry.

However, Baghel alleged that Thakur — described as a tribal community leader — had been falsely implicated in a case. He further claimed that Thakur was diabetic and did not receive timely medication or proper medical care in custody. According to the Opposition, there were complaints that medical advice was ignored by prison authorities.

Baghel emphasised that tribal communities in Bastar had staged protests demanding accountability and insisted that a magisterial inquiry was insufficient. He demanded that the matter be investigated by a House committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Sharma declined to comment directly on the demand for a legislative panel but maintained that the ongoing judicial inquiry should be allowed to conclude before further action is considered.

Bedlam, slogans, and walkout

As the exchange grew sharper, Congress MLAs stood up, raised slogans against the government, and disrupted proceedings. The Speaker attempted to restore order, but the protest escalated into a walkout by Opposition members.

The confrontation underscored a broader and recurring national concern: the condition of prisons, compliance with NHRC guidelines in custodial deaths, and the adequacy of medical care for inmates — especially undertrial prisoners and members of vulnerable communities.

Larger questions raised

The controversy raises multiple structural questions:

• Are judicial and magisterial inquiries sufficient safeguards in custodial death cases? Do these institutional checks and balances against state abuse which are available statutorily actually happen?

Judicial and magisterial inquiries into custodial deaths are not optional safeguards — they are statutorily mandated. Under Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate must conduct an inquiry in cases of death, disappearance, or rape in custody, in addition to the regular police investigation. The provision was introduced to address the inherent conflict of interest in police investigating themselves. Its equivalent now exists under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, thereby continuing the mandatory judicial oversight framework. On paper, this creates a layered accountability mechanism: FIR registration, police investigation, post-mortem examination, and independent magisterial inquiry — a structure intended to function as a check against state abuse.

However, the real question is not whether safeguards exist, but whether they operate meaningfully. Magisterial inquiries are often delayed, limited in scope, and heavily reliant on official records; their reports are rarely made public, and prosecutions do not automatically follow. Without transparency, time-bound completion, and clear consequences for negligence or abuse, these inquiries risk becoming procedural formalities rather than substantive accountability tools. The statutory framework under Section 176 CrPC and Section 196 BNSS is therefore institutionally sound in theory, but its effectiveness depends entirely on implementation, independence, and follow-through — without which the promise of checks and balances remains fragile.

• Is overcrowding directly contributing to preventable fatalities?
• Does the state’s prison healthcare infrastructure meet constitutional standards under Article 21 jurisprudence?
• Should legislative oversight mechanisms supplement judicial inquiries in sensitive cases?

While the government has assured procedural compliance and ongoing reforms, the Opposition has framed the 66 deaths not as statistical coincidence but as evidence of systemic strain.

As reported by The Hindu, the matter remains politically charged, with demands for accountability continuing both inside and outside the Assembly.

The numbers — 66 deaths in 13 months — now stand not merely as a legislative disclosure, but as the focal point of a deeper debate about custodial responsibility, institutional capacity, and the state’s duty of care toward those in its custody.

Related:

Counting the Caged: What India’s prison data refuses to see

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

Under trial Prisoners: MHA directs States/UTs to implement section 479 of BNSS

‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional

The post 66 Deaths in 13 Months: Uproar in Chhattisgarh Assembly by opposition over prison conditions and custodial accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per a report in LiveLaw, the Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition on February 23, 2026, held that her continued stay in a detention centre — as opposed to a regular jail — was justified in view of the pending trial and the “present international scenario.” However, the Court directed the State prosecution to conclude the long-pending trial within six months.

The Petition: Bail granted, yet detained

The petitioner, identified in the order as Lima @ Riya Sheikh, a Bangladeshi national, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking multiple reliefs, including:

• Immediate release from what she termed “illegal and unconstitutional detention.”
• Expedited conclusion of the trial.
• Declaration that her continued detention despite bail violated Articles 14 and 21.
• Directions for coordination with the concerned Embassy and authorities for repatriation.
• Compensation and inquiry into alleged unlawful detention.

The case against her arises out of Crime No. 70 of 2020 registered in Indore. She faces charges under the Indian Penal Code — including Sections 346, 347, 323, 364-A, 506 and 34 — as well as under Sections 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act and provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. The allegations include kidnapping for ransom, wrongful confinement, assault, criminal intimidation, and illegal stay in India with forged or invalid travel documents.

Crucially, she had already been granted bail in the criminal case. Yet, she continued to remain confined in a detention centre established within the District Jail premises in Indore.

State’s Stand: Detention under foreigners’ law

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that although bail had been granted, the petitioner could not be released into the general public domain because she is a foreign national whose trial remains pending.

The State relied on provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1948. It submitted that the competent authority — the District Magistrate, Indore — had passed an order permitting her temporary stay in the detention centre until the conclusion of the trial. A letter from the Assistant Police Commissioner, Heera Nagar Zone, Indore, was also produced before the Court.

The Court’s Reasoning: Presence required, safety considered

The Bench refused to grant relief directing her release. It observed:

“It is not in dispute that the trial is still pending and the presence of the petitioner may be required at any time during the trial and considering the present international scenario, it is for her safety to keep her in detention centre.” (Para 4)

The Court emphasised that she was in a detention centre and not in jail, implicitly drawing a distinction between penal incarceration and administrative detention under foreigner-regulation laws.

At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that the trial has remained pending for over six years. Taking note of the delay, the Court directed the State counsel to ensure that the prosecution expedites the trial within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, including by producing witnesses without further delay.

“However, so far for relief No.7(b) is concerned, considering the fact that the trial is pending for more than six years, we observe that the counsel for the State will direct the prosecution agency to expedite the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by producing the witnesses etc. However, if there is no progress in the trial within the aforesaid period, then liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in this regard for expediting the trial.” (Para 4)

If no substantial progress occurs within this period, liberty has been granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again.

A six-year trial and constitutional questions

The order brings into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether a person — particularly a foreign national — can remain in custody through executive detention mechanisms despite being granted bail by a competent court.

The petitioner had argued that prolonged detention after bail amounts to arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While the Court did not expressly engage in an extended constitutional analysis, it effectively upheld the legality of detention under the Foreigners Act framework, prioritising trial presence and “safety” considerations linked to the international context.

The phrase “present international scenario,” though not elaborated upon in the order, appears to have played a persuasive role in the Court’s assessment of risk and prudence.

The final direction

Disposing of the habeas corpus petition, the High Court:

• Refused immediate release from the detention centre.
• Directed the prosecution to conclude the trial within six months.
• Granted liberty to the petitioner to re-approach the Court if the trial does not progress.
• Ordered that a copy of the decision be placed before the concerned trial court.

The matter thus stands at a constitutional crossroads: a foreign national on bail, confined not as a convict but under administrative authority, awaiting a trial that has already spanned six years — with judicial patience now formally limited to six more months.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging

From Permanent Refuge to Perpetual Limbo: Why Sri Lankan Tamil refugees remain without citizenship even as electoral assurances reshape belonging in Bengal

From D-Voter Tagging to Citizenship Declaration: Anowara Khatun’s case before the foreigners’ tribunal

12 Bengali migrant workers murdered in 6 states, Maharashtra tops the crime list

The post Bail Granted, Freedom Denied: Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds detention of Bangladeshi woman citing “international scenario” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per a report in LiveLaw, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury directed issuance of notice to the Union of India, the State of Assam, the Director General of Police, and the Chief Minister. The Bench also issued notice on the prayer for interim relief but declined to pass an immediate restraining order at this stage. The matters are now listed in April, after the Bihu holidays.

Allegation of inaction and “climate of impunity”

The PIL, filed by noted Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain and two others, alleges that despite the existence of publicly available videos of the Chief Minister’s alleged speeches, the Assam Police has not registered a suo-moto FIR.

According to the petitioners, this inaction fosters a “climate of impunity” and produces a chilling effect on minorities. They argue that when statements are made by a constitutional functionary occupying the highest executive office in the State, the threshold of accountability must necessarily be higher.

Earlier in February, the Supreme Court of India had asked petitioners who had directly approached it seeking action against Sarma to move the High Court instead, following which the present proceedings were instituted.

Arguments made before the bench

1. Violation of oath, secularism, and constitutional morality

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the Chief Minister’s speeches reflect a “consistent, continuous, and habitual” pattern of conduct incompatible with his constitutional oath.

Singhvi contended that the alleged remarks violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as well as the Preamble’s commitments to secularism and fraternity. He further invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging that the speeches attracted penal consequences.

Referring to earlier statements allegedly made in 2023 in Chhattisgarh concerning “love jihad” and unlawful religious conversions, Singhvi argued that the Chief Minister’s rhetoric had “pan-India implications.” He criticised what he described as an invocation of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of civil disobedience while targeting a specific community, asserting that such reinterpretation was constitutionally impermissible.

Singhvi concluded by urging the Court to direct registration of an FIR and to restrain further speeches of a similar nature.

2. Alleged remarks targeting ‘Miya Muslims’

Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Dr. Hiren Gohain, submitted that the petitioners had approached the Court with “great anguish,” emphasising that the Chief Minister represents every citizen of the State.

Singh referred to remarks allegedly made since 2023 concerning “Miya Muslims” — a term historically associated with Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam. He cited a February 8, 2024 speech in the Assam Legislative Assembly during discussions on the “Mission Basundhara” scheme, where the Chief Minister allegedly stated that those forcibly converted to Islam during the Mughal period could regain indigenous status by returning to their “original identity.”

He further submitted that references to the “Bangladesh issue” functioned as a “dog whistle,” converting ethnic and linguistic anxieties into religious polarisation.

Among other allegations cited before the Court were statements describing alleged “flood jihad” in relation to flooding in Guwahati and comments referring to certain university architecture as “Mecca-like.” Singh argued that such remarks stigmatise a community and erode constitutional fraternity.

The petitioners also alleged statements concerning deletion of “four to five lakh Miya voters” during special revision of electoral rolls in Assam and remarks allegedly encouraging social and economic harassment of the community. These submissions were presented to demonstrate what counsel described as a pattern of denigration.

3. Reliance on Supreme Court precedents

Counsel relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, which underscored that when hate speech is made by influential persons, police authorities have a duty to act suo motu and not await formal complaints.

Reference was also made to the so-called “Ghooskhor Pandit” film matter, in which Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that public figures holding high constitutional offices must refrain from targeting communities on the basis of religion, caste, language, or region, as such conduct would violate constitutional values. Detailed report may be read here.

Connected Petition: Law and order concerns

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing in a connected matter, argued that a sitting Chief Minister cannot make statements that create a law-and-order situation. She referred to an alleged response by Sarma to remarks made by former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2023 about minority rights in India, submitting that the Chief Minister’s response was dismissive and polarising.

Arora further alleged that statements blaming “Miya” Muslims for rising vegetable prices and demographic projections lacked evidentiary backing and contributed to community stigmatisation. She also cited an incident where the Chief Minister allegedly targeted a journalist’s religious identity during a press interaction.

According to Arora, such statements, when made by the head of the State government, could incite hostility and must be restrained in keeping with constitutional morality.

Reliefs sought in the PIL

The petition seeks:

• Registration of an FIR under Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita;
• Constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT);
• Appointment of a commission chaired by a former High Court judge to monitor the SIT probe;
• A declaration that the Chief Minister has violated his constitutional oath of office.

The petitioners argue that the High Court’s intervention is necessary to dispel the perception that hate speech in Assam operates with “complete impunity.”

Court’s Observations: Notice issued, interim relief deferred

During the hearing, Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar orally remarked that the statements read out before the Court appeared to reflect a “fissiparous tendency”, as reported by LiveLaw. However, when the petitioners pressed for an ad-interim order restraining the Chief Minister from making further statements, the Bench responded:

“At this stage, let notices be issued first. It will be a normal restraint while this petition is pending consideration. Notice for both the main prayers and ad-interim prayers. We will keep it after the Bihu holidays.”

The Court also clarified that issuing notice to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not necessary at this stage.

Next hearing

With notice now issued to the Union, State, DGP, and the Chief Minister, the matter will be taken up in April. The Court has not passed any interim restraining order but indicated that the issue of interim relief will be considered after responses are filed.

Related:

Supreme Court asked to intervene as petitions flag “normalisation of hate” in Assam CM’s public speeches

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

CJM who ordered FIR against police for 2024 Sambhal violence case transferred by Allahabad HC, new trend?

The post Alleged Pattern of Denigration: High Court seeks response from Himanta Biswa Sarma on PIL against his alleged hate speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Next day, today, Friday 27, fourteen of hundreds of protesting students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) were sent to Tihar Jail after the late night brutal lathi charge by the Delhi police, attacking a student protest and long march aimed to march towards the Ministry of Education yesterday. Protesters have been demanding the resignation of Vice Chancellor (VC) JNU Ms Pandit who had made derogative remarks against Dalits and Blacks recently and also the restoration of the UGC Guidelines of 2026.

On Thursday (February 26), Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), along with other student organisations, organised a “long march” from the university to the Ministry of Education in Delhi. Students alleged that soon after their march began, Delhi Police lathi-charged them near the main gate of the campus. They said several students were detained and taken to the Kapashera and Sagarpur police stations. Videos and photographs that surfaced on social media showed that many students, including women, were injured in the police action.

The students’ march began around 3 pm from Sabarmati Dhaba inside the campus. Students joined the rally in large numbers, including members of JNUSU, All India Students’ Association (AISA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF), National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), All India Students’ Federation (AISF) and other student bodies.

You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming

14 JNU students sent to TIHAR JAIL
the state’s cowardice is on full display. They think iron bars break spirit, they are WRONG
​fight against BJP & Shantishri’s casteist regime will only INTENSIFY#JNU #jnusu pic.twitter.com/qJTC3DamOD

— Anjali (@anjali__27) February 27, 2026

जेएनयू में हज़ारों छात्र जब यूजीसी रेगुलेशन के पक्ष में और जातिवादी वाईस चांसलर की बर्खास्तगी की माँग के साथ शिक्षा मंत्रालय की तरफ़ बढ़े।
तब पूरी सरकार में कंपकंपी मच गई। दिल्ली पुलिस ने छात्रों के हाथ से बाबा साहब भीम राव अंबेडकर की तस्वीर छीन ली, हाथों में अपने… pic.twitter.com/2JyjjTrb8m

— Dhananjay (@SathiDhananjay) February 26, 2026

This protest began amid heavy deployment of security forces, including Delhi Police, across the campus. The main gate was completely barricaded to prevent the students from moving forward.

Before the march started, JNUSU president Aditi Mishra had told The Wire: “Our call today was directed at the Ministry of Education. We are demanding that the UGC Equity Regulations be implemented on the lines of the Rohith Act. We are also demanding the resignation of our Vice-Chancellor, Shantisree Dhulipudi Pandit, over her remark that ‘Blacks and Dalits are permanently drugged with victimhood’. We believe such a statement is unacceptable. We are also asking for the restoration of funds [to JNU and other universities], because continuous financial cuts are weakening public universities and affecting students directly.”

She had then added, “What we are seeing instead is a heavy police security presence. The university has been turned into what feels like a cantonment, with barricades placed every few metres, the Rapid Action Force deployed and water cannons and tear gas kept ready. FIRs are being filed against students simply for protesting.”

Despite the heavy police and security force presence and the main gate of the JNU being sealed off, the students remained firm on continuing their march. Around 4 pm, students moved the barricades placed outside the main gate and attempted to proceed with their march. Soon after this, police began detaining students participating in the march. During the process, scuffles broke out between them and the police.

The allegations of brutality included male persons, accused of masquerading as men in uniform assaulting women with pins and other weapons in gendered violence. Hundreds of police, paramilitary and other personnel were brought in to simply “handle a student’s protest.”

It was the obstruction of free movement by the Delhi Police who blocked and locked the JNU gates that began the altercation and thereafter police repression.

Danish, joint secretary, JNUSU, said, “We called for a peaceful march from JNUSU to the Ministry of Education. However, Delhi Police blocked JNU gates, putting locks on them. Around 500 to 700 policemen were deployed with heavy barricading, lathis, tear gas and water cannons. When students broke the locks and marched, the police launched a brutal lathi charge.

“Many students were hurt. Women students were dragged and their clothes torn. They [police] detained at least fifty of us and took us to Kapashera Police Station. Even now, many students, including me, are injured but have not received any first aid. There were also people in civil dress beating students brutally alongside the police. Students are still protesting at the main gate, and the police continue to beat them.”

Dhananjay, former JNUSU President speaks of this police brutality here

On Sunday, 22 February, a “Samta Rally” was organised on the JNU campus to protest against alleged anti-Dalit remarks made by Vice-Chancellor Shantishree Pandit. At the march, students demanded implementation of the new University Grants Commision (UGC) equity guidelines, and asked for the Vice-Chancellor to resign and issue a public apology for her statements.

However, after that march, tensions escalated and clashes broke out between two student groups. Left student organisations and JNUSU members accused members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) offshoot, student body Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), of pelting stones during the confrontation.

On Monday (February 23), the university administration registered a case against JNUSU office bearers over the “Samata Rally” and the alleged violence during the previous night’s protest Thereafter, JNUSU announced another march, and that was the one to be held on 26 February.

The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) also condemned the police action, describing it as brutal use of force against students at the JNU gate.

In a statement issued on today February 26, JNUTA said several students, including women, were injured and many detained, including two JNUSU office bearers. It raised concerns over reports that women detainees were taken to undisclosed locations and alleged that they faced further mistreatment in custody.

JNUTA said the police action appeared to be aimed at preventing students from exercising their democratic right to march to the Ministry of Education, and demanded the immediate release of all detained students, action against the officials involved and the withdrawal of police personnel from the campus gates.

The text of the JNUTA statement issued by Surajit Mazumdar (President) and Meenakshi Sundriyal (Secretary) reads:

“The JNUTA strongly condemns the brutal use of force by the Delhi Police against JNU students and the detention of several of them, including two JNUSU Office bearers. Reports indicate that several students, including women, have been severely injured in the police action at the JNU gate in which even the laws prohibiting male policemen from acting against women were brazenly flouted. The JNUTA is also extremely concerned at the wellbeing of those detained. There are several women among them and they have been taken to unconfirmed locations that are far away from the campus. Reports are also coming of them being subjected to further police beatings while in custody.

The police action today, and they also came armed with weapons, had the sole objective of preventing come what may the students from exercising their democratic right to march to the Ministry of Education. Prohibition of such marches, and then prosecuting those who march, and use of excessive force against them, have become part of the standard routine for the Delhi Police. In the process, it has become an instrument of not law enforcement but of authoritarianism and the curbing of constitutionally guaranteed democratic rights.

The JNUTA knows that the bankrupt JNU Administration led by the VC cannot be expected to discharge its duty as guardian of the students’ interests. After all, it is its own actions that have led to the current situation. The continuing refusal to act against her and even today’s police action, however, raises serious questions about whether her infamous casteist remarks and other actions in fact have the endorsement of the Ministry of Education. Is it that the Ministry did not want to answer the uncomfortable questions it would have had to face from JNU students?

The JNUTA demands immediate release of all the detained students and strict action against the police officials reponsible for transgressing the laws they are themselves bound by while enforcing them. The Police which is still at the campus gates must also leave immediately. We appeal to JNU teachers to remain vigilant and speak up against this violence and onslaught on democracy.”

Just a few days ago former JNUSU President, Dhananjay filed a complaint against the VC with the NCST. This may be read here.

Related:

JNU: Former JNUSU President complains against Vice Chancellor’s casteist & racist remarks

The Double Stage on Campus: Caste, crisis & UGC equity regulations (2026) controversy

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

The post JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed appeared first on SabrangIndia.