The official statement further said that, on average, 143 identified cases were resolved, and 187 criminals convicted each working day, the state government said. “Launched on July 1, 2023, Operation Conviction has proven to be a game-changer, leading to the conviction of 97,158 criminals between July 2023 and mid-June,” ADG prosecution was reported by HT to have Deepesh Juneja said.

Juneja also stated that of the 1,14,029 identified cases, 74,388 cases were disposed of. Under the campaign, 68 accused persons were sentenced to death, 8,172 received life imprisonment, 1,453 were sentenced to over 20 years, and 87,465 were given up to 20 years’ imprisonment. The state government claims that the data showcases this government’s commitment to delivering swift and decisive justice particularly in cases involving serious crimes needs to be closely examined however. To justify these methods the government statement also states that “395 accused were convicted in 272 cases involving the top 10 criminals.” Besides, when it came to crack down on the mafia, 29 of the 69 identified mafias were convicted, reaffirming that the crackdown was not limited to petty offenders, the statement added.

The campaign was stated have also delivered results in cases of crimes against children as reflected from 17 accused being sentenced to death under the POCSO Act which included three such punishments in a month and 619 persons being handed out life imprisonment. Of the 68 death penalties, 17 were under POCSO, 48 for heinous crimes, and the rest in other cases. On average, 143 identified cases were resolved, and 187 criminals convicted each working day, it said.

The post 97,000 persons convicted in UP under ‘operation conviction’: State Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brahmdev Maharaj temple, was also where the Muslim caretaker w lived alone after separating from his family. For more than 35 years, Mohammad has quietly tended to the temple, a place he also called his home. On most days, he has fed animals, cleaned the temple grounds, assisted during aarti, and found quiet moments to pray, yes offer namaz.

However, something he has done for years, the namaz, discreetly offered near a tree on the premises, became a matter of public controversy when someone filmed it — reportedly around two months ago — and uploaded the video online on June 28.Within hours, Ali found himself behind bars for “defiling a place of worship with intent to insult religion”. This act is symptomatic of the street vigilantism encouraged by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) be it in Uttar Pradesh where the incident happened, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat or Maharashtra. Local police also immediately tend to bend to the will of these mobs on the prowl, influenced by the fact that they enjoy political patronage.

In this case, Ali Mohammad had reportedly earlier apologised to some local villagers when questioned about the prayer, and the matter had initially subsided until the clip resurfaced. Paramanand Das told TOI he was taken aback by the arrest of the man who had served the temple faithfully since the days of his late mentor, Radheshyam, in 2002 and promised to personally arrange help for Ali’s bail if his family were unable to do so. “What happened to Ali Mohammad was wrong and unexpected,” Das said, adding that the village panchayat would “punish” the individual responsible for circulating the video. “The unidentified man who slyly shot and posted the video has committed a greater offence than Ali. If the police take our statement, we will support Ali. Humanity is above religion,” he added. However, Das also said, “Whatever he did here was wrong. “Das added that the temple is a place of devotion for people from all faiths. “On Diwali, people of different religions come to offer prayers at the feet of Brahmdev Maharaj. Ali respected every religion, committed no crime, and never harboured any religious hatred. He worked with dignity and respect, maintaining the temple’s sanctity.”Dataganj circle officer K K Tiwari said, “An FIR has been registered against Ali. He has been arrested. Investigation has so far revealed that Ali was living for decades near the Brahmdev Maharaj temple complex. Someone recorded a video of him offering a prayer supposedly near a tree inside the premises and shared it online. Police force was deployed at the temple premises as soon as we received information in this regard.” Ali himself, in a video released by police, seemed utterly bewildered by the stringent charges slapped on him. He said, “The temple is my sanctuary, the place I found peace. I left my family to serve here. I received meals three times a day from the temple, sometimes even clothes. I did not commit any crime – I would not even think of defiling a place that is home for me.”

Related:

Mumbai Walks for Peace | Citizens Unite Against Hate

Pahalgam Attack: Kashmir unites in heroic resilience amid terror attack, proving humanity’s strength against hate narrative

Faith Knows No Religion: Banke Bihari Temple again rejects boycott call against Muslim artisans and businesses

The post ‘What happened to Ali Mohammad was wrong’: UP temple’s Muslim caretaker held for offering namaz; Hindu priest to arrange bail, says he served with dignity for 35 years reports TOI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident reportedly occurredd in the BMC office premises when the official, Additional Commissioner Ratnakar Sahoo, was in the midst of conducting a grievance redressal meeting at his chamber. According to a subsequent police complaint that Sahoo filed, six-seven unknown individuals entered his chambers and aggressively asked whether he had spoken to Jagannath Pradhan, a BJP leader from Bhubaneswar. Sahoo said he responded that he had a telephonic conversation with Pradhan earlier in the day. The group then allegedly started assaulting him without any provocation and demanded that he apologise to Pradhan. Why they wanted him to apologise was not made clear.

“They beat me brutally in full public view with an attempt to murder, in the presence of public representatives, i.e. corporators of the BMC, BMC officers, staff, and citizens. While I was trying to shield myself and plead for mercy, they threatened me and attempted to forcibly drag me into a vehicle, saying that I must come to Jagannath Pradhan and apologise,” Sahoo said in the complaint.

The assailants also allegedly snatched his mobile phone and uploaded scandalous content as his WhatsApp status, he said.

The incident has sparked state-wide outrage, with BMC officials staging a cease-work protest blocking a major road outside the BMC office. They demanded the immediate arrest of the miscreants. There was heavy police deployment within the BMC premises following the incident.

Police sources said they have registered a case and arrested three persons, including BMC corporator Jeevan Rout, in connection with the attack. Police said they were investigating the involvement of other persons.

Pradhan the BJP leader thereafter described the incident as unfortunate and said that he knew two people allegedly involved in the attack. He also said the BJP government would not shield anyone and would take action against all those involved in the assault.

The issue has also triggered a political row, with the Leader of Opposition and former chief minister Naveen Patnaik calling the attack “appalling”. He demanded “immediate and exemplary” action in the matter.

His post on “X” states:

I am utterly shocked seeing this video. “If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the government?” Patnaik asked in a post on X.

Demanding immediate action to restore faith in his government, Patnaik said the government shouldn’t allow heinous acts to go unpunished. “The people of #Odisha will not forgive this,” he said.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated BJP MLA Candidate.

What is more appalling is that this happened in broad daylight, in the heart of the capital city-#Bhubaneswar to a senior officer while he was in his office, hearing grievances of people.

I ask @MohanMOdisha

Ji to take immediate and exemplary action against not only those who perpetrated but more importantly the political leaders who orchestrated and conspired this shameful attack. The people named by the officer in his FIR have behaved like criminals. If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the Government

I only hope that Shri Majhi directs immediate action to be taken to restore faith in his government and not allow this heinous act to go unpunished like the assault on an officer by the ex-Governor’s son. The people of #Odisha will not forgive this.

I am utterly shocked seeing this video.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated… pic.twitter.com/yf7M3dLt9C

— Naveen Patnaik (@Naveen_Odisha) June 30, 2025

The post Odisha: senior Bhubaneswar municipal official assaulted on duty, told to “apologise” to BJP leader appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The opinion of independent experts should be also be taken into consideration by the apex court before it assesses the actual impact of this law on our forest cover, the letter states.

The text of the open letter may be read here:

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India on the Conflict of Interest of the Central  Empowered Committee

Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We have expressed our anguish several times in the past regarding the steady reduction of India’s forest cover, due to changes in certain laws and policies of the government, as well as their actions. What is causing us great concern now is a matter of conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India’s forests even further down the road.

A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted in the year 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was set up for the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on matters of forests and wildlife and to provide technical advice on the subject to the Supreme Court. It consisted of three former officers of the MOEF, and two non-government persons, the first an expert on forests and wildlife and the other an advocate of the Supreme Court who was also an environmentalist. In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest.

In 2023, since Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) seemingly had complete autonomy in choosing the members of the CEC, it nominated in all the four posts of members, four former government officers, three of whom are retired Indian Forest Service officers and one, a retired scientist, who had also worked for many years until his retirement in the MoEFCC. There are no independent experts on the Committee.

Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently.

A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government.

In 2023 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023, as, according to them, the Act would hasten the decline of forests in India, already greatly reduced since a decade or two earlier. In hearings in this case, so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and geo- referenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case). The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court.

However, we fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter.

We would like to point out that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 was prepared and defended before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) by a CEC member then at the helm in the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) 2023 which is being challenged in the Supreme Court, was also notified at that time, as were the rules under the Act and the consolidated guidelines (notified on November 29, 2023 and December 12, 2023.

Similarly, several memoranda that permitted using degraded, notified forests and unclassed/ revenue forests for compensatory afforestation in exchange for diversion of forest land were issued during the tenure of some of the CEC members while they held top positions in the MoEFCC. Such orders are against the Godavarman judgement of 1996, but they were issued nevertheless. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, cannot but be in line with the previous positions held by these officials in the government. The advice of the CEC in any case which challenges the FCAA 2023 (with which they were closely associated while in the government), will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed, and will thus be a clear conflict of interest.

An indication of this is already evident in the recent SC order on ‘zudpi’ forests (scrub forests) of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court’s order of May 5, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC’s advice which recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for ‘compensatory afforestation’ considering ’zudpi’ forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees. Actually, ‘zudpi

forests are scrub forests/grasslands rich in wildlife specifically adapted to such vegetation. ‘Zudpi’ forests support important, endemic and endangered species such as the Indian grey wolf, Great Indian bustard, lesser Florican, Blackbuck, Indian fox etc., besides serving as corridors for tigers, leopards, bears and other wildlife, and helping mitigate human-wildlife conflict in an area severely affected by the same. Diverting of ‘zudpi’ forests for non -forestry purposes is also violative of the Supreme Court’s Godavarman order of 1996 as well as the more recent orders of the Court dated February 3, 2025 and March 3, 2025 in the case against the FCAA 2023, which is still under litigation. It is gratifying to note that the Honourable Supreme Court did not accept the CEC recommendations in toto.

We would like to recommend to the Honourable Court that in order to give fair and unbiased advice, a CEC needs to be composed not just of experts who are retired officials of the government but of renowned experts from outside as well, of which there are many in the country. As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest.

We request the CJI to ensure that such a CEC is not allowed to advise the Honourable Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country’s forests, wildlife and ecological security.

Signatories:

The post Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In response to this contentious backdrop, a key aspect of the newly relaxed rules involves the utilisation of the 2003 Bihar electoral rolls, which comprise 4.96 crore electors. The ECI has now stated that individuals born after 1987 will not be required to provide proof of their parents’ birth if their names, or their parents’ names, appear on these 2003 rolls. This provision is designed to streamline the verification process and alleviate the documentation burden for a significant portion of the electorate.

According to ECI, this provision is expected to simplify the process for approximately 60% of the state’s total electorate. These electors can simply verify their details against the 2003 rolls and submit a filled Enumeration Form. This accessibility of the 2003 data is intended to expedite the revision process for both electors and Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

Using 2003 rolls when names are not listed

The ECI has further clarified that even if an elector’s name is not present in the 2003 Bihar Electoral Roll, they can still use an extract from the 2003 Electoral Roll to substantiate details for their mother or father. In such instances, no other corroborating documents for their parents would be required; the relevant extract or details from the 2003 electoral roll would suffice. However, these electors would still be required to submit their own documents along with the filled Enumeration Form.

The mandate and dynamics of electoral roll revisions

According to ECI, the revision of electoral rolls is a fundamental and statutory exercise, mandated by Section 21(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 25 of the Registration of Elector Rules, 1960. The ECI has routinely conducted both annual intensive and summary revisions for 75 years. This ongoing process is essential because electoral rolls are dynamic, constantly changing due to factors such as deaths, internal migration (for reasons like occupation, education, or marriage), and the addition of new voters who reach the age of 18. The current SIR in Bihar aligns with this continuous effort to maintain accurate and current voter records.

In line with these principles, ECI instructions dated June 24, 2025, stipulate that Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs), District Election Officers (DEOs), and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) must make the Electoral Rolls with a qualifying date of January 1, 2003, freely available to all BLOs in hard copy. Additionally, these rolls are to be accessible online on the ECI’s website for public download and use as documentary evidence during the submission of Enumeration Forms. The ECI’s press note dated June 30, 2025, provides further details.

The ECI’s press noted dated June 30, 2025 can be read here

Commencement and operational aspects of SIR in Bihar

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) officially began in Bihar, as the ECI stated on June 28, 2025, with reports indicating the participation of various political parties. To manage this extensive undertaking, the ECI has deployed 77,895 Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and is in the process of appointing nearly 20,603 more for new polling stations.

According to ECI’s press note (No. ECI/PN/236/2025), over one lakh volunteers are expected to assist electors, with a focus on older individuals, the sick, Persons with Disabilities (PwD), and other vulnerable groups. Recognised National and State Political Parties registered with the ECI have appointed 1,54,977 Booth Level Agents (BLAs, with scope for more appointments). The distribution of new Enumeration Forms (EF) has commenced door-to-door across all 243 Assembly Constituencies of Bihar for the existing 7,89,69,844 electors. Online submission of these forms is also enabled. Of the current electorate, 4.96 crore individuals whose names were on the 2003 electoral roll’s last intensive revision need only verify their details, fill the Enumeration Form, and submit it.

Divisional Commissioners and District Magistrates are engaging BLOs full-time for the SIR, and SMS notifications are being sent to 5,74,07,022 registered mobile numbers in Bihar to raise awareness.

Past revisions and political discourse

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct an Intensive Revision in Bihar, which effectively entails preparing fresh electoral rolls, has ignited considerable political discussion. This initiative has drawn criticism, with the Congress party voicing concerns about the potential for deliberate voter exclusion facilitated by state machinery.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has also weighed in, characterising the move as “more dangerous than NRC (National Register of Citizens)” and suggesting that her state, scheduled for elections next year, could be the actual underlying objective. Such reactions underscore the heightened political sensitivities frequently associated with electoral roll revisions, particularly in states approaching elections.

The Congress, through its empowered action group of leaders and experts (EAGLE), has formally opposed the revision exercise, asserting that it poses a risk of wilful voter exclusion.

In a statement shared by AICC General Secretary (Organisation) KC Venugopal on ‘X’, the party declared its opposition to what it termed the “devious Special Intensive Revision exercise ordered by the ECI for Bihar.” The Congress leaders further indicated that by undertaking such a revision in Bihar and other states, the ECI implicitly acknowledges existing issues with India’s electoral rolls.

Challenges to ECI’s authority and historical precedent

The ECI’s current revision in Bihar has drawn sharp criticism regarding its legal premise and scope. Notably, senior social activist Dr. Pyare Lal Garg has questioned the ECI’s move, contending that it “usurps the powers to test ‘Indian citizenship’,” a function he asserts does not lie with the ECI. Dr. Garg has stated that the latest decision by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is not only “unlawful and hasty” but also “violates the Indian Constitution and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”

Historical records show intensive revisions were conducted in 1952-56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, and 2004. These were however carried out, over the time and duration required and available under law, following due process under both the RPA Act 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Related:

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

Who orchestrated APPs failures, the FM and her ex-FS or the ECI?

VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections

The post Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The directive was passed by Shafeeq Ahmed, Sub-Judge and Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, in response to an application filed by local advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem. As per the report in Bar&Bench, the complainant alleged that the media outlets, in a series of live broadcasts aired in May, wrongly identified Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a religious teacher at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom, one of the most prominent Islamic seminaries in Poonch, as a “notorious Lashkar-e-Tayyeba commander” allegedly involved in the 2019 Pulwama terror attack.

Iqbal, who was killed on May 7 while out purchasing food supplies for his students, was among civilians who died during intense Pakistani shelling along the Line of Control. Despite his clear identity as a local religious figure and civilian casualty, the news channels broadcast his name, photograph, and a fabricated terrorist profile, falsely claiming that he was eliminated by Indian forces in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

The court strongly rebuked the claim made by the Poonch police during the hearing that territorial jurisdiction did not lie with the local court since the broadcast originated from New Delhi. Citing Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Court held that when defamatory consequences occur at a location different from where the act originated, jurisdiction vests in both places. The Court emphasised that the reputational and emotional damage caused by the broadcast was suffered in Poonch, where the deceased lived, worked, and ultimately lost his life.

A case of journalistic irresponsibility and public harm

In scathing observations on the role of the media, the Court declared that the conduct of the news outlets amounted not only to defamation but also to a deliberate and dangerous act of public mischief and incitement. It held that the telecast violated multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including:

• Section 353(2) – Public mischief
• Section 356 – Defamation
• Section 196(1) – Promoting enmity between religious groups

In addition, the Court invoked Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for the dishonest and misleading use of digital media.

While some channels issued public apologies after widespread outrage—including local protests and a J&K police advisory warning of legal action—the Court observed that “An apology may have mitigating value at the stage of sentencing but does not preclude the statutory duty of police to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed,” as per the report of The Wire. It further stressed that the press, while enjoying freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is bound by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), particularly in matters concerning defamation, public order, decency, and communal harmony.

“In the present act, the act of branding a deceased civilian teacher of a local religious seminary as a ‘Pakistani terrorist’ without any verification, particularly during a period of Indo-Pak hostilities cannot be dismissed as a mere journalistic lapse,” the court said, according to The Wire report.

Media conduct under scrutiny

The court emphasised that press freedom is not a license to defame, mislead, or cause harm. Media organisations, especially those with national reach, are constitutionally and ethically bound to ensure accuracy, fairness, and verification in their reporting—particularly in conflict zones like Jammu and Kashmir. The order noted that the coverage caused immense distress to the bereaved family, tarnished the reputation of the seminary, and inflamed religious sentiments within the local Muslim community.

The Station House Officer (SHO), Poonch Police Station, has been directed to register an FIR against the accused news networks and their editorial staff within seven days, and to submit a compliance and progress report to the court. The SHO has also been instructed to conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation, with a copy of the order being forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Poonch for supervisory monitoring.

Public outrage and CJP complaint

The misleading reportage drew widespread condemnation from the local community in Poonch, many of whom personally knew Qari Iqbal and described him as a humble and well-regarded religious educator. Protests erupted after the false broadcast, prompting a rare advisory from the J&K police warning news channels against “unverified and inflammatory” reporting that disrespects the dead and incites communal tension.

In a related development, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had also filed a detailed complaint with the broadcasting channels, on May 14, 2025, for broadcasting false and defamatory content during its coverage of Operation Sindoor. The complaint focused on News18’s segment aired on May 7, which falsely claimed that Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a religious scholar from Poonch, was a “top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander” killed in an Indian airstrike.

The broadcast, titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal | India-Pak War”, referred to Iqbal—who had no criminal record or militant ties—as a “most-wanted terrorist” allegedly neutralised during military operations. CJP called the segment a gross act of defamation and dangerous communal profiling, especially given that the deceased was in fact a civilian teacher who had died in cross-border shelling.

In its complaint, CJP submitted verifiable evidence contradicting the false narrative, including public clarifications by the Poonch police, testimony from Iqbal’s family, and fact-checks from independent media outlets. The organisation pointed out that Iqbal was a teacher at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom, a respected religious seminary in Jammu & Kashmir, and had no links to terrorism. His image, originally shared in a condolence message by the seminary’s administration, was misused by the channel in its coverage.

CJP cited the May 10, 2025 Alt News fact-check titled “His name was Qari Mohammad Iqbal. He was not a terrorist”, which established that the claims made by News18 were factually incorrect and defamatory. The fact-check also traced the image to social media tributes shared by family members, including Iqbal’s brother Qari Mohammad Farookh and brother-in-law Ishaq Khayan, who condemned the false reporting as a traumatic assault on the dignity of the deceased and his grieving family.

Calling the coverage an egregious example of Islamophobic misreporting, CJP demanded a formal on-air correction, public apology, and removal of the defamatory content from all digital platforms. The group noted that such broadcasts, made during a period of heightened Indo-Pak tensions, were not only unethical but posed serious risks to communal harmony, public order, and social trust.

CJP has also filed related complaints against five other national broadcasters—Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV—for airing outdated foreign footage, falsely depicting it as real-time coverage of Indian military action under Operation Sindoor, thereby spreading misinformation and manufacturing a war narrative. Detailed report of the same may be read here.

Related:

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Poonch Court orders FIR against Zee News, News18 for falsely labelling deceased teacher as “Pakistani terrorist” during Operation Sindoor coverage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi’s judgment in Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Odisha marks a strong judicial stand against the rise of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities act in haste, often with impunity, demolishing property without observing due process or waiting for judicial outcomes. The Court described the demolition not as an administrative misstep but as an act of executive aggression conducted “while the law was still at work.”

“This is not a procedural misstep. It reflects a troubling pattern, where the machinery of the State appears to act not in aid of the law, but in anticipation of avoiding its outcome. The space between a matter being heard and a decision being delivered is not an empty procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work. The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act.” (Para 12)

Factual Matrix: A community centre razed in defiance of judicial orders

The case concerned a community structure (Gosthigruha) situated on 0.05 acres of grazing land (gochar) in Balipur, Athagarh, Cuttack district. Though classified as Rakhita Anabadi land under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act), the structure had existed in some form since 1985, repaired after the 1999 cyclone, and reconstructed between 2016 and 2018 using public funds from the “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.

For over three decades, the structure was actively used for public welfare activities—yoga camps, health check-ups, awareness campaigns, and outreach programmes. The State itself had funded the structure, and no recorded objection had ever been raised by authorities prior to 2024.

In July 2024, eviction proceedings were initiated under the OPLE Act. Petitioners challenged these proceedings before the High Court, which disposed of the petitions on August 16, 2024, directing them to apply for settlement under Section 8A of the Act. When this application was rejected on flimsy grounds—including lack of registration and documentary gaps—the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector and simultaneously sought judicial protection.

On November 29, 2024, the Orissa High Court ordered that no eviction was to take place during the pendency of the appeal. A fresh eviction notice was nevertheless issued on December 5, 2024. The Court reiterated its protective order on December 13, 2024, restraining demolition until the appellate process concluded.

In open defiance of this, demolition was carried out the very next morning, on December 14, less than 18 hours after the Sub-Collector concluded the appeal hearing and reserved the order (at 4 PM), and just an hour after a demolition notice was suddenly affixed (at 5:15 PM).

Observations of the Court

“A deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was underway”: Justice Panigrahi’s ruling is remarkable for its constitutional clarity, moral tone, and emphasis on institutional accountability. The Court concluded that:

“What makes the episode all the more concerning is not merely the breach of procedural safeguards, but the deeper disregard to constitutional process and institutional boundaries. The demolition did not occur in a moment of administrative necessity. It was not the outcome of a duly completed adjudicatory process. It was carried out while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the appellate authority having reserved its decision. No final order had been pronounced.” (Para 11)

The Court noted that the executive had ample knowledge of pending judicial directions. The demolition, it held, was executed not just in violation of legal mandates but with the intent to frustrate judicial scrutiny. This conduct, the Court declared, not only breached the rule of law but constituted a direct assault on the very architecture of constitutional governance.

Condemnation of “Bulldozer Justice”: The Court also expressed concern about what it termed an emerging pattern of “bulldozer justice”—the use of demolition as a tool of state power without regard to legality, process, or proportionality.

“The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice”, where executive power, backed by machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one. It is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. In a system governed by law, force must follow reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law.” (Para 25)

The judgment emphasised that in a constitutional democracy, force must follow reason, not precede it. The failure to uphold judicial restraint not only violated the rule of law but “demolished the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through confrontation but through courts.”

Violation of Supreme Court directives in “Demolition of Structures” case: The Court applied the binding procedural safeguards issued by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No.295/2022, decided on November 13, 2024. Those directives, issued under Article 142, mandate that:

1. A 15-day show cause notice must precede any demolition.
2. A reasoned order must explain why demolition is necessary.
3. Appellate remedies must be meaningfully available.
4. The act must be video-graphed and documented.
5. All orders must be uploaded to a public portal.

In this case, none of these were followed. The Court held in its order that:

“The binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (Supra), are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, did not request compliance. It imposed it. These directives must be treated not as peripheral suggestions but as minimum constitutional thresholds. The failure to issue a 15-day show cause notice, the absence of a reasoned order, the denial of appellate remedy, and the lack of video documentation are not merely checklist oversights. They are compound violations that nullify the very idea of lawful governance. A Tahasildar who chooses to discard these procedural obligations in favour of expediency does not act on behalf of the State, he acts against it.” (Para 21)

Article 300-A as a shield, not an ornament: The Court grounded its reasoning in the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A, holding that:

“What is even more troubling is that the consequences of such executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are deeply human. Law is not merely a tool to regulate action; it is also a shield against arbitrary force. When the State fails to pause where law requires stillness, it is not only the structure that is lost, but the trust of those whose rights depend on the process being fair and complete. This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not through judicial determination, but through executive fiat.” (Para 14)

It drew upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in:

• N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Both judgments affirmed that property rights cannot be extinguished except by due process and statutory sanction.

Justice Panigrahi added:

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

Decision of the Court

Responsibility and public trust- Tahasildar held personally liable: The Court did not stop at abstract condemnation. It fixed personal accountability upon the Tahasildar who directed the demolition, observing that:

“The office of the Tahasildar is not a mere administrative post. It is a position that carries the weight of constitutional responsibility, particularly when it comes to enforcing the law at the ground level. To act in a manner that anticipates and potentially frustrates the outcome of pending legal proceedings is a serious breach of duty. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the demolition was carried out not in compliance with the law, but in disregard of it, and such conduct undermines both the authority of the judiciary and the legitimacy of public administration.” (Para 20)

In a rare move signalling judicial intolerance for contemptuous state action, the High Court ordered:

• ₹10,00,000 in compensation, with ₹2,00,000 to be recovered from the Tahasildar;
• Departmental proceedings to be initiated against him;
• A copy of the judgment to be placed before the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary;
• Immediate framing and dissemination of detailed guidelines to all revenue and municipal officers, incorporating the directives of the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.

The Court further cited Delhi Airtech Services v. State of U.P. (2011) to underscore the doctrine of public accountability:

“Public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions… Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair.” (Para 24)

In a particularly important passage, it warned that arbitrary State action destroys the public’s faith in democratic institutions. This, the Court declared, was one such case—not just of wrongful demolition but of civic injury and institutional failure:

“What this judgment makes clear is that public power carries with it a continuing duty of care. The law is not self-executing. It depends on officers who are expected to act with fairness, honesty and within the limits of their legal authority. The doctrine of public trust is not a decorative ideal. It is a binding obligation that requires those in office to treat their role as a public responsibility. When decisions are taken in haste, or authority is used without proper justification, the consequences are not merely administrative. They touch the core of democratic governance. The rule of law is sustained not only by enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost quickly. When it breaks, the harm is not always visible, but it runs deep. It affects not just the immediate parties but the public’s confidence in institutions. This Court has a duty to uphold both the legal framework and the public belief that the law is a shield, not a weapon.” (Para 24)

He stressed that the use of force before judicial finality undermines not just legal rights, but public trust in the constitutional order.

Conclusion: Law must prevail over expediency

Through this judgment that will likely reverberate through cases of arbitrary demolitions across India, the Orissa High Court reminded the executive that constitutional governance is not a choice—it is an obligation.

In allowing the writ petition and disposing of the contempt petition, the High Court has made a critical intervention in defence of constitutional order, judicial supremacy, and citizen dignity.

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

By grounding its decision not only in statutory and procedural norms but in the civic ethos of constitutionalism, the Court made clear that the real damage caused by “bulldozer justice” is not to buildings alone—but to public trust in the rule of law.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

Bulldozer Justice: SC orders Rs 25 Lakhs interim Compensation for illegal demolition by UP Govt in 2019

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

2022: A year when Bulldozer became a ‘lawful’ means of punishment

The post “Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 24, a bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran issued notice in Jaynab Bibi’s special leave petition challenging the High Court’s decision dated February 17, 2025. The Court directed that no coercive action, including deportation, shall be taken against the petitioner in the meantime.

“Issue notice returnable on 25.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for respondent(s). In the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be deported and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.”

Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Challenging Tribunal’s “mechanical” declaration

Jaynab Bibi, who asserts Indian citizenship by birth, contends that she was born and raised in Muamari village, Nagaon district, Assam. As per a report in LiveLaw, in her petition, Jaynab Bibi detailed a comprehensive set of documentary evidence to establish her familial lineage — including the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), electoral rolls from 1965, 1970, 1989, 1997, 2016, and 2018, jamabandi records, and certificates issued by local Gaon Panchayat authorities and the Gaonburah (village headman).

However, the Foreigners Tribunal, in a brief two-page order dated May 20, 2017, had dismissed this evidence. It cited inconsistencies in names and depositions, particularly pointing to the fact that neither the petitioner nor her mother mentioned the petitioner’s uncle during their testimonies. The Tribunal also discredited the Gaonburah certificate that attempted to explain the variation between the names “Kasom Ali” and “Abul Kasem” as referring to the same individual, the petitioner’s father.

Gauhati HC upheld Tribunal’s finding

Despite the extensive documentation provided, the Gauhati High Court found the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. According to the petition, the High Court ruled that her mother’s oral testimony alone was insufficient to establish her paternal linkage. It also faulted the petitioner for not clarifying the name discrepancy between “Kasom Ali” and “Abul Kasem” in her written pleadings or testimony, noting that the Gaonburah’s explanation, in the absence of corroborating evidence, was inadequate.

The High Court further held that certain certificates produced by the petitioner bore the State Emblem and were thus inadmissible, and that key foundational facts were missing from her written statement. Citing various precedents, it emphasised the importance of laying out all essential facts in the written statement before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed her writ petition and revoked the interim protection she had been enjoying, allowing the consequences of the Tribunal’s declaration to take effect.

Directions of the Supreme Court

In its order dated June 24, 2025, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive steps, including deportation, be taken against Jaynab Bibi until further orders. While issuing notice returnable on August 25, 2025, the bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran permitted the petitioner’s counsel to serve a copy of the petition to the standing counsel for the respondents. The Court’s interim direction effectively stays the operation of the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration and the Gauhati High Court’s judgment, offering immediate protection to the petitioner amid growing national concerns about arbitrary and opaque deportation practices in Assam.

Supreme Court’s earlier concern over arbitrary process

In her plea, as per the LiveLaw report, Jaynab Bibi has relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (order dated July 11, 2024), where the Court raised strong concerns about the opaque and often arbitrary processes by which people in Assam are suspected and declared foreigners. The Court in that case had held that mere suspicion cannot justify initiation of proceedings under the Foreigners Act, and that reference-making authorities must disclose the basis for suspecting a person’s nationality. Detailed analysis of the said judgment may be read here.

The complete order may be read below.

Context: Growing national attention to Assam’s deportation practices

The case comes against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over Assam’s approach to suspected foreigners, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. On February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court pulled up the Assam government for the prolonged detention of declared foreigners and directed prompt initiation of deportation proceedings.

Subsequently, the state informed the apex court in March that 13 out of 63 Bangladeshi nationals lodged at the Matia transit camp had been deported.

Since the month of May, concerns grew over reports of Assam authorities “pushing back” individuals, allegedly including Indian citizens, across the Bangladesh border without due legal process or individual determinations of nationality. In response, the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU) approached the Supreme Court, filing a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of this policy. The petition claimed that the deportations were being carried out without Tribunal declarations or nationality verification.

However, on June 2, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the ABMSU’s plea and asked the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court instead. Around the same time, the Court admitted a separate plea filed by a son on behalf of his mother, who was allegedly detained without due process.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has publicly defended the state’s “push back” operations, stating in the assembly that more than 330 individuals had been expelled under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 — a colonial-era law which allows district commissioners to issue deportation orders without the need for a judicial proceeding.

CJP’s legal battle against post-bail detentions and deportations

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been spearheading a series of petitions before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the sudden re-detention and suspected deportation of individuals who were earlier granted bail during the COVID-19 pandemic under court-issued guidelines. These individuals, all declared foreigners by Tribunals, were released under relaxed bail conditions to decongest detention centres and have, for years, complied with strict weekly or fortnightly police reporting requirements.

Despite this, CJP has documented several cases where persons were abruptly picked up by Assam police in late May and early June 2025. For instance, in the case of Mozida Begum v. Union of India, the High Court had been hearing a plea concerning the re-detention of Hachinur (also known as Hasinur), who was detained from Goalpara despite complying with all bail conditions since 2020. Hasinur was granted bail by the High Court after the Bench took strong exception to the re-arrest, especially given that the 2021 bail order was never cancelled. The Bench observed in its order that: “Since bail had been granted to the son of the petitioner on 7/6/2021, the subsequent detention becomes expressly illegal” and “It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute.” (Details of the case may be read here.)

In another matter for which CJP is providing legal aid, namely Bakkar Ali v. Union of India, the petitioner alleges that his father, Samsul Ali, who was also out on bail, was reportedly handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and later found unconscious near the international border in Bijni, raising fears of an attempted illegal deportation. (Details of the case may be read here.)

CJP’s petitions argue that these actions violate Article 21 of the Constitution and constitute a breach of bail orders that were never revoked by any competent court. In court, CJP has highlighted that no fresh show cause notices, tribunal orders, or deportation proceedings were initiated before taking such coercive action. In multiple hearings, the High Court has taken serious note of the allegations, and in some cases, such as that of Majibur Rehman, represented by his wife Reijya Khatun, and Abdul Sheikh, represented by his son Sanidul Sheikh, the bench has sought detailed responses from the Assam government. (Details of the said cases may be read here, here and here.)

These proceedings also come amid wider concerns about Assam’s alleged “push back” policy, which involves the informal expulsion of suspected foreigners, sometimes without even the minimal safeguards of a tribunal declaration or nationality verification. CJP’s filings urge the High Court to reaffirm that bail granted during COVID-19, particularly in the absence of a deportation treaty with Bangladesh, cannot be overridden through unilateral executive action, and that such deportations, if carried out, must comply with both domestic and international legal obligations.

Related:

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the detainee, taking note of the prolonged lapse of time since the impugned order dated November 20, 2019. The Court expressed its intent to first ascertain the present status of the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu state authorities before any further steps are taken.

The petitioner, who has been in India for nine years (three in prison and six in the Trichy Special Camp), approached the apex court after the Madras High Court, in December 2024, rejected his plea for permission to visit the Swiss Embassy. According to his counsel, Senior Advocate Jayant Muth Raj, the petitioner fears for his life if deported to Sri Lanka, having lost several family members, including his father, brother, and sister-in-law, in targeted killings during and after the war.

“Don’t deport me… all my family members have been eliminated… I am not a threat to India… If Switzerland is willing to give me a humanitarian visa, I will go there instead of getting killed in Sri Lanka,” Muth Raj submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as per a report in LiveLaw. He also informed the bench that the Swiss Embassy had asked the petitioner to appear in person to complete visa formalities, and that the petitioner was willing to bear the cost of a security escort to facilitate his visit.

The petitioner had earlier faced charges in a human trafficking case, but was acquitted in 2019. Despite this, he continues to remain in administrative detention under the shadow of a deportation order.

When Justice Viswanathan asked why the matter needed to be listed during partial working days, counsel emphasised the urgency of the situation and detailed the brutal executions faced by the petitioner’s family members even after the war had ended. He argued that returning the petitioner to Sri Lanka would amount to a death sentence.

In view of these submissions, and given that the deportation order is over five years old, the Court granted an interim stay on deportation and directed the authorities to respond. The matter will next be heard on August 4, 2025.

“The petitioner challenges an order dated 20.11.2019 directing his deportation. It is nearly six years since the said order is made. Also a prayer is made to permit him to physically appear at Switzerland Embassy to process his Visa application.” (Para 4)

“Considering the fact that the deportation order is about five years and six months old, we would like to ascertain the present status from respondent No.2 – State. In the meantime, the deportation of the petitioner is stayed.” (Para 5)

The June 24 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.

Earlier SC bench refused relief: “India is not a Dharamshala,” Said Justice Datta while rejecting Tamil refugee’s plea

In sharp contrast to the June 24 order passed by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, a different bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, had in May refused to grant relief to another Sri Lankan Tamil national who had sought protection from deportation after completing his sentence under the UAPA.

During the hearing, which took place on May 19, Justice Datta made strong oral observations, questioning the very premise of allowing such individuals to remain in India:
“Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore people. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”

According to the report in LiveLaw, the petitioner had argued that he was blacklisted in Sri Lanka due to his alleged association with the LTTE during the 2009 war, and feared arrest, torture or worse if sent back. He also pointed out that he had already served his reduced seven-year sentence and was languishing in detention without any concrete deportation process. His wife and children were residing in India, and his son was suffering from a congenital heart condition.

But the bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, showed no inclination to intervene. Justice Datta questioned the petitioner’s very right to seek protection under Indian constitutional law: “What is your right to settle here?” As per the report in LiveLaw, Justice Datta added that the right to reside or settle in India under Article 19 is available only to Indian citizens and asserted that there was no violation of Article 21 since the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed following due process of law.

When counsel highlighted the genuine threat to life in Sri Lanka, Justice Datta curtly remarked:
“Go to some other country.”

No interim protection was granted. The Court refused to stay the Madras High Court’s direction that the petitioner must leave India immediately after completing his sentence and remain confined to a refugee camp until his deportation.

This unyielding posture sits uneasily beside the more humanitarian approach taken by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, and exposes the deep inconsistencies in how refugee protection is being adjudicated in India’s highest court. 

The May 19 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.

Related:

Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default

Gauhati HC seeks report on detained Abdul Sheikh’s weekly police appearances in compliance with bail conditions

J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process

Gauhati HC Orders Verification of compliance with Bail Conditions in petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband

The post Contradictory Calls: SC halts one Tamil refugee’s deportation, denies another citing ‘not a Dharamshala’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Health Rights Alliance, All India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), pan-Indian initiatives of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) made a collective effort to mobilize solidarity for the serious public health situation in the strife-torn state and drew the attention of Hon’ble Droupadi Murmu, as the state is currently under President’s rule. The detailed letter signed by several prominent activists from across India seeks immediate intervention of the President to ensure effective public health infrastructure, personnel, services with safety and appropriate budgetary allocation in the valley, hills and relief camps across Manipur. The key demands are below. 

Acknowledging the fact that Manipur has a longer history of sporadic violence, the letter says that the conflict since 2023 has critically undermined its framework of essential services, in particular, the education and healthcare system. Damaged hospitals and clinics have halted necessary health services and drained supplies. Threats to health workers’ safety have created severe staffing shortages in key areas. The violence has displaced thousands, forcing them into overcrowded ‘relief’ camps with poor sanitation and limited medical care, heightening the risk of disease outbreaks. Already fragile, the healthcare system is now overwhelmed, exposing systemic failures in crisis response and infrastructure resilience. Women, children, students, elders have disproportionately faced the impacts of the violence.

 The signatories have highlighted that ensuring universal health rights is essential in order to achieve a fair, just and lasting peace in the battered region. In the current situation, essential health services remain severely disrupted in many parts of Manipur, both due to the ongoing crisis and due to the skewed distribution of health infrastructure in the state. While most of the services are concentrated in Imphal, the rest of the districts suffer from lack of basic infrastructure like hospitals, staff and services in the existing hospitals. 

Some of the signatories to the petition include well-known health rights activists like Dr. Vandana Prasad, Dr. Veena Shatrugna, Dr. Mira Shiva, Dr. Sylvia Karpagam, Dr. Ritu Priya, Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, Dr. Mohan Rao, Dr. Narendra Gupta, Dr. Swathi SB, Dr. Randall Sequeira, Dr Fuad Halim, Dr. Ekbal, Akhila Vasan, Indraneel etc. Some of the lawyers who endorsed the petition include: Adv Albertina, Adv Grijesh, Adv Vanaja, Adv Rema, Adv Shubham, Adv Afsar Jahan, Adv Mrinalini, Adv Shakeel, Adv Taniya, Adv Shalu Nigam, Adv Shadab, Adv Mini Mathew, Adv Seilenmang Haokip, Adv Joicy Milun Zou, Adv Sukumaran etc.

Feminist and social activists who signed the petition include Kalyani Menon Sen, Hechin Haokip, Suneetha Achyutha, Nalini Nayak, John Dayal, Ammu Abraham, Anand Mathew, Manshi Asher, Nisha Biswas, Dr. Bittu, Prof. Indranee Dutta, Koninika Ray, Dr. Sagari Ramdas, Anita Cheria, SR Darapuri, Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Soumya Dutta, Usmangani Sherasiya, Sujata Gothoskar, J Devika, Narbinder, Prasad Chacko, Anuradha Banerji, Meera Sanghamitra and many others.

The signatories have placed the following 10 demands before the President that require both immediate attention as well as systemic action:

1. A Special Task Force headed by an official with powers equivalent to a cabinet secretary must be immediately constituted, with special funds, to investigate the public health situation at hand in Manipur, within a fixed timeline of 2 months. Based on the recommendations of the Task Force, the government should plan and implement the necessary measures for strengthening public health across Manipur. 
2. Convene a committee of unbiased public health experts from the region, to discuss how the aforesaid plans can be carried out efficiently, considering the social, political and cultural histories and complexities of the region. 
3. Urgent filling up of vacant posts and recruitment of nurses, doctors and other medical staff in all the public health centres and hospitals. 
4. Centre must allocate additional funds, even though Manipur spends somewhat more than some other states on health care. Given how frequently the state has undergone violent conflicts, extra funds and adequate budgetary allocations are crucial. 
5. There must be effective inter-sectoral coordination between the home, disaster management, health, food and civil supplies, women and child welfare and social welfare departments to make sure that the rights and entitlements of the most vulnerable citizens and social groups, including tribal, indigenous communities, elders, women, children, persons with disabilities, workers, students, religious minorities, transgender, queer persons etc. is taken care of. 
6. Ensure advance preparedness for the onset of monsoon and disease outbreak both in the villages and relief camps. 
7. Ensure that there is no discrimination in health services on the basis of gender, religion and ethnicity.
8. Setting up effective and decentralized health infrastructure in as many districts of Manipur as possible, within a fixed time frame. Most immediately, setting up of functional community health centres in Lamka, especially in Tuibuang and Sangaikot areas.
9. Strengthen the public health infrastructure, stop privatization of district hospitals, regulate corporate and private healthcare, ensure availability of quality medicines free of cost and include mental health services at all primary healthcare centres along with universal health care in the public health system. 
10. Eventually, the state government must bring a comprehensive law for the Right to Health of all citizens, to address all health-related concerns.  

The letter calls for proactive action by the Centre and state government and a strong political will to implement the aforesaid demands. The signatories also urged the President to visit Manipur at the earliest, interact with and understand the situation of all communities first hand, in the hills, valley and relief camps and intervene effectively to ensure the right to health, right to life, right to safety and dignity of the people of Manipur.

Related:

Manipur tensions escalate over free movement policy: Kuki-Zo resistance and government crackdown

Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest

Supreme Court seeks forensic report on audio recordings alleging Manipur CM’s role in ethnic violence

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

The post Manipur Violence: Two years down, health rights activists demand restoration and spread of essential services all over state appeared first on SabrangIndia.