Neither the government nor the Commission has answered this question.

Without conducting any proper study on illegal migration, how and why are they undertaking a potentially harmful exercise such as the SIR? Even the Supreme Court, while examining the constitutional validity of the SIR, unfortunately did not ask this fundamental question.

Thus, three-fourths of the SIR process was ‘completed’ without any respect for due process or empirical foundation whatsoever. After as many as 75 million Indians had already been pushed out of the electoral rolls, the Modi government, on May 26—just a day before the Supreme Court was due to deliver its verdict in the SIR matter —constituted a “High-Level Committee on Demographic Change” under the chairmanship of retired Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naik.

A close look at the committee’s composition, its members, and its terms of reference makes it abundantly clear that this is, yet another, carefully plotted political-bureaucratic plot designed to perpetuate the harassment of Indian Muslims. First, as Justice Prakash himself has reportedly admitted, he possesses no expertise whatsoever in this subject. He was also not informed in advance about the assignment.

Second, the other members of the committee include a retired bureaucrat, Durga Shankar Mishra; a retired police officer, Balaji Srivastava; and Shamika Ravi, an economic adviser to the Prime Minister. This is the same scholar who recently dismissed concerns about the rupee falling to 100 against the dollar by saying that it is “just a number.” Shamika also has the unique distinction of being the daughter of none less than former Tamil Nadu governor, R.N.Ravi, notorious for his attacks on federalism in that state. So critical has Ravi been to the services of the New Delhi regime that, in March 2026, he was transferred as the governor of West Bengal where he oversaw not just the notorious SIR but also the recently concluded ‘elections’ to the State Assembly!

Most strikingly, in a committee specifically constituted to study demographic change, there is not a single expert on the subject, demography. Every member appears to have been selected for political allegiance and loyalty rather than for any recognised expertise in population studies.

The terms of reference assigned to the committee raise even more serious concerns. Notably, the committee has not even been asked to investigate whether there is, in fact, any large-scale and systematic illegal migration into India from neighbouring countries.

Terms of Reference Designed to Officialise Propaganda

Instead of first establishing whether such large-scale, organised, and malicious illegal migration is actually taking place, the committee has already proceeded on the assumption that it is. The questions it has been asked to study include:

i) To comprehensively deliberate upon the challenges arising from demographic changes, including illegal immigration.

ii) To study the possible causes of such demographic changes, such as cross-border activities (including illegal immigration), economic opportunities, and other socio-environmental factors.

iii) To identify the underlying factors behind these changes, which include illegal immigration, abnormal settlement patterns, and orchestrated migration

iv) To analyse structural population changes at the level of religious or social communities, particularly where they deviate from broader trends.

v) To recommend a streamlined and permanent operational mechanism for the legal, fair, and time-bound identification, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants already residing in the country.

vi) To recommend an appropriate institutional mechanism to strengthen border management, population stabilization, and identification systems for the continuous monitoring of such trends.

The committee has been instructed to study these issues and submit its report and recommendations within one year.

Thus, it is clear that the Modi government’s agenda effectively treats as established facts several partisan and communal claims that the RSS and the BJP have long propagated regarding demographic change in India. These include:

• That the Muslim population in India is growing disproportionately, not only because Muslims allegedly do not practise population control, but also because of illegal migration from Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries.
• That this demographic growth is part of a deliberate project to reduce the proportion of Hindus and eventually transform India into a Muslim-majority nation.
• That this constitutes an international conspiracy in which Indian Muslims are complicit, making the entire Muslim community suspect. The only way to defeat this conspiracy, according to this narrative, is to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra.

A careful reading of the committee’s terms of reference makes it clear that it has been constituted primarily to validate these long-standing falsehoods and lend official legitimacy to a campaign of communal polarisation.

This propaganda has already succeeded in fostering a deeply anti-Muslim and fascistic social mind-set across large sections of the country. That is why, even when large numbers of Hindus lacking proper documentation are themselves being excluded through exercises such as the SIR, a narrative is being constructed that Modi is protecting Hindus from Muslims. As a result, poor Hindus are being persuaded to support policies that ultimately harm their own interests.

Economic Refugees or Illegal Conspirators?

Viewed in perspective, although both the Congress and the BJP have governed this country over the past seventy-seven years, it is unlikely that illegal migration into India has ever occurred on the scale of millions. At most, it may have involved thousands or perhaps lakhs of people entering the country in search of livelihoods.

Moreover, since around 2005, Bangladesh has recorded rapid economic progress, particularly in sectors such as ready-made garment exports. In fact, its per capita income has, at times, marginally surpassed that of India. As a result, illegal migration from Bangladesh into India has declined significantly.

This is precisely why neither the Election Commission nor the Modi government is willing to answer a simple question: in the states where the SIR exercise has already been completed, including Bihar and West Bengal, how many illegal migrants were actually identified through the process? Was it hundreds, thousands, or lakhs? No answer has been forthcoming. The Supreme Court, too, has not pressed the Commission on this question.

Meanwhile, reports over the past two weeks indicate that the BJP governments in West Bengal and Gujarat have identified around three to four thousand impoverished Bangladeshi nationals who were either overstaying their visas or residing in India without proper documentation. This is not fundamentally different from the thousands of Indians who attempt to enter the United States illegally every year in search of economic opportunities and are subsequently detained.

When Indian Hindus migrate illegally to the United States in significant numbers, they are not doing so as part of a demographic invasion aimed at altering America’s racial composition or taking over the country. By the same logic, the few thousand undocumented workers who may have migrated from Bangladesh to India are economic refugees in search of survival, not conspirators engaged in a grand political project.

Yet the purpose of the “Committee on Demographic Change” appears to be precisely to brand Muslims as perpetual illegals, keep them under a constant cloud of suspicion, and reduce them to a condition of permanent insecurity and uncertainty.

In reality, neither illegal migration by foreign Muslims nor the growth of India’s Muslim population poses the demographic challenge facing the country.

India’s population challenge lies elsewhere entirely. By deploying fascistic political strategies and manufactured fears, the Modi government is obscuring the real issues confronting the nation.

The Myth of Muslim Population Growth

If the BJP were to think about the interests of the country, even once, rather than viewing every issue through the prism of partisan advantage, a few realities would become immediately apparent:

• India is not facing a population explosion.
• Population growth is not the primary cause of poverty in India. On the contrary, India’s large youth population presents a historic opportunity for rapid economic growth.
• The rate of growth of the Muslim population has been declining sharply over the past two decades, and in fact has been falling faster than the growth rate of the Hindu population.

These facts are clearly borne out by the third, fourth, and fifth rounds of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), conducted under the aegis of the Government of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as well as by the population census reports of 1991, 2001, and 2011.

India’s Population Growth Rate Is Declining

One of the biggest myths surrounding India’s demographic situation is that because India has one of the largest populations in the world, its population growth rate is spiralling out of control and therefore requires urgent and stringent intervention.

The reality is precisely the opposite. India’s population growth rate is steadily and healthily declining, not increasing.

The most widely used measure for assessing population growth is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). TFR refers to the average number of children a woman is expected to give birth to during her reproductive years, generally between the ages of 15 and 49.

At the time of Independence, India’s TFR stood at approximately 5.9. In other words, an average Indian woman gave birth to nearly six children during her lifetime. Had that trend continued unchecked, India’s population today could have reached 2.5 to 3 billion people.

However, from the very beginning, India placed considerable emphasis on family welfare programmes, awareness campaigns, access to contraception, and reproductive health services. Wherever awareness increased, healthcare became accessible, and women gained greater educational and economic empowerment, fertility rates began to decline rapidly.

According to the 2015–16 National Family Health Survey, India’s average TFR had fallen to 2.3. Compared to 1951, this represents a decline of well over fifty per cent in the rate of population growth.

Women’s Empowerment, Not Coercive Laws, Drives Fertility Decline

Apart from the excesses associated with forced sterilisation during the Emergency, India’s family planning programme has largely relied on persuasion, access to healthcare services, and women’s empowerment rather than coercive legal measures.

This is not unique to India. Across the world, every successful population stabilisation programme has followed the same path. At the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994, India reaffirmed its commitment to this rights-based approach.

The variation in fertility rates across Indian states further reinforces this conclusion.

According to the 2015–16 NFHS, while India’s average TFR stood at 2.3, relatively developed states such as Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Gujarat recorded fertility rates of only 1.7 to 1.8—well below the national average.

In stark contrast, Bihar recorded a TFR of 3.4 and Uttar Pradesh 2.7, both substantially above the national average. The difference is not difficult to understand. States with lower fertility rates generally exhibit higher levels of female literacy, educational attainment, women’s participation in public life, and overall socio-economic development.

Indeed, the fertility rate among Hindus in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is higher than the fertility rate among Muslims in many southern states. In other words, Muslim women in the southern states are, on average, having fewer children than Hindu women in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

That is precisely why the phrase “Development is the Best Contraceptive” has become a widely accepted principle across the world. Development reduces fertility rates far more effectively than punitive laws ever can.

Equally important is the finding of the 2020–21 National Family Health Survey that 54 per cent of Indian women have only two children, while 76 per cent of women married during the past decade have expressed no desire to have a second child.

The implication is clear. When women are empowered to make decisions about their own bodies and reproductive lives, and when families become more democratic and egalitarian, population growth declines naturally without the need for coercion or state-imposed restrictions.

Muslim Population Growth Is Declining Faster Than Hindu Population Growth

Another important fact revealed by the National Family Health Surveys is that, over the past three decades, the fertility rate among Muslims has been declining faster than that among Hindus.

According to the third round of the NFHS conducted in 2005–06, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) among Hindus stood at 2.59, while the corresponding figure for Muslims was 3.4.

A decade later, according to the fourth round of the NFHS, the Hindu TFR had fallen from 2.59 to 2.13—a decline of 0.46 points.

During the same period, the Muslim TFR fell from 3.4 to 2.61—a decline of 0.79 points.

In other words, although the Muslim fertility rate remains higher than the Hindu fertility rate, it has been declining much more rapidly over the past decade. Consequently, the rate of Muslim population growth has also been falling significantly faster than the corresponding rate among Hindus.

In 2005, the gap between Muslim and Hindu fertility rates stood at 0.81. By 2015, that gap had narrowed to just 0.4. If this trend continues, the difference between Hindu and Muslim fertility rates is likely to become negligible within the next decade.

Equally significant is the fact that fertility rates among Muslims have been falling most rapidly in states with substantial Muslim populations, including Kerala, Assam, West Bengal, and Jammu & Kashmir.

The government’s own demographic data therefore establishes three important conclusions:

• India’s population growth rate is declining in a healthy and sustainable manner.
• The rate of Muslim population growth is declining far more rapidly than is commonly portrayed in public discourse.
• Wherever socio-economic development has advanced, fertility rates have declined across all communities, irrespective of whether they are Hindu or Muslim.

The logical conclusion is straightforward. If the government is genuinely concerned about population stabilisation, its focus should be on education, employment, healthcare, family welfare programmes, access to reproductive health services, and above all, women’s empowerment.

The Real Challenge Is Not Population Growth—It Is Population Decline

In fact, both the NFHS findings and demographic research from around the world point to a very different concern. The challenge confronting many societies today is not unchecked population growth, but declining population growth.

According to a study published in The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, India’s population, currently around 1.4 billion, may continue to grow and reach approximately 1.6 billion by 2048. However, because fertility rates are steadily declining, India’s population is projected to begin shrinking after that point.

By the end of the century, India’s population is expected to decline substantially.

Even more significant than the overall decline in numbers is the changing age structure of the population. The proportion of elderly citizens is expected to rise sharply, while the share of the working-age population will steadily decrease.

This will have profound economic consequences. A smaller workforce will be required to support a much larger elderly population. Governments will face growing pressure to provide pensions, healthcare, and social security, while economies may increasingly depend on migration and labour inflows from younger populations elsewhere.

These are the demographic challenges that demand serious attention.

The issue before India is not an imaginary population explosion. The real question is how to create productive employment opportunities for the country’s vast youth population and harness this demographic advantage while it still exists.

At the same time, policymakers must begin preparing for the economic, political, and social consequences of an ageing society that will emerge over the coming decades.

Instead of confronting these real challenges, communal fearmongering and demographic myths are being used to divert public attention from the issues that genuinely matter.

Related:

Three Years of the Congress Government

Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR?

Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !!

The post High-Level Committee on Demographic Change (HLC-DC): Another Offensive on Indian Muslims! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, Reddy was not completely off the mark in how he was indeed referring to the Nazis, in one way. The comic-book organisation Hydra is shown to have links with Nazi Germany and is associated with characters including Baron Wolfgang von Strucker, a former Nazi officer. This fictional construction matches CM Reddy’s description of an elite squad that could “assassinate anyone”. Hitler’s actual state-terror apparatus and paramilitary organisations consisted primarily of the SS (Schutzstaffel), the Gestapo (Secret State Police), and the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units).

In actual World War 2 history, the use of the word ‘Hydra’ was for Operation Hydra, a 1943 bombing raid carried out by the British Royal Air Force against a German rocket research facility.

Reddy comments spark fury

The remarks by Reddy were made during a public event in Bengaluru on Sunday. He was asked about the success and methods of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), a specialised task force established in July 2024 to clear illegal encroachments from the city’s lakes, parks, and storm water channels.

While defending the agency’s aggressive demolition drives, Reddy provided an explanation for its name. “Hydra, the word, is Hitler’s favourite word. His core team was called Hydra, which could assassinate anyone. So, I took inspiration from Hitler and named it HYDRAA,” the CM stated, mixing up history with movies.

He further justified the scale of the demolitions by drawing parallels to war zones: “I have demolished like anything. If you see the visuals from Iran, you can compare them with Israel or any such demolitions caused by war, and compare them with these demolitions carried out by HYDRAA.” Israel recently flattened the Palestinian territory of Gaza after its military actions killed over 60,000 people there — an action CM Reddy’s party Congress has pointedly criticised, while the BJP-led NDA government has also called for peace in the region.

As for Reddy’s HYDRAA, it was established in 2024 and is headed by an IPS officer. It is the designated Telangana government agency responsible for protecting government assets, lakes, and public land in Hyderabad from encroachments, as well as managing urban disaster response.

The CM’s comments drew severe criticism from all ‘opposition parties’ including the ruling BJP regime, who seized on the invocation of the German dictator and war-zone destruction to condemn the Congress-led state government’s governance style. Union minister G Kishan Reddy, who is the BJP’s Secunderabad MP, said the Congress’s “dangerous Hitler-Emergency mind-set” was “out in the open.” Reddy’s remarks are particularly ironic given the fact that the BJP, and its parent ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have open admiration for the ideology of both Hitler and Mussolini.

Read The Ideology of the RSS is both Hate-Driven & Supremacist here.

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) also launched a scathing attack, describing Revanth Reddy as the “new Hitler”.  Worse, the party that gave birth to the Telanga state after years of agitation alleged that the homes of lakhs of poor and middle-class people have been demolished under his administration. The state government says HYDRAA has successfully reclaimed land worth over ₹1 lakh crore from “wealthy” encroachers alone.

Working president of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) K.T. Rama Rao has criticised Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy for his comments linking HYDRAA’s functioning to the actions of German dictator Adolf Hitler, adding that the statement reveals the ideological foundation behind the Congress Government’s demolition-driven governance model.

Reacting to the remarks made at The Hindu Huddle in Bengaluru, Mr. Rama Rao alleged that the Chief Minister’s comments had exposed his authoritarian and fascist mind-set. Hitler is clearly Mr. Revanth Reddy’s inspiration. HYDRAA reflects a style of governance that glorifies force, intimidation and demolitions. The people of Telangana have experienced these authoritarian tendencies first-hand and now the Chief Minister has openly acknowledged the inspiration behind them,” KTR remarked.

Alleging that the HYDRAA (Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency) established by the Congress Government was functioning like an “assassination agency”, the BRS leader said Telangana people were aware of CM’s “authoritarian nature”.

Related:

Why is Adolf Hitler Hindutva’s chosen mascot in India?

Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP

Rebuild or Compensate: Nagpur HC confronts NMC over ‘bulldozer’ demolition in riot case

The post Telangana: A Congress Chief Minister inspired by Hitler; justifying forcible evictions & demolitions? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 6, Saturday, when a huge concentration of media attention was on the “Cockroach” gathering at Jantar Mantar, the IYC President , Uday Bhanu Chib, led thousands in a protest in Haryana. Protesters faced water cannons and even barricades and police lathis, demonstrating a vibrant protest, again ignored by ‘mainstream’ media.

Cockroaches from Congress in Haryana. pic.twitter.com/lYsm6d4csW

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) June 6, 2026

IYC and NSUI launched district and state-wide protests all over the country following the May 3 NEET UG (Undergraduate) cancellation that left hundreds of thousands of students in distress and limbo, some even taking their own lives.

It is not a coincidence that a day earlier, on May 15, 2026 a controversial remark by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, during a hearing on fraudulent degrees when he criticised the behaviour of “unemployed youths, journalists and activists comparing them to “cockroaches” led to widespread outrage. The very next day not only did the Youth Congress launch its large protest in the capital, but a young Indian, living in Boston, Abhijeet Dipke gave the call for the launch of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) that resonated among the young!

The NEET UG (Undergraduate) 2026 examination was held on May 3 across 551 Indian cities and 14 international locations for over 22 lakh candidates. It was subsequently cancelled on May 12 following allegations of an orchestrated paper leak. The examination has now been rescheduled for June 21 with improved security arrangements. At least seven student suicides linked to the NEET-UG 2026 examination were reported in May alone, highlighting the intense psychological pressure faced by candidates. The distress has been attributed to the sudden cancellation of the exam and ongoing uncertainty over a re-test, against the backdrop of widespread paper leak allegations impacting over 2.2 million aspirants.

Senior Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi said the party would continue to press for accountability. Speaking after a protest in New Delhi, he called for “a secure and transparent system” to prevent future leaks. Politically, Congress has mobilised protests across several states through its student wing, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), and the Indian Youth Congress (IYC). Demonstrations have included marches, candlelight vigils and symbolic protests, with leaders alleging that the issue reflects deeper institutional failures. Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib who was even detained and jailed by the Delhi police on instructions of the Modi government in February 2026, has been leading from the front: he has referred to reports of student distress and suicides, calling for greater accountability from the government. In February 2026, Uday Bhan Chib, who hails from Jammu had led shirtless protests against the Modi government for the national shame that arose out of the AI international summit especially related to the showcasing of a Chinese innovation by a an Indian commercial university as “Indian.” This time round, NSUI president Vinod Jakhar led protests in multiple cities, including Hyderabad and in Guwahati in Assam, where he been detained by police.

जब लाखों युवा सड़क पर हों, 22 लाख बच्चों का भविष्य दांव पर हो और PM चुप हो – तो सरकार जवाब देने नहीं, बचने में लगी है।

जब तक धर्मेंद्र प्रधान का इस्तीफा नहीं होता और NEET जैसे पेपर लीक रोकने के लिए foolproof सिस्टम नहीं बनता – हम रुकेंगे नहीं।pic.twitter.com/6KrhfUqDkL

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) May 24, 2026

This uproar over the NEET paper leak followed by the institutional scams within the National testing agency (NTA) also attracted parliamentary scrutiny. On May 21, National Testing Agency (NTA) Director General Abhishek Singh was summoned to appear before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports to discuss the paper leak investigation and possible examination reforms. Committee members expressed serious concern regarding weaknesses in the examination process, including computer-based testing infrastructure, exam frequency, and institutional accountability. Officials informed the panel that a CBI probe is ongoing to identify vulnerabilities and reinforce the system. Committee Chairman and senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh remarked that all Committee members were “very concerned” about the matters discussed.

Beyond street mobilisations, the Congress has mounted an aggressive media and social media campaign. Over weeks from mid-May 2026 onwards, party leaders have repeatedly raised the issue in press briefings, accusing the Modi government of failing to protect the interests of students and job aspirants. Leader of the Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi has personally met students affected by the NEET paper leak and those who have raised concerns over the CBSE evaluation system. Senior leaders and party units are regularly posting on social media demanding Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.

A question that deserves to be asked.

Over the last several weeks, NSUI has organised protest after protest on issues directly affecting students and young people, NEET paper leaks, examination irregularities, CBSE evaluation controversies, and accountability from the Education… pic.twitter.com/Z60EUtYyvz

— Maanmohan Singh Pahujaa (@msgpahujaa) June 6, 2026

Reuters  reported on May 16 itself that the Delhi Police detained Indian Youth Congress party supporters protesting against Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan regarding the NEET paper leak and the statements made by him concerning students at near Teen Murti Circle, on May 16, 2026 in New Delhi, India. Holding posters, banners and party flags, IYC activists took out a protest march from Teen Murti Circle towards the education minister’s residence before they were stopped by police barricades. The protesters alleged that repeated paper leaks had shaken the confidence of students and exposed serious lapses in the country’s examination system.

Livemint, Millenium Post  also covered the May 16 protests reporting that several members, including IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib, were detained during the protest. The protesting Youth Congress alleged that the education system had “collapsed” under the BJP-led NDA government.

At a separate protest in Bengaluru, Congress general secretary Randeep Surjewala criticised the government’s handling of the examination system, alleging administrative failures. The demonstration was attended by Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and other state leaders.

अब “परीक्षा पर चर्चा” बंद कर PM को “पेपर लीक पर चर्चा” करनी चाहिये ।

सच ये की देश में शिक्षा और परीक्षा को अब “एजुकेशन माफिया” चला रहा है ।

NEET परीक्षा लीक पर कल फ्रीडम पार्क, बेंगलुरु में युवा कांग्रेस द्वारा आयोजित रैली में श्री @siddaramaiah व श्री @UdayBhanuIYC के साथ pic.twitter.com/ulyjD0cElr

— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) May 22, 2026

IYC अध्यक्ष श्री @UdayBhanuIYC जी ने बेंगलुरु में NEET पेपर लीक के खिलाफ जोरदार विरोध प्रदर्शन का नेतृत्व किया।

युवा कांग्रेस ने छात्रों के भविष्य के साथ हुए इस खिलवाड़ के लिए धर्मेंद्र प्रधान को बर्खास्त करने और NTA को बैन करने की मांग उठाई।

बेंगलुरु pic.twitter.com/R6BfygWB6A

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) May 21, 2026

Though Congress has taken a lead, the controversy has drawn responses from other opposition parties as well. In West Bengal, leaders from the Trinamool Congress joined protests calling for a court-monitored investigation. Party MP Sagarika Ghose criticised the Centre’s response to the issue.

In Bihar, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav said the leak allegations pointed to what he described as an “organised network,” a claim the government has not commented on.

आइए #NEETPaperLeak के विरुद्ध #प्रतिरोध_मार्च का हिस्सा बनें!
आइए इस भाजपा की LEAK तंत्र का #पुतला_दहन करें और #StudentJustice के लिए लड़ें!

जागरूक नागरिक का फर्ज अदा करें, युवाओं के लिए खड़े होकर देश के भविष्य के साथ हो रहे भ्रष्टाचार का विरोध करें! pic.twitter.com/3q2nNCmloJ

— Rashtriya Janata Dal (@RJDforIndia) May 20, 2026

Meanwhile, youth organisations linked to regional parties, including the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, have also held demonstrations.

On May 24, Newsmill reported that members of the Tamil Nadu Youth Congress organised a protest march towards Lok Bhavan in Chennai on May 24, condemning the alleged leak of the NEET UG 2026 examination paper and calling for the abolition of the national medical entrance test, which they claim favours affluent students.

Real Cockroaches in Tamil Nadu are fighting for the youth of this country with one clear demand, #SackPradhan

This is the kind of resistance India needs. Glimpses from IYC’s Rajbhavan March in Chennai.

Register as Cockroach: https://t.co/PPJUWeR7LX pic.twitter.com/nree8NlVYf

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) May 24, 2026

At that protest, the Indian Youth Congress National Secretary Joshua Gerard led the demonstration and criticised the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), citing repeated paper leaks and systemic inequality. He stated, “Every year, 22-24 lakhs youngsters write the NEET exam and in the last 12 years, more than 5 times that papers have been leaked. We strongly condemn this, and we demand that NEET exams be banned across India. It is against poor people…the tuition centres charge around Rs 1-2 lakh every year. NEET ensures that only rich people can become doctors in this country.” Gerard further warned of escalated protests if the examination is not banned, saying, “If it is not banned, we will organise gheraos across every assembly in India.”

The protest occurred amid widespread anger over the NEET UG 2026 paper leak. On the same day, May 24, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi placed accused Shubham Khairnar in judicial custody until June 6, following his presentation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) earlier that day.

May 13, May 21

The Hindu and The New Indian Express reported on protests by the IYC first on May 13 in Kalaburagi and thereafter in Bengaluru on May 21.

In the first protest, members of the Youth Congress Unit, condemned the irregularities in the NEET-UG examination, members of the Youth Congress unit staged a protest outside the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Kalaburagi on Wednesday criticising the National Testing Agency (NTA) over the question paper leak and demanding its abolition. The protesters burnt tyres, displayed placards and raised slogans against the Union government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the conduct of national-level examinations.

Addressing the protesters, Kalaburagi District Youth Congress president Shakeel Ahmed Saradagi stated that repeated controversies surrounding the NEET-UG examination have undermined the credibility of the country’s examination system causing anxiety among lakhs of students aspiring to pursue medical education. Drawing attention to the scandal and controversy surrounding the 2024 NEET-UG examination and the fresh paper leak in 2026, he said that the paper leak has recurred for the second time in three years, accusing the NTA of repeatedly failing to conduct examinations transparently and securely, thereby compromising the interests of honest students.

Mr. Saradagi pointed out that such, repeated and systemic irregularities in centralised examinations are recurring because of the growing commercialisation of education and demanded that the Union government dissolve the NTA and establish a more accountable and transparent mechanism for conducting competitive examinations.

The protesters said that repeated paper leaks and examination irregularities have eroded public trust in the examination process and cautioned that such lapses can seriously undermine the faith of students in the country’s education system.

In Bengaluru, on May 21, twelve days later, a march to Lok Nayak Bhawan was organised. Addressing the media national general secretary Nigam Bhandary alleged that during the BJP-led NDA tenure at the Centre, the question paper was leaked 89 times, adding to the misery of the students. Speaking to the media before the protest, national general secretary Nigam Bhandary alleged that during the BJP-led NDA tenure at the Centre, the question paper was leaked 89 times, adding to the misery of the students. “The Centre has pushed the students into an inferno, as four students had committed suicide. The paper leaks have happened only in states ruled by the BJP,” he alleged.

May 29

Even on May 29, the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) organised demonstrations across several states, with youth leaders leading mashal juloos (torchlight marches) and protest rallies in multiple cities. IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib was present at a protest campaign from Goa on 29 May. The agitation then continued, and is still continuing in Mumbai, Maharashtra, Telangana, Assam, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Chandigarh and Punjab before concluding in Tamil Nadu on June 20. The NSUI has simultaneously been conducting protests and student outreach programmes across major cities and state capitals.

Live: Halla Bol – Mashal Morcha by Youth Congress in Pune. #SackPradhan https://t.co/yZFSAvhag1

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) May 31, 2026

हर ज़ोर-ज़ुल्म की टक्कर में…
संघर्ष हमारा नारा है @VinodJakharIN के नेतृत्व में @nsui सड़क पर भयंकर संघर्ष कर रही है,
Student Community के लिए पुलिस की लाठियां खा रही है !

गोदी मीडिया पुलिस से Permission मांगने नालों की Press Conference दिखा रही है !

NSUI ज़िंदाबाद pic.twitter.com/CdUlo30gD6

— Dr. Ragini Nayak (@NayakRagini) June 4, 2026

June 2

On June 2, Youth Congress protests took place outside Lok Bhavan in Ranchi, Jharkand over NEET-UG paper leak. The Youth Congress members congregated near Lok Bhavan and raised slogans against the BJP government at the Centre reported PTI.  Protesters alleged that irregularities in examinations have increased manifold under the BJP regime. After the NEET “paper leak”, mismanagement was found in the examination conducted by the CBSE, they claimed.

लीक प्रधान की बर्खास्तगी की मांग को लेकर झारखंड राजभवन के बाहर पहुंचे Indian Youth Cockroaches

जब तक प्रधान की बर्खास्तगी नही होती, तब तक ये सड़कें हम सूनी नही होने देंगे… pic.twitter.com/4luYSZ1r3B

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) June 2, 2026

“In the last 10 years, there have been 89 incidents of paper leaks in the country, and re-examinations took place 48 times. It is very shameful,” Jharkhand Youth Congress President Kumar Gaurav told reporters. He claimed that the paper leak affected students and many of them committed suicide, causing distress to their families.

“We demand justice for the families who lost their sons or daughters. But the BJP government remains silent on this. The Youth Congress demands the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan,” he said. Gaurav also announced that if their demand was not considered, they will intensify the protest and stage demonstrations outside the houses of BJP MPs and MLAs in Jharkhand.

झारखंड यूथ कांग्रेस ने NEET में धांधली और पेपर लीक के खिलाफ राजभवन के सामने जमकर नारेबाजी और विरोध प्रदर्शन किया.
देखिए रांची से संवाददाता सत्यजीत कुमार की ये रिपोर्ट

#JharkhandYouthCongress #NEET #NEETPaperLeak #YouthCongress #Ranchi #ReporterDiary | @satyajeetAT pic.twitter.com/hlBsiCj4Vk

— AajTak (@aajtak) June 2, 2026

The same day, June 2, a protest march, titled “Yuva Aakrosh Morcha,” was organised by Mumbai Youth Congress president Zeenat Shabrin and led by Youth Congress national president Uday Bhanu Chib, reported Mid-Day. This protest, in Dadar, Central Mumbai –starting from the symbolic Chaityabhoomi and culminating at the Shivaji Park was also against alleged paper leaks and examination irregularities in NEET and CBSE exams, demanding accountability and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The march was halted midway and several protesters detained. Reported the Mid-day.

मुंबई की सड़कों पर आज देश का युवा न्याय मांग रहा था..
लेकिन पेपर लीक के जिम्मेदार धर्मेंद्र प्रधान क्या कर रहे हैं?
CBSE अधिकारियों के तबादले कर अपनी कुर्सी बचाने की कोशिश!

मोदी जी, एक मंत्री को बचाने के लिए आखिर कितने अधिकारियों की बलि दी जाएगी?

आज युवा कांग्रेस के ‘युवा… pic.twitter.com/V3nY3sdOg1

— Uday Bhanu Chib (@UdayBhanuIYC) June 2, 2026

Senior Congress leaders, including Congress Working Committee member and former minister Naseem Khan, MLA Bhai Jagtap, and AICC secretary Sachin Sawant, participated in the protest, along with hundreds of students, youth workers, and party activists.

June 4

Two days later, in another corner of the country, capital of the north-eastern state of Assam, Guwahati saw protests on the same issue. Assam Pradesh Youth Congress (APYC) president and MLA Zubair Anam Mazumder was allegedly manhandled by the police during a protest outside Rajiv Bhawan there over alleged “systemic failures”, “repeated paper leaks”, and “widespread mismanagement” plaguing major national examinations, including NEET and CBSE. The Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib joined APYC during the protest to demand justice and accountability for students. Here too, the protesters demanded the resignation of the Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan, alleging that paper leaks and scandals in crucial exams happened during his tenure like never before. The protest was led by Mazumder, and vice-presidents Rakesh Chakraborty, among others. “The immaturity and incompetence of the BJP government and the education minister have repeatedly exposed their lack of accountability towards students,” Chakraborty said. During the protest, Mazumder was allegedly manhandled by the police, while an effigy of Pradhan was burned. Chakravarty warned that if such irregularities and negligence towards students’ futures continue, the protests will intensify.
They alleged that certain coaching centres grew with the support of the BJP government, as well as intermediaries and organised groups, who were interfering in these exams, affecting the education of millions of students. The alleged relationship between the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the BJP was criticised for jeopardizing students’ futures.

The Economic Times reported on June 3 the announcements by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) has announced plans to intensify its nationwide agitation over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations and renewed its demand for the removal of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

पहले तस्वीरें देखिए, फिर मोदी मीडिया..

आज किसी चैनल ने दिखाया क्या..? pic.twitter.com/IMvIArjdvH

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) June 7, 2026

The youth wing of the Congress said on that date it would launch a fresh phase of protests across several states, including torchlight marches, student outreach programmes, demonstrations and gheraos, alleging that repeated examination controversies have undermined students’ faith in the education system. According to an official statement, IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib will visit multiple states to lead the campaign, which is scheduled to cover Maharashtra, Telangana, Assam, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Punjab and Tamil Nadu, among others. “The students of this country deserve jobs, justice and accountability. Instead, they have been given paper leaks, uncertainty and a broken examination system,” IYC in-charge Manish Sharma said in the statement. He said the organisation would continue its protests “until accountability is fixed and those responsible are removed”.

लीक प्रधान की बर्खास्तगी की मांग को लेकर झारखंड राजभवन के बाहर पहुंचे Indian Youth Cockroaches

जब तक प्रधान की बर्खास्तगी नही होती, तब तक ये सड़कें हम सूनी नही होने देंगे… pic.twitter.com/4luYSZ1r3B

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) June 2, 2026

Chib accused the government of failing to address concerns raised by students and alleged that examination leaks and irregularities had adversely affected the future of young aspirants. “We are now intensifying this movement across the country.

We will not stop until Prime Minister Narendra Modi is forced to sack Dharmendra Pradhan,” he said. The IYC said the next phase of its campaign would include torchlight marches, “Halla Bol” marches, student interaction programmes, district-level mobilisation drives and protests outside the residences of BJP leaders and chief ministers.

Against the NEET paper leak and injustice to students, Telangana Youth Congress held a unique protest inside a Metro train in Hyderabad.

Our demands:

◆ Resignation of Leak Minister Dharmendra Pradhan
◆ Dissolution of the corrupt National Testing Agency (NTA)
◆ JPC inquiry… pic.twitter.com/Sfq78gTmh7

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) May 19, 2026

The NEET paper leak is not just a scam, it is an attack on the future of India’s youth.

In Telangana , Youth Congress workers Protest against the repeated NEET paper leaks and demanded Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.
Ban NTA#BanNTA #SackDharmendraPradhan pic.twitter.com/K3TJ1CHCEz

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) May 16, 2026

Against the NEET paper leak and injustice to students, Telangana Youth Congress staged a unique protest inside the Hyderabad Metro.

Our demands:
◆ Resignation of “Leak Minister” Dharmendra Pradhan
◆ Dissolution of the corrupt NTA
◆ JPC inquiry into the NEET paper leak scam… pic.twitter.com/nr8yuFkjFA

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) May 19, 2026

The Union Education Ministry has previously maintained that measures have been taken to strengthen examination processes and improve transparency in recruitment and entrance tests. The latest announcement comes amid continuing political debate over the conduct of public examinations and recruitment tests, an issue that has triggered protests by opposition parties and student groups in recent years.

Meanwhile, independent media reported that IYC National Secretary and National Chairman of Social Media Manu Jain said the campaign represented “the anger, frustration and resistance of an entire generation”. “Through social media, AI-driven campaigns and ground mobilisation, we are building a national movement demanding jobs, justice and accountability,” he said. The organisation also launched a dedicated digital platform inviting young people to register themselves as part of the campaign. The IYC said it would continue raising issues related to unemployment, examination paper leaks and corruption “in every street, every campus and every corner of India”.

Related:

Abolish ‘discriminatory and imbalanced’ NEET exam: Justice A.K. Rajan Committee 2021

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

NEET 2024 Row: Supreme Court cancels grace marks, orders re-test for affected students

Students, organisations protest as allegations against NEET examinations pile up

The post May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its final judgement, the Court held that hate speech is “fundamentally antithetical” to Constitutional values of fraternity. It also found hate speech at odds with the ethos of Indian civilisation that are best captured by the maxim “vasudhaiva kutumbakam”. While the Court pronounced these notions splendiferously in the obiter, the operative part of the judgement remained minimal when it came to reliefs sought by the petitioners. Speech delivered by persons in positions of high political influence was also high in vitriol and the discrimination and harm test. As a result of the judgement dated April 26, BJP politicians and ministers Anurag Thakur and Kapil Mishra remain judicially uncensored for their inciteful conduct as have other protagonists who have contributed to a fragile social climate where, religious minorities most especially live in constant fear of harm, attack and acts of overt discrimination.

This piece analyses how and where the Supreme Court limited itself in this case. Before doing so, we examine hate speech itself. We contextualize how the efforts towards making a breakthrough in jurisprudence in understanding and tackling speech that causes harm (hate speech) –including the 267^th Law Commission Report—have been qualitatively diffused by this final verdict of the Supreme Court.

What is Hate Speech?

Hate speech is any speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, or any other characteristic. It can be subtle or overt, and can have a profound impact on the targets of the speech. Primarily hate speech reduces the social standing of a particular group in the society. Hate speech can lead to stigmatisation, societal discrimination, physical and other kinds of harassment, and violence, including gendered violence where women and children are vulnerable. Hate speech creates a climate of intimidation, fear and division in society.

As per Jeremy Waldron, hate speech damages two related qualities. Firstly, he argues that it affects inclusivity. In pluralist democracies, we observe a milieu of different identities living together forming a heterogeneous social fabric. In such social fabrics, inclusiveness entails an assurance to each person that they can lead a regular life in the polity without facing “hostility, violence, discrimination or exclusion by others.” Secondly, he contends that dignity is damaged by hate speech too. Dignity as defined by him is one’s “basic [and equal] social standing… as a proper object of society’s protection and concern”. Hate speech—as we defined earlier—pierces through the heart of these values. Hate speech, ontologically, is a type of speech that aggressively shows groups as “others” by belittling them. At this juncture, it is important to note that speech, at least on some level, is constitutive of social reality. The existence of certain forms of expression makes a noticeable difference to the environment in which we live our lives. In an environment that is marred with hate speech the message of ‘exclusion’ and ‘hostility’ becomes part of the very look of that environment (becomes an intrinsic feature of that society), and thus breaks down the assurance of inclusiveness and damages dignity of groups.

Issues that have dogged the Courts, given the high decibel hate speech that India has been witnessing are evident in several judgements, analysed by the 267^th Law Commission Report (Chairman was Justice B.S. Chauhan). This report is itself worth a reference read as it analyses evolving hate speech jurisprudence the world over. We recommend that you read this report that is available here. Submitted by the Law Commission to the Ministry of Law and Justice on March 23, 2017, this critical document was made available to the public only on August 16, 2022.

Infact it was the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. UOI, 2014 that led to the 267^th Law Commission Report on Hate Speech in the first place.

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. UOI

This was the first case of recent times that made some breakthrough in outlining the harm and discriminatory components that qualify hate speech. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court was called to adjudicate, on merits, a PIL requesting it to frame guidelines prohibiting political hate speech. The court owing to the doctrine of Separation of powers, delegated this task to the Law Commission of India. However, while deferring the case the Court made certain observations that laid down the legal framework for hate speech laws vis-à-vis free speech. The Court then went on to hold that

“Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.”

(Paragraph 7)

By putting “marginalisation and delegitmis [ation]” as the fulcrum of determining hate speech, the Court effectively, held dignity and equality to be the grundnorm that speech must respect. It further clarified that hate speech is not directed towards individuals, or rather, is not about personal offence. It is as a matter of fact, an offence against a people. The Court goes on to adopt a consequentialist approach and lays down that hate speech has “societal impact” that could lead to violence. Hence, it establishes a causal link between speech and its (violent) reactions. Lastly, the Court says that hate speech is anathema to democracy.

This judgment lays the stepping stone for the “Proactive approach” that Supreme Court adopts in dealing with hate speech for the next few years.

This report by CJP, that may be read here, calls for a re-look at the provisions on hate speech, calling for a definition that takes into account recent jurisprudence and moves away from the colonial construct in Indian penal laws

Amish Devgan v. UOI

Another judgement, both recent and relevant, is the 2020 Amish Devgan v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court was called upon to quash FIR filed against TV journalist Amish Devgan who had allegedly made derogatory remarks against an Islamic saint. The Court denied the relief. However, while refusing to quash the FIR the Court gave further directions on how to classify hate speech;

“The ‘context’, as indicated above, has a certain key variable, namely, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is involved and ‘where’ and the ‘occasion, time and under what circumstances’ the case arises. The ‘who’ is always plural for it encompasses the speaker who utters the statement that constitutes ‘hate speech’ and also the audience to whom the statement is addressed which includes both the target and the others. Variable context review recognises that all speeches are not alike. This is not only because of group affiliations, but in the context of dominant group hate speech against a vulnerable and discriminated group, and also the impact of hate speech depends on the person who has uttered the words. The variable recognises that a speech by ‘a person of influence’ such as a top government or executive functionary, opposition leader, political or social leader of following, or a credible anchor on a T.V. show carries a far more credibility and impact than a statement made by a common person on the street.” …

(Para 51)

“Further, certain categories of speakers may be granted a degree of latitude in terms of the State response to their speech. Communities with a history of deprivation, oppression, and persecution may sometimes speak in relation to their lived experiences, resulting in the words and tone being harsher and more critical than usual. Their historical experience often comes to be accepted by the society as the rule, resulting in their words losing the gravity that they otherwise deserve. In such a situation, it is likely for persons from these communities to reject the tenet of civility, as polemical speech and symbols that capture the emotional loading can play a strong role in mobilising. Such speech should be viewed not from the position of a person of privilege or a community without such a historical experience, but rather, the courts should be more circumspect when penalising such speech.”

(Para 51)

While seemingly obvious, the Court in this case gives a crucial direction about contextualisation when deciding on hate speech. The Court recognises two realities. Freedom of expression as a facilitator in a diverse and plural society, critical to equality and free thought within a democracy. However, just like a regular marketplace, the marketplace of ideas is also rife with inequalities. These inequalities include limitations in access, opportunity and socio-cultural status: persons with executive/political influence, journalists, and public figures command a much wider reach and audience. Hence, when such public figure spew hate speech, the impact is significantly higher, ergo they should be more cautious. Second, the Court humanises the speaker and the audience. In most cases, the social standing of the speaker and the audience is different; certain communities have a historic disadvantage while others hold a dominant position in society even today. Subsequently, the Court gave a wider margin of speech to the marginalised communities owing to their lived realities and historic experiences; it further conceded that hate speech made by dominant group against vulnerable groups has a significantly more impact.

While recognising these realities, the Court did its job in tailoring a hate speech jurisprudence that is suitable with the Indian social structure blemished with caste, religious differences and patriarchy. These two previous judgements laid the foundation for a proactive approach against hate speech. They will continue to guide future legal interventions.

Coming back to the 267^th Law Commission that remains a crucial and seminal document for anyone who wishes to engage with hate speech. After a close and thorough examination of the Constituent Assembly debates, Indian constitutional courts jurisprudence and International law (a crucial reference), the Law Commission recommends that measures which limit or restrain freedom of speech and expression, may/can do so when the “three-part test” is justified [(UN HRC, “General Comment 34” One Hundred and Second Session July 11-29, 2011 (July 21, 2011)]:

i) Measure/s must be prescribed by law;

ii) Measure must satisfy legitimate aims;

iii) Measure must be necessary to achieve its stated aim and must be proportionate to the harm that it attempts to prevent or redress. The standard of proportionality in this context has also been understood to include a requirement for minimum impairment of the right being restricted, i.e., the restriction must not do any more damage to the right than is absolutely necessary to meet its aim. [Necessity and proportionality]

Finally, the 267^th Law Commission Report makes relevant and sharp recommendations. Concluding that the Supreme Court, in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1591, observed that the issue of hate speech deserved deeper consideration by the Law Commission of India. Quoting the Court, the Law Commission stated that “…we request the Law Commission to also examine the issues raised herein thoroughly and also to consider, if it deems proper, defining the expression “hate speech” and make recommendations to the Parliament to strengthen the Election Commission to curb the menace of “hate speeches” irrespective of whenever made”.

The Law Commission quoting the Supreme Court referred to its consistent clarifications that directions are issued only when there appears to be a total vacuum in law, i.e. “complete absence of active law to provide for the effective enforcement of basic human rights”. In case there is inaction on the part of the executive for whatsoever reason, the court has always stepped in to discharge its constitutional obligation to enforce the law. The Court further observed “in case of vacuum of legal regime, to deal with a particular situation, the court may issue guidelines to provide a solution till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.”

Given the above observations and directives of the Supreme Court in the Pravasi Bhalai Case, “the Commission considered the laws on hate speech in various jurisdictions, judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and analysed the existing provisions relevant to the subject matter. “Consequently, the Commission made concrete suggestions.

“The Law Commission suggests amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by adding new provisions on ‘Prohibiting incitement to hatred’ following section 153B IPC and ‘Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’ following section 505 IPC, and accordingly amending the First Schedule of the CrPC.”

These suggestions have been put together in the form of the Commission’s Report No. 267 title “Hate Speech”, which was submitted for consideration by the Government in March 2017.

What did the Union Government do, however?

The present government, in its first term in 2017, is currently in its third. While the Law Commission found, previous sections in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) –Section 153a, 153b, 153c and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) wholly inadequate in identifying and prosecuting the growing corrosive phenomenon of hate speech and recommended legislative additions through amendments. The newly implemented Criminal Laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 broke no new ground and completely bypassed or ignored both the Supreme Court and Law Commission.

In fact, the new criminal laws, that were hurriedly rushed through Parliament while 146 Members of Parliament were suspended, with no amendments being discussed not entertained –and no referrals to a Joint Select Committee as is the norm. Infact the new criminal laws had been evolved in a secretive fashion by a “Committee” consisting of former Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi (NLUD), Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao, present VC, NLUD, GS Bajpeyi and advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, Rajsya Sabha member, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That such a committee also ignored Supreme Court judgements with clear-cut directions on sections in our law for prosecuting hate speech, as also the Law Commission’s 267th Report is the moot point.

Read this CJP’s Report on Comparisons between the IPC/CRPC and BNSS here. The new criminal laws dealing with the subject matter are simply not sufficient to cope with the menace of ‘Hate Speeches’. Hate/derogatory/inflammatory speech has not been defined in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and neither in any other penal law. An opportunity to amend our laws to the betterment of a diverse society has been lost.

It is in this context, and failure by the executive, again, that the journey of the present litigation, interim orders and then the final judgement dated April 26, 2026 needs to be understood and read.

In the Interim: Several Preventive Orders to Curb Hate Speech

The backdrop to multiple Interim Orders lies in petitions filed before the Supreme Court arising from the Haridwar Dharam Sansad of December 2021, at which Hindu religious leaders made genocidal calls against Muslims. These petitions, filed by journalist Qurban Ali, former Patna High Court Judge Anjana Prakash, activist Tushar Gandhi, and advocates Firoz Iqbal Khan and Harpreet Mansukhani Saigal, were clubbed together and heard by a bench of former Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna (Tushar Gandhi vs. Rakesh Asthana).

In September 2022, a bench comprising of J K.M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy (in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. UOI) expressed serious concern at unregulated television news channels and directed the Union of India to state on affidavit whether it intended to legislate against hate speech in line with the Law Commission’s 267th Report.

Shaheen Abdullah and Suo Moto FIRs: In October 2022, the same bench (J K.M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy) in Shaheen Abdullah vs. UOI passed a watershed order in these clubbed matters directing the Governments of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to take suo-moto action against any hate speech crime without waiting for a complaint, warning that failure to act would be contempt of court. The order may be found here.

In January 2023, in the Tushar Gandhi contempt petition, a bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice Narasimha pulled up the Delhi Police for taking five months to register an FIR against Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke, who had administered a violent oath to make India a Hindu Rashtra, in violation of the earlier Tehseen Poonawalla directions. The Order can be found here.

On February 3, 2023, the bench of former Justice Joseph and Justice Pardiwala passed preventive orders in the Shaheen Abdullah matter. Hearing a plea against a proposed Sakal Hindu Samaj rally in Maharashtra, the Court recorded the state government’s undertaking that the meeting would only be permitted if no hate speech was made, directed the police to invoke Section 151 CrPC for preventive arrests if necessary, and ordered that the event be video-recorded. In a visible on-ground effect of this order, the Uttarakhand government refused permission to a Dharam Sansad in Roorkee. This order may be found here.

On April 28, 2023, in the matter of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India, the Court extended this suo moto FIR obligation from Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to all States and Union Territories. The order for such extension may be found here.

On August 2, 2023, a special hearing was convened in the Shaheen Abdullah matter following anti-Muslim violence in the Nuh district of Haryana triggered by a Bajrang Dal and VHP procession. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti directed the Delhi Police and the governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana to ensure no untoward incident took place at upcoming VHP rallies and to video-record events in sensitive areas. This order may be found here.

Moving towards “practical and effective” steps to curb hate speech

On August 25, 2023, the same bench (Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti) in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Matter urged “practical and effective” steps to implement earlier directions and sought compliance reports from States on the Tehseen Poonawalla Judgement (2018) requirement to designate a Superintendent of Police-rank nodal officer in each district. This order can be found here.

Responding to this, in November 2023 the Ministry of Home Affairs filed an affidavit confirming that 28 States and Union Territories had appointed such nodal officers. An order of November 29 then directed nodal counsel to prepare a consolidated chart of all pending petitions and their prayers. This order may be found here.

In January 2024, a freshly constituted bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Yavatmal (Maharashtra) and Raipur (Chhattisgarh) to take appropriate steps to prevent hate speech at upcoming rallies of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and BJP MLA T. Raja Singh. This order may be found here.

Throughout all these orders, while the Court consistently refused to grant pre-emptive gag orders on rallies, it simultaneously imposed obligations on the State to take effective measures. This is the proactive approach in its fullest expression, not the silencing of the speaker, but the activation of the State as a guarantor of inclusive public space.

Detailed report on previous Supreme Court’s orders in this case may be found here and here.

The Gavel Falls: 2026 Judgement in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India

Facts:

The 2026 judgement of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India saw a sharp departure from this proactive approach. The judgement delivered clubbed all the above-mentioned petitions in its scope and adjudication.

To better understand this departure let us look at the facts of the case, and what the Court was called to adjudicate on. The petitioners, from various parts of the country, filed 13 writ petitions seeking a range of reliefs. These included directions to the Centre to implement the Law Commission’s 267th Report, directions to stop the dissemination of fake news and communally biased media content, directions to lodge criminal cases against persons committing violence against minorities, and issuance of a continuing mandamus to ensure registration of FIRs in hate speech cases. Some petitions pertained to specific incidents, such various alleged hate speeches made by public figures across different States including “desh…….” by Anurag Thakur.

In addition to the writ petitions, several contempt petitions were also filed. These alleged violation of the Court’s interim orders (as noted above) dated October 21, 2022 and April 28, 2023, both of which had directed authorities to take suo moto action against hate speech without waiting for a formal complaint.

This reveals that Indian citizens have always been on the forefront of combatting hate speech. From filing cases seeking specific reliefs that prevent hate speech to calling Court to formulate hate speech guidelines. Indian citizenry has consistently voiced its concern over legitimisation of escalating hate speech and strongly condemned it. However, in this case it was the Court that showed a marked reluctance in taking the requisite action against hate speech.

Decision:

The Court held that there exists no legislative vacuum and the pre-existing penal framework is sufficient to address hate speech. Further, it stated that no contempt proceedings could be initiated against the police for not taking suo moto actions, as it would be an overbroad interpretation of the Order that mandated such suo moto actions. Lastly, the Court dismissed filing of an FIR against the two accused citing that “no cognizable offence” can be made out.

Analysis of the Findings by the Court

On the question of legislative vacuum and need for hate speech laws

Herein, firstly, the Court had to decide whether there exists a legislative vacuum with respect to hate speech law that could prompt the Court to order guidelines or ask the government to bring in specific laws combatting hate speech. The Court declined the plea and held that Indian Criminal law has sufficient laws dealing with hate speech and therefore, no legislative vacuum exists that could prompt the Court to take any action. The Court makes no referral or mention of the developments in its own court (Pravasi Bhalai..) that led to the 267^th Report of the Law Commission and its detailed findings and recommendations. By passing this jurisprudence, the Court has done little justice to a corrosive phenomenon that is negatively impacting the equality and dignity of millions of marginalised Indians.

In Para 37, the Court held that “several provisions which penalise acts that promote enmity between different groups, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity [exist]”, later the Court goes on to list the provisions of the IPC that cover the previously mentioned. Now, with respect, this is where the Court’s understanding of hate speech is lacking. Hate speech is not necessarily the same as “outraging religious sentiments” or “disturbing public tranquillity”; these are separate offences that have separate requirements. The Court here has conflated these offences with hate speech, and owing to the confusion, held that there exists no legislative vacuum.

The Court mentions Section 124A, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code to be covering hate speech.

Section 124A criminalises sedition. Sedition is a fundamentally different act as compared to hate speech, the former deals with inciting violence against the country while the latter is about lowering dignity of a people. Sedition laws clearly have nothing to do with hate speech (as also highlighted by the Law commission’s report on hate speech in paragraphs 6.19 & 6.20).

Further, Section 153 and 505 disallows promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes and communities and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. While prima facie it seems to prohibit hate speech, the judicial interpretation of these provisions show a different picture. Moreover, to repeat the aspect of impact and intent in causing harm and denial of equal rights and dignity –aspects dealt with at length in Pravasi Bhalai and subsequently the 267^th Law Commission Report, have been left un-mentioned in this verdict.

On the question of Contempt Proceedings against Authorities

Secondly, the Court was called to decide whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the Police in pursuance to its own order dated April 28, 2023. As per the Order the police was expected to file a suo moto complaint against hate speech whenever an instance comes across them. Any failure or hesitation on the part of the authorities in complying with the previously mentioned directions would be viewed seriously and may attract proceedings for contempt of Court. In pursuance of this Order, several petitioners asked for the contempt proceedings to be started against the responsible authorities. However, the Court denied the plea and held,

“The element of “hesitation” or failure to act despite knowledge of a cognizable offence is a sine qua non for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. In cases where the petitioner has not even approached the authorities or placed the relevant material before them, it would be wholly inappropriate to infer disobedience or “hesitation” on the part of the authorities. In the absence of such foundational facts, the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked.”

(Paragraphs 159 & 160)

The Court therefore held that in the absence of material placed before the authorities, it can be assumed that the authorities had no knowledge, and therefore, it could not be said that they were hesitant in starting proceedings against the accused. This reluctance or failure to hold police authorities responsible for such egregious conduct (hate speech) can only add to the prevalent climate of impunity. Previous and several Orders by the Supreme Court, it is mandated for police to “monitor” and “videotape” speeches in sensitive areas where there is a likelihood of utterance of hate speech. Now, in the final judgement, the Court’s failure to initiate action on the police authorties’ failure or reluctance to act, the Court permits inaction on such crimes committed. In doing so, it failed to take into account its own Orders that mandated monitoring of rallies and speeches by the police. The authorities now can, refuse to monitor the rallies where hate speech is made and claim immunity from contempt proceedings that arise out of their inaction by simply pleading ignorance. In essence, it appears that the Court made non-compliance with its previous order (monitoring) as a defence to contempt proceedings in instances of no suo moto action being taken!

On the question of appeal of Delhi High Court’s Order [“no cognizable offence made out”]:

The Supreme Court was also required to check the correctness of the Delhi High Court order that dismissed the Writ petition pleading the High Court to file FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Varma. Before we analyse the Supreme Court’s response to the appeal, it is pertinent to first look at the High Court’s order.

Owing to the bar on prosecution of public servants under Section 197 of the CrPC (that is without sanction granted by the executive), the magistrate refused to file an FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma as there was no “prior sanction” to prosecute the public servant as required in Section 197. The writ in the High Court dealt exclusively dealt with this question of jurisdiction, i.e., “the only question for consideration before this Court is limited to the extent of adjudicating whether the [Magistrate] has rightly dismissed the complaint [owing to lack of sanction]” The High Court, congruent to the Trial Court, did not delve into the merits of the complaint. Hence, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court adjudged whether the contents of the speech itself made by the accused constituted the crime of hate speech. The High Court on the question of jurisdiction sided with the Trial Court’s finding and held that no FIR could be filed wanting sanction. It is in this backdrop, that the Supreme Court’s was required to examine the speeches themselves

The Supreme Court in this appeal, did, overrule the High Court’s finding on the question of jurisdiction. The High Court had incorrectly concluded that government sanction needed to be obtained before a Magistrate could direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Supreme Court clarified that this requirement of prior sanction only kicks in at the later stage of a court taking cognizance of an offence; it has no application at the earlier stage of simply setting the criminal justice process in motion through FIR registration.

Later, however, in Paragraphs 136-138 of the Supreme Court judgement when the Court starts to assess the merits of the complaint, we find several evasions. The Court held that “the High Court has, on an independent assessment, held that the speeches in question do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, observing that the statements were not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder” (Paragraph 136). This is, with respect, factually incorrect. The High Court had not taken any independent assessment of the speech, it merely dealt with the jurisdictional (procedural) aspect of the complaint and had not paid any heed to the content of the speech. In the following paragraph,

“Upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record, including the alleged speeches, the status report dated February 26, 2020 submitted before the Trial Court, and the reasons recorded by the courts below, we are in agreement with the conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out.”

(Para 137 of the Supreme Order).

The Court again, with respect, is mistaken in these considerations. At the cost of repetition, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had held that “no cognizable offence is made out” while adjudicating on the content of the speech. Both Courts had merely limited themselves to the question of jurisdiction. In any case, merely agreeing with the Order of the lower Courts without giving any reasoning violates the principles of natural justice. Fundamental natural justice principles require that the Court provides some (not necessarily lengthy) reasoning for agreeing with the lower Court’s decisions. However, in this instance, the Supreme Court has overturned the legal basis of the High Court’ Order yet, without providing any reason, agreed with the outcome.

While arriving at its conclusions, the Court stated,

 “Accordingly, while we disapprove the reasoning adopted by the High Court on the issue of prior sanction, we find no ground to interfere with the ultimate conclusion” (Paragraph 138).

The reason previous Courts had held that no FIR could be filed against the accused is only on grounds of the lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction was proper, and the police could file an FIR against the accused without the sanction. The natural course of action here would then have been delving into the merits of the complaints or ordering the Magistrate to delve into the merits of the complaints. The Supreme Court however does neither. It absolves itself of providing any reasons for its decision by simply holding that “[there] are no grounds to interfere”.

The Court here, in effect, gives a clean chit to the accused without any application of judicial mind to the actual content of the speech, which makes out an alleged offence. At no level of judiciary was there an application of judicial mind to the content of the impugned speech. Despite that, the accused have got “a clean chit.”

Keeping in mind that the Court did not delve into content of the impugned speech, it is important for us to independently examine the speech by the two main accused can, at all, be classified as hate speech.

I. Anurag Thakur

Location: Delhi

Date: January 27, 2020

Link: <https://www.groundxero.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Delhi_riots_Fact_Finding_2020_compressed.pdf>

 “These [Protestors at Shaheen Bagh] are Traitors to our Country, Shoot them”

Anurag Thakur, a prominent member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in his infamous speech had called for killing of the supposed “traitors” of the Country. Before we delve into the call for outright physical violence, it is pertinent to decode the euphuisms used, as context is very important in determining hate speech as held by the Amish Devgan judgment. The backdrop of the speech was the protestors at Shaheen bagh who were peacefully protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. It is very evident from the context of the speech that the traitors referred to in the speech are these protestors, none else.

Most of the people who were involved in these protests at Shaheen Bagh were Muslims. Anurag Thakur deliberately invokes the slur, calls Shaheen Bagh protestors as “traitors” of the Nation and several times ask the crowd to echo his call for violence, making a clearly inciteful speech. By calling for violence against these protestors in a charged environment (that are largely Muslims demographically), Thakur indirectly calls for violence against Muslims at large.

Moreover, Thakur was a Union Minister of State when he uttered these statements. Therefore, his statements had the potential to have far-reaching consequences owing to both the reach and influence that politicians yield. These are important considerations when classifying hate speech applying the Amish Devgan Judgement.

II. Parvesh Verma

Location: Delhi and ANI News (Cable network through TV)

Date: January 28, 2020 & January 27, 2020

Link: <https://www.groundxero.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Delhi_riots_Fact_Finding_2020_compressed.pdf>

“They will enter into your homes. They will abduct your women and rape and kill them.”

[Via TV on ANI News]

Parvesh Verma uses verbal imagery the protestors at Shaheen Bagh (largely Muslims) to instil fear in the audience. He remarks that these protestors will barge into the Hindu homes, kill, and rape Hindu women. This communally charged sentence aims at fear mongering. This is also intended to create division and disharmony between the two communities.

“If my government is formed in Delhi, then give me only one month’s time. Will not leave any mosque built in my constituency on government land, I will remove them all.”

[Via TV on ANI News]

This statement is ipso facto inflammatory, communal and a threat to Muslims. By calling for destroying all the mosques in Delhi, Varma is intimidating and threatening Muslims of Violence at large. Parvesh Verma is a politician with great reach and influence, this reach is amplified by the fact that his first two impugned statements came via Television, meaning his speech could have been accessed immediately by millions of people. This becomes an important consideration in determining hate speech.

“If the BJP comes to power in Delhi, we will clear Shaheen Bagh of all protestors within 1 hour. Not a single person will be visible.”

This statement does not require much explanation. It is direct threat to violence against the protestors of Shaheen Bagh. These statements carry greater weight as they were uttered by an influential person. He is currently the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi.

It is these three aspects of the final judgement (a. failing to give any directions on combatting hate speech, b. failing to initiate contempt proceedings c. and giving clean chit to the accused), that we can discern a clear shift in the Court’s approach during the adjudication of these cases, over five years. Interim Orders were proactive, the final judgement status quo-ist. Despite several and specific complaints, the Supreme Court chose not to take any action against hate speech.

The Court missed an important opportunity here to carve out specific directions to combat hate speech, neither did it attempt to fill up the legislative vacuum.

The Law Commission of India in its 267^th Report recognised this legal vacuum and had recommended adding specific sections to strengthen the law(s) dealing with hate speech. Worse, the Court watered down its own previous order that required suo moto actions against instances of hate speech.

By shifting the onus on complainants to file FIRs the Court restored the status quo and negated its own previous directions wherein it had placed the onus squarely on the shoulders of the authorities to prevent and take action against hate speech. Lastly, by giving a clean chit to the particular accused without even an examination into the content to merit of the speeches, the Court has set an undesirable precedent.

In the final judgement, the judges have over dozens of pages warned against dangers of hate speech in a democratic societies, in fact, the judgement had a specific section titled “Epilogue: An ode to ‘Fraternity’ in the Preamble vis- à-vis the idea of ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam’”.

Yet, by failing to issue specific directions, it has not acted on its own wise words. Finally, this verdict will act not as a check but a possible enabler wherein influential protagonists can get away with their inflammatory speeches. Though the judgement recognises that politicians have a special duty to be mindful of their words owing to the wide reach and influence they have, the Court stops short of ensuring any accountability. The overall impact of this judgement on the hate speech jurisprudence in India is limiting. Instead of listing sharp directives to the executive to act, even directing he legislature to examine the legislative lacuna, the Court has missed an excellent opportunity.

Though India, experiences, on an average,  five instances of hate speech occurring every day, these may well continue without check. In choosing general observations over specific actionable directive, the Supreme Court, also known as the “Court of last resort” has caused an acute disappointment.

The complete judgment of the Supreme Court may be read here:

Interim Orders in these cases from September 2022 to January 2024 may be found here:

The High Court Judgement in the matter may be read here:

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Hamzah Patel)

Related:

India Hate Lab Report 2025: How Hate Speech has been normalised in the public sphere

BNS 2023 does nothing to bring in a nuanced effective understanding of Hate Speech, making its prosecution even more difficult

Supreme Court in 2023: Several steps forward, miles to go in the fight against hate

Hate Speech and the Supreme Court: From constitutional alarm to institutional closure

Hate Speech by BJP’s Top Brass fuelled Build Up to Delhi Violence: Minorities Commission

The post The Supreme Court blinks when it comes to Hate Speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An ongoing national campaign says that the project is ‘a disaster in the making’ and demands an end to the Modi-Adani scam being foisted on the nation. It is without doubt that this corrupt duo has looted the nation lock, stock and barrel and together with their other corrupt crony capitalist friends have caused unbelievable damage to the environment and to our fragile eco-systems. In this Nicobar project there is ample evidence that 160 sq. km of rain forest will be destroyed; one crore tress will be cut down; that it is a crime against natural and tribal heritage; that the tribal communities  particularly the Shompen and Nicobarese  who are distinct indigenous groups and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) native to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; they possess unique cultures, languages, and traditional ways of life, largely centred on Great Nicobar Island; above all a threat to the fragile ecosystem.

The EPW further states, “the project envisions an international container trans-shipment terminal at Galathea Bay, a greenfield international airport, a township and tourism project, and a power plant. The primary trunk infrastructure of the programme alone is slated to destroy 130 square kilometres of primarily tropical rainforests, which, by the government’s underestimation, will involve felling 8.65 lakh trees, a fraction of the likely millions. This will, in a hare-brained plan, be compensated by planting a few lakh trees in distant Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. The Nicobars are the only region in India to fall in the Sundaland global biodiversity hotspot, home to rare and endemic species and globally unique flora and fauna. The notion that the destruction of this ecological hotspot can be compensated for by tree plantations in semi-arid central and northern India is foolish fiction. The Galathea Bay—where the trans-shipment terminal is proposed—is among the most important nesting sites of the endangered leatherback turtle. In January 2021, contradicting the government’s own National Marine Turtle Action Plan, the Galathea Bay was denotified as a protected sanctuary to make way for the infrastructure project.” Scathing points indeed to prove that the regime, cares two hoots about what is happening to our environment!

Yesterday, June 5, was yet another ‘World Environment Day.’ There were a flurry of activities. The morning newspapers (some of them had their front page in ‘green’) had full page advertisements about the environment with several of them sponsored by government agencies, the very ones responsible for destroying the environment! In the ‘events’ there was the usual jostle to plant saplings, the plethora of long, boring speeches on the importance of the environment repeated ‘ad nauseam’ and plenty of photo-ops with faces beaming towards the cameras. Yes, indeed plenty of ‘tokenism’ and ‘cosmetic’ action. And the ‘temporary concern’ for the environment will soon be forgotten!

India is in the grip of a serious environmental crisis. A lead article in the popular online portal ‘Countercurrents’, (dated June 3 , 2026) and titled, ‘The Scorching Heat and Silent Death: India’s heat crisis is killing the poor in silence’ says, “A single day of extreme heat, the study estimates, causes around 3,400 excess deaths across India. A five-day heatwave causes nearly 30,000. Uttar Pradesh alone accounts for more than 8,100 of those deaths. The number 30,000. In five days. That is more than ten times the official annual toll. That is a catastrophe without a name. The five states that bear two-thirds of India’s heatwave deaths are Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat.” Several parts of the country are in the midst of an unprecedented heat wave with several casualties, especially among the poor and marginalised sections of society. On May 13 and 14, devastating unseasonal storms, tore through Uttar Pradesh killing at least 120 people and injuring several more. The Aravalli hills continue to be pillaged despite the Supreme Court order that all mining activity in the area should be halted.

Fossil fuels account for almost 75% of India’s total energy supply. We are   highly dependent on fossil fuels despite the global commitment to transition away from their use. It is common knowledge that fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate change currently damaging human health, wellbeing, and ecosystems, and posing a severe threat to overall planetary health. They are also a major source of particulate matter and ozone. These air pollutants are responsible for a wide range of adverse health outcomes, including an estimated 6.7 million deaths globally in 2019. Deaths however, are only one part of the problem. Improved air quality would reduce the burden of several major diseases leading to healthier and longer lives, fewer patients requiring admission to hospital and other treatments, and decreasing the burden on health systems worldwide.

The theme for ‘World Environment Day’ this year is, ‘Inspired by Nature. For Climate. For Our Future’. This obviously is a follow-up of the UN Climate Summit COP30 which took place in Belém, Brazil from November 10 to 21, 2025. COP30 focussed heavily on forest conservation, the transition from fossil fuels and the implementation of the Paris Agreement Goals. Sadly, as we experience in India today, those who rule, do not care about what is happening to our environment!

Public awareness of the importance of the environment is a prerequisite – but then words ring hollow, when the ones who wax eloquent are the very ones who are in nexus with the land mafia who dry up our water bodies for their high-rise buildings and who cohort with the mining mafia to plunder our precious natural resources. It is important to note that in the most recent ‘Environmental Performance Index'(EPI), India was ranked 176 out of 180 countries. A pathetic indicator by any standards on the environmental situation in our country!

About ten days ago, on May 26, India lost one of her great environmentalists, in the untimely death Fr Bolmax Pereira of Goa. Fr Bolmax was not afraid in standing up against the powerful, vested interests, who were destroying the fragile ecosystem of Goa. He launched a successful #SaveMollemForest campaign against the   Adani –led double tracking through the Mollem reserved forest.  He constantly spoke about the reality that the average Goan was breathing coal-dust all the time, thanks to the nexus between the politicians and the mining mafia. He once said, “The wilful damage being inflicted on our environment and ecology is so very colossal. There is a dire need to stay united to save our state from any further destruction… We all need to be very concerned about the air, water and sound pollution that is battering our little Goa.”

Are we serious about following the legacy of Fr Bolmax? Or do we say “who cares”? Like to what is happening in Nicobar today? We must come out now and challenge this anti-people, anti –environment regime and the entire system, and ask them, “whose environment is it, anyway?”

(The author is a human rights reconciliation and peace activist and writer)

Related:

Cries for Justice in India grow louder!

“Let there be CHRISTMAS…”!

The post Whose ‘ENVIRONMENT’ is it, anyway? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over many years, and in many countries, a growing view among political actors and within political science was that class was losing its punch. The line was something like this. The working class once voted for labour parties. The middle class voted conservative. But over many years) that difference between how the classes voted got smaller and smaller. In some places it disappeared.

The “decline of class” narrative suited the leaders of labour and social democratic parties.

They could safely adopt market-based neoliberal policies, with a human touch added, in the knowledge their base wouldn’t desert them. But their base was changing. It was becoming more middle class, more individualistic, more awake to the benefits of market solutions to complex problems.

Now, those politicians are shocked by the rise of far-right political parties that now claim to represent the working class. In Australia, One Nation is close to matching Labor — in some polls, it is already ahead.

In the United Kingdom, Reform is leading in all the polls, while the governing Labour party is below 20%. In Germany, the neo-nazi AfD is presently leading in all opinion polls, while the Social Democrats are below 14%.

In the United States, the Republican Party has gone full Trump, on an agenda with aspects that look eerily reminiscent of prewar Germany. In France, the National Rally candidate is ahead in all opinion polls for the next presidential election.

‘Blue collar’ is not the same as ‘working class’

In many countries, the labour and social democratic parties are mere shadows of their former selves.

Perhaps the labour parties mistook the decline in “blue-collar” (manual) jobs for the decline of the working class. In Australia, the blue-collar share of jobs fell from 44% in 1979 to 28% in 2025. It’s fallen in the UK, the US and elsewhere.

Union membership, once a mostly “blue-collar” phenomenon, declined in most industrialised countries. It fell from an average of 30% of employees across the OECD in 1985 to 19% in 2005 and 15% in 2023. The fall was even greater in Australia.

But these changes did not reflect how likely people were to identify as working class.

In Australia, national attitude and election surveys give us a good idea of trends in people’s views. Between 1979 and 2007, the proportion of respondents in a standard national survey defining themselves as working class or lower class temporarily grew from 40%, to the low 50s in the 1980s and ‘90s, then back to 44% by 2007. In 2025, after a bit more movement, it was still 44% working class.

A British survey in 1983 found 58% of people claimed to be working class. By 2005, those identifying as working class had barely fallen to 57%. In 2023, still 53% of people identified as working class.

In the US, where the phrase “working class” appeared absent from public discourse for decades until Trump, a differently worded question showed that in 1976, 51% of Americans thought of themselves as either working class or lower class. In 2006, the same survey showed 52% identifying as either working class or lower class. Within this period, numbers had fluctuated from year to year — but always between 48% and 55% expressed working or lower class identity.

A Gallup poll added “upper-middle class” to the options, and the proportion claiming working or lower class status was only 39% in 2006. In 2024, that number was 43%.

In Canada, the proportion identifying as working or lower class was 36% in 1980 and still 36% in 1995. In 2017, a different poll found 37% identified as working class.

In short, while “blue-collar” jobs have sharply declined almost everywhere, the experience of “working class” has been relatively stable, within some fluctuating bounds. Differences in class identity between countries seem more notable than differences over time, perhaps due to how questions are asked or how different cultures interpret them.

This is not to say that giving a “working class” response to a forced-choice survey question is the same as a deeply thought position on class. But if people no longer thought of themselves as working class, you would expect to see some pretty big changes over time in answers to these questions.

How the working class was left behind

Sure, jobs changed, a lot. But there has never been much middle-class glamour in the “white collar” jobs at the checkout counter, behind the hamburger hotplate or in the call-centre factory.

Class relations didn’t weaken. In fact, inequality worsened in many countries. Neoliberal policies, including those adopted by social democratic parties, made the rich much richer, but they slowed the growth in the wellbeing of the majority of people, and left the working class behind.

The proportion that thought big business had too much power, and income and wealth should be redistributed, became larger.

Unions lost ground not because their ideas became unpopular with workers. It simply became much harder for unions to recruit and retain members in the face of increasingly hostile employers, governments and laws.

Working class voters didn’t have solutions to hand. But nor were they offered any by social democratic parties that barely spoke their language. Now the door has been opened to far-right parties, presenting alternatives that appeal to some facing those class problems.

There’s life in class voting yet, just not in the way we thought of it.

Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Future Work, and Professor Emeritus, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post Politicians have long misunderstood the ‘working class’. The rise of the far right shows how mistaken they have been appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More than 200 renowned Adivasi-mulvasi leaders, representatives of people’s organisations, traditional self-governance representatives, academics, and activists have issued a joint statement appealing to Adivasis and all Jharkhandis to observe coming Tuesday, June 9, the martyrdom day of Dharti Abba Birsa Munda, across every corner of the state by commemorating his Adivasi culture, struggles, and the Ulgulan. Most critically, they have urged them to declare a solemn pledge to protect his legacy from manuvadi organizations such as the RSS, the Janajati Suraksha Manch, and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram.

The signatories to the appeal include prominent socio-political leaders such as former minister Geetashree Oraon, former MLAs Bahadur Oraon and Mangal Singh Bobonga, Jyotsna Kerketta, Devkinandan Bedia, Kumar Chandra Mardi, Demka Soy, Ramesh Jarai, Rajni Murmu, Sukhnath Lohra, Durgawati Oraon, Aloka Kujur, Binsay Munda, Hari Kumar Bhagat, Kalicharan Birua, Dinesh Murmu, Sadhu Ho, Jaikishan Godsora, and Vasvi Kido; as well as renowned intellectuals like Jacinta Kerketta, Joseph Bara, Anuj Lugun, and Nitish Khalkho.

Other representatives from numerous organisations have also signed the appeal, including the Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Samiti, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, Sarna Sagom Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Adivasi Moolvasi Adhikar Manch (Bokaro), Bharat Jakat Majhi Pargana Mahal (Ramgarh), Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanvay Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha (West Singhbhum), Adivasi Ho Samaj Sewanivrit Sangathan (Chaibasa), Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Adivasi Samanvay Samiti, Birsa Sena, Adivasi Ekta Manch, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha, Sanyukt Gram Sabha, Yuva Jhumur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, JOHAR, OMON Mahila Sangathan, and Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha.

The appeal has also been supported by several national activists and intellectuals working on Adivasi rights issues, such as Nandini Sundar, Bela Bhatia, Prafulla Samantara, and Ishwar Ahire. The entire list is attached to the appeal.

The appeal draws specifically attention to the ‘Janajati Sanskritik Samagam’ organised in Delhi on May 24, 2026, by the Janajati Suraksha Manch—an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During this event, speakers—particularly Amit Shah—repeatedly addressed the Adivasis as ‘Vanvasis’. Throughout the gathering, not once was Birsa Munda’s struggle for jal, jangal, jameen emphasised and remembered nor was his fight against the exploitation by dikus, commemorated.

The signatories believe that the RSS and its affiliated organisations deliberately avoid using the term ‘Adivasi’ because they view tribal communities co-optively as ‘Vanvasis’—occupying the lowest rung of the Hindu caste hierarchy. On one hand, these organisations are actively seeking to erase the independent identity of Adivasis by propagating the slogan “Sarna-Sanatan Ek”. On the other hand, they are attempting to fracture the collective solidarity of Adivasis by demanding the delisting of Christian Adivasis from the official list of Scheduled Tribes. The RSS, according to the signatories, is appropriating Birsa Munda’s name and legacy to serve its own agenda: to reduce Adivasis to mere ‘Vanvasis,’ to dismantle their collective unity, to plunder their natural resources, and to obliterate the heritage of the dharti aba.

The appeal asserts that Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan—waged for the sake of jal, jangal, jameen and against the British colonialists as well as all forms of exploitative dikus—laid the very foundation of the state of Jharkhand. However, the Sangh is actively engaged in an attempt to rewrite this history. The BJP-led Raghubar Das government, in particular, even attempted to dismantle the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act—a landmark legislation born out of the Ulgulan movement. In the very Munda Disum where Birsa Munda had first raised the clarion call of Ulgulan, the Raghubar government went so far as to label thousands of Adivasis as ‘anti-nationals’. The Modi government, too, state the group, is systematically working to erode the autonomy of Adivasis and to strip them of their constitutional and legal rights. Furthermore, these Manuvadi organizations have consistently opposed the demands of Adivasis for formal recognition of their distinct religious systems and for the inclusion of a separate religious code for them in the national census.

Therefore, prominent figures have appealed to all Adivasis and Jharkhandis, as well as all proponents of Adivasi identity, to safeguard Birsa’s legacy from the RSS and to convey the truth to the people on this death anniversary.

Names of all Signatories may be read here:

1. Geetashree Oraon, Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Ranchi
2. Bahadur Oraon, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
3. Mangal Singh Bobonga, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
4. Jacinta Kerketta, Poet and writer, Ranchi
5. Anuj Lugun, Poet, East Singhbhum
6. Jyotsana Kerketta, Adivasi Mulvasi Manch, Khunti
7. Kumar Chandra Mardi, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, East Singhbhum
8. Neetisha Xalxo, Assitant Professor, Dhanbad
9. Basavi Kiro, Indigenous Women India Network, Ranchi
10. Devkinandan Bedia, Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Ramgarh
11. Joseph Bara, Historian, Ranchi
12. Prabal Mahto, Film Maker, West Singhbhum
13. Ramesh Jerai, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
14. Rajni Murmu, Adivasi feminist organization, Deoghar
15. Aloka Kujur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
16. Sukhnath Lohra, Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Jharkhand, Ranchi
17. Durgawati Oraon, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
18. Binsay Munda, Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanway Samiti Jharkhand, Khunti
19. Chandramohan Birua, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
20. Demka Soy, Jharkhand Andolankari Morcha, East Singhbhum
21. Dinesh Murmu, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
22. Hari Kumar Bhagat, Concerned citizen, Latehar
23. Jaykishan Godsora, Research scholar, West Singhbhum
24. Kalicharan Birua, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha, West Singhbhum
25. Krishna Lohar, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
26. Ajay Bankira, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
27. Anant Kumar Hembrom, Activist, West Singhbhum
28. Anupam Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
29. Asman Hembram, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha Kharsawan, Seraikela-Kharsawan
30. Bablu Munda, Sayukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
31. Bahadur Hans, Sarna Sagom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
32. Basingh Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
33. Chandra Prabhat Munda, Adiwasi Samanway Samiti Khunti, Khunti
34. Chunulal Soren, Ekta Parishad,Jharkhand, Hazaribagh
35. Deepak Ranjeet, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
36. Jaisingh Bodra, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
37. Jamadar Kairam, Birsa Sena Noamundi, West Singhbhum
38. Kamal Purti, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, West Singhbhum
39. Laldeo Soren, Bharat Jakat Manjhli Pargana Mahal, Ramgarh
40. Mangal Singh Kuntia, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
41. Manik Chand Korwa, Samudayik Van Prabandhan Federation Garhwa, Garhwa
42. Mukta Hans, Sarna Sagam Samiti Khunti, Khunti
43. Narayan Kandeyang, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
44. Pramod Khalkho, Adivasi Ekta Manch and Jan Sangharsh Samiti Chainpur, Gumla
45. Renu Oraon, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Latehar
46. Sadhu Ho, Deshauli Foundation, West Singhbhum
47. Sanjay Horo, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
48. Shyamal Mardi, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Saraikela Kharsawan
49. Siddharth Honhaga, Bhagwan Birsa Munda Red Cross Volunteers., West Singhbhum
50. Somnath Pareya, Birsa Seva Dal, East Singhbhum
51. Sukhram Hansda, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
52. Sukhram Pahan, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
53. Sunil Hembram, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
54. Sunil Soren, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
55. Sunita Boipai, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
56. Sunita Lakra, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
57. Tarkan Munda, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha Khunti, Khunti
58. Tej Munda, Adibashi Bhumij Munda Samiti Kukru Balak, Seraikela-Kharsawan
59. Vibhishan Jerai, Birsa Changul Malhar Club, Devgaon, West Singhbhum
60. Ajay Ekka, Adivasi Kshetra Yuva Manch, Simdega
61. Ajit Kumar Tirkey, Jharkhand organization for social harmony, East Singhbhum
62. Aman Kumar Marandi, Concerned citizen, Dhanbad
63. Anjana Besra, Activist, Khunti
64. Ashim Ashish Tigga, Tribal Journalist Association, Ranchi
65. Bineet Mundu, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
66. Elina Horo, Adivasi Women’s Network, Ranchi
67. Gadadhar Tiyu, Kendriya Ho Samaj Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha
68. Gautam Minj, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
69. Jagmohan Singh Angaria, Activist, West Singhbhum
70. James Herenj, Activist, Latehar
71. Jennifer Baxla, Activist, Ranchi
72. Jugal Munda, Jaura Sika Akhara, Khunti
73. Kailu Baskey, Concerned citizen, Sahebganj
74. Krishna Tudu, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
75. Lakhan Mardi, Jhalak (majhi Baba), Seraikela-Kharsawan
76. Madan Mohan, Jharkhand Navnirman Abhiyan, East Singhbhum
77. Manita Deogam, Activist, West Singhbhum
78. Mathiyas Suren, Adivasi Association Noamundi, West Singhbhum
79. Mission Soy, Adivasi Ho Samaj Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
80. Nelshan Munda, Adivasi researcher, Khunti
81. Parmeshwar Manjhi, Concerned citizen, Bokaro
82. Rahul Oraon, HEC Hatia Vishthapit Parivar Samiti, Ranchi
83. Sadhu Charan Samad, Activist, West Singhbhum
84. Saroj Soreng, Concerned citizen, Simdega
85. Suresh Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
86. Abdus Subhan, Activist, Sahibganj
87. Abhinash Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbum
88. Abhishek Kujur, Student, Ranchi
89. Ajay Minj, Activist, Gumla
90. Albinus Lakra, Activist, Simdega
91. Ambika Yadav, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
92. Anamika Hansda, Activist, Godda
93. Ankit Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
94. Arpana Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
95. Ashok Verma, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
96. B B Choudhary, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Jharkhand, Ranchi
97. Badal Kumar Singh, Jharkhand Navnirman Dal,Gumla, Gumla
98. Balma Purty, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
99. Balram Karmakar, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
100. Bharat Birua, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
101. Bharti Barjo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
102. Binod, Adivasi Mahasabha, Simdega
103. Biplab Gorai, BGVS, East Singhbhum
104. Blacius Ekka, Activist, Simdega
105. Deepak Dholakia, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Delhi
106. Deepak Laguri, Student, West Singhbhum
107. Deepti Mary Minj, Concerned citizen, Simdega
108. Divya Vani Tirkey, Adivasi Yuva Chetna Manch (AICUF/AYCM), Ranchi
109. Dorothy Fernandes, Aashray Abhiyan, Patna
110. Emil Kandulna, Activist, Ranchi
111. Eric Murmu, Teacher, Deoghar
112. Faisal Anurag, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
113. Gangaram Jerai, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
114. Gabriel Bodra, Activist, West Singhbhum
115. Gautam Kumar Bose, Jharkhand Qaumi Ekta Manch, East Singhbhum
116. Geeta Godsora, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
117. George Monippally, Van Adhikar Manch, Latehar, Latehar
118. Jagat, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
119. Jano Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
120. Jawahar Mehta, Activist, Palamu
121. Jayman Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
122. Jitendra Baraik, Activist, Ranchi
123. Jitendra Oraon, Concerned citizen, Latehar
124. Jitendra Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
125. Jivan Hembram, Majhi Baba, East Singhbhum
126. Joseph Kisku, Activist, Dumka
127. Jyoti Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
128. Jyoti Behan, Mahila Mukti Sangharsh Samiti, Chatra, Chatra
129. Kamal Pahan, Concerned citizen, Khunti
130. Kamil Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
131. Kamlesh Korwa, Concerned citizen, Garhwa
132. Khetro Mohan Birua, Activist, West Singhbhum
133. Kiran, Sambhava injor, Ranchi
134. Kiran Veer, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Seraikela-Kharsawan
135. Kita Sinku, Activist, West Singhbhum
136. Kumari Leena, Human Rights Activist, Ranchi
137. Madhu Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
138. Manimala, Journalisr, Delhi
139. Manthan, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, East Singhbhum
140. Mathias Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
141. Michael Jojo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
142. Mikhael Hassa, Activist, Khunti
143. Mugli Kandeyang, West Singhbhum
144. Mukesh Hembram, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
145. Narendra Kumar, True Gandhian Group, Bokaro
146. Nawin Lugun, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
147. Nikita Hemrom, Bagaicha, Ranchi
148. Nimesh, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
149. Om Prakash, Azadi Bachao Andolan, East Singhbhum
150. Pius Topno, Student, Khunti
151. Ponderam Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
152. Poonam Deogam, Sprouts Child Grooming Center, West Singhbhum
153. Praphul Kujur, Activist, Ranchi
154. Praveer Peter, Sajha Kadam & Sadbhav Manch (NAPM), India
155. Prince Gill, JCM, East Singhbhum
156. Prof Yogendra, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Ranchi
157. Raj Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
158. Rajendra Champia, Activist, West Singhbhum
159. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Campaign to Defend Nature and People, Chennai
160. Rajshree, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
161. Ram Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
162. Rashmi Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
163. Ravi Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
164. Rita Kandey, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
165. Rose Madhu Tirkey, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
166. Rose Xaxa, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Gumla
167. Sanjana Mehta, Student activist, Garhwa
168. Sarita Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
169. Satish Munda, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
170. Saurabh Sinha, Activist, Deoghar
171. Savita Kachhap, Social activist and Research Scolar, Ranchi
172. Shailendra Sinku, Student, West Singhbhum
173. Shakha Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
174. Shashi Shekhar Singh, Citizens for Democracy’s, Delhi
175. Shivam Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
176. Siraj Dutta, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
177. Solomon, Concerned citizen, Dumka
178. Soumya, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
179. Subhash Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
180. Sunil Champia, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
181. Sunil Kumar Bansingh, Activist, East Singhbhum
182. Sushila Minj, Concerned citizen, central
183. Thakur Baske, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
184. Vicky Beck, Activist, Ranchi
185. Vijay Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
186. Vijay Kumar Barwa, Concerned citizen, Latehar
187. Vikas Das, Concerned citizen, Khunti
188. Vikash Kumar, Activist, East Singhbhum
189. Vikram Minj, Activist, Latehar
190. Vishwanath Azad, Ekal Nari Sashakti Sangathan, Hazaribagh
191. Vivek Vishal, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
192. Ananta, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
193. Ashok Vishwarai, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini (JASWA) / Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Unnao (Uttar Pradesh)
194. Ashok, MKSS, Pali, Rajasthan
195. Avinash Kadam, Shramik Mukti Dal, Thane, Maharashtra
196. Bela Bhatia, Human rights lawyer, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
197. Bimal Ekka, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
198. Sricharan Behera, Campaign for Survival and Fignity, Odisha, Khurdha
199. Shambhu Nath, Jan Sangharsh Vahini, Begusarai, Bihar
200. Ishwar Ahire, Manjur Sangharsh Vahini, Dhule, Maharashtra
201. Jag Narayan Mahto, Concerned citizen, Delhi
202. Joshy Jacob, Samajwadi Janaparishad, Kottayam, Kerala
203. Nandini Sundar, Sociologist, Delhi
204. Narbhinder Singh, Association for Democratic Rights Punjab, Tarn Taran, Punjab
205. Nelson Xess, Concerned citizen, N&M Andaman
206. Nootan, CDNP, Wardha, Maharashtra
207. Prafulla Samanthara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
208. Ranjana Kanhere, Activist, Nandurbar
209. Richa Singh, SKMS, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh
210. Sanjay Kumar Lakra, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
211. Shalini Gera, Lawyer, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
212. Somar Singh Bhokta, Mazdoor Kisan Samiti and Jaswa, Gaya Ji, Bihar
213. Sujata Gothoskar, Nari Atyachar Virodhi Manch, Mumbai, Maharashtra
214. Umakanta Naik, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
215. Vinod Vikram, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, Allahabad (UP)
216. Virendra Kumar, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Mumbai

Related:

How Not To Remember Birsa Munda 

Adivasis protest BJP’s ‘insult’ to freedom fighter Birsa Munda

Jharkhand Adivasis celebrate Birsa Munda Jayanti on Jharkhand formation day

The post Appeal by Adivasi-Mulvasi leaders to Jharkhandis: Protect Birsa Munda’s legacy from the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: Members of the transgender community submitted a memorandum to the Police Commissioner demanding strict action against inflammatory social media posts spreading Hindu-Muslim division. They urged increased monitoring, legal action against offenders pic.twitter.com/6K3Lj4QtvS

— IANS (@ians_india) June 4, 2026

Ironically, while they had approached the Police Commissioner as conscientious citizens, they were not allowed to enter the premises but had to submit the memorandum at the gate. The social media post reflected a police official accepting the memorandum after perusing the contents.

Related:

A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW!

The post Varanasi: Transgender Community demands action against communal social media posts, CP denies them entry into premises appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, this action by the BMC authorities, as reported by India Today, followed two months after BJP leader and former MP Kirit Somaiya visited the place and urged the authorities to demolish the structure that was allegedly constructed on the land of the Maharashtra government’s dairy development project. Somaiya is a key leader who stokes strong communal passions in Mumbai. Soon after the demolition, the veteran BJP leader wrote on X, “Land JIHAD… illegal DARGAH of Aarey Colony Mumbai Demolished today. I had visited & filed a complaint on April 9, 2026.”

AAREY Land JIHAD

70,000 square feet Forest Land was grabbed in the name of Dargah.

After consistent efforts of 12 months 6 visits & 12 meetings with Minister, Officials & 1 FIR yesterday DEMOLITION.

Now this land is to be handed over to Forest Dept, Sanjay Gandhi National… pic.twitter.com/RA8NddmIxe

— Kirit Somaiya (@KiritSomaiya) June 3, 2026

Land Jihad
Land Grabbing in the name of DARGAH

Aarey Colony Reserved Forest Land by

Mahmud Yasin
Anwar Pinjari
Imran Mansuri
Vasim Mansuri & others

I had visited the site half a dozen times in last 12 months. Exposed the Land JIHAD & Filed complaints with Aarey Colony,… pic.twitter.com/CRxgq2UCvx

— Kirit Somaiya (@KiritSomaiya) June 2, 2026

Early on Tuesday morning, an army of bulldozers and cranes arrived on the land to start the demolition drive. The area was cordoned off by a heavy deployment of police forces to prevent any unpleasant situation from arising. Keeping the stone-pelting incident of Bandra Garib Nagar in mind, where the people allegedly threw stones at the officials when a demolition driver headed to raze down a religious structure, the people started throwing stones. Personnel from both Mumbai Police and riot-control forces were present at the spot.

Last week, the BMC also demolished a temple that was illegally constructed in Mumbai’s Dindoshi area.

Related:

Why was a 200-year-old mosque in Varanasi demolished in the middle of the night?

Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP

The post Under heavy police protection, decades-old Mumbai dargah razed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Statesman reported that the Ajgaib Shaheed Mosque, located near Rajghat and falling within the alignment of the railway expansion project, was brought down shortly after midnight amid extensive security arrangements. Officials claimed that the structure stood on railway land earmarked for the station’s modernisation and expansion.

A report in the Deccan Herald said that a Hanuman Temple, which was also built on the railway land, was removed.

This sudden and arbitrary demolition is linked to a major infrastructure project under which Kashi railway station is being transformed into an integrated transport hub with airport-like facilities. Estimated to cost between Rs 330 crore and Rs 400 crore, the project aims to connect rail, road, metro and water transport networks at a single location to improve passenger movement in the city.

According to officials, senior police and administrative officers reached the site late Tuesday night and supervised the operation, which was completed within a short span. Bulldozers and earth-moving equipment were deployed to bring down the structure and clear the debris.

Massive security cover for overnight operation

The administration had put in place elaborate security measures to prevent any law-and-order issues during the exercise.

Joint Commissioner of Police Shiv Hari Meena led the security arrangements, with several IPS officers, police personnel and paramilitary forces stationed in and around the area. Access to the site was tightly restricted during the operation.

Officials said five JCB machines and two Poclain excavators were used in the demolition process.

Senior officers monitored operation

Before the demolition began, senior officials carried out a review of the area and security deployment. Among those present were DCP Kashi Gaurav Banswal, ADCP Vaibhav Bangar, ACP Vijay Pratap and officers from multiple police stations. The heavy deployment continued until debris from the site was removed.

Related:

Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP

Rebuild or Compensate: Nagpur HC confronts NMC over ‘bulldozer’ demolition in riot case

Demolition of Adivasi homes at Sanjay Gandhi National Park on Republic Day

The post Why was a 200-year-old mosque in Varanasi demolished in the middle of the night? appeared first on SabrangIndia.