During the hearing of February 25, the case of Ajabha Khatun was mentioned before the court, with senior advocate Aparna Bhat stating that the challenge against the Foreigner Tribunal’s order declaring Khatun to be foreigner remains pending in the Gauhati High Court. She emphasised that since the High Court has yet to consider her case, any final order of deportation against her would be legally untenable. The counsel further argued that without the exhaustion of legal remedies, deportation would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the Tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged that Khatun’s case is still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. Given this, while the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim relief at this stage, the case has been kept pending. Moreover, the SC and asked the counsel for Khatun to seek the appropriate orders from the High Court itself. Consequently, no formal notice was issued in her case. However, the order serves as an important legal nudge, as it can now be used to urge the Gauhati High Court to expedite hearing of her appeal from the order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The interim relief sought is stay her deportation until her case is fully heard. This is critical because a wrongful deportation, even before judicial review is complete, would violate fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary state action.

The court stated in its order that “The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the name of the        applicant figures at serial no.18 on the list submitted by the Government of Assam of the foreigners who are to be deported. She states that the applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal declaring her as a foreign national by filing a writ petition before the High Court. If that be so, it is for the applicant to seek appropriate interim relief from the High Court in that behalf. Therefore, at this stage, we are not passing any order on this Application.”

In the original Rajubala Das v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court directed the Assam government to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. This directive underscores the need for transparency in the process and ensures that the state accounts for each detainee’s status before proceeding with any deportation.

SG Tushar Mehta had, during the hearing, requested for some time to provide the Court with the decision of the executive in regards to the issue of deportation. The case is now scheduled for a further hearing on March 21, 2025, where the fate of many, including Ajabha Khatun, will be closely examined.

In the order, the Bench stated “Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that the issue of deportation of the foreigners which arises in this Petition is being dealt with at the highest executive level and if time is granted, he will place on record the decision taken by the appropriate authority. We grant him time till 21st March, 2025.”

The order of February 25, 2025 may be read here.

Senior counsel Aparna Bhat argued the matter in the Supreme Court assisted by advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Sanjana Thomas. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta leads the CJP’s team in Assam and is arguing the matter in the Gauhati High Court.

Why was this impleadment essential?

The case of Ajabha Khatun exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process, where individuals are arbitrarily declared foreigners and detained without substantive proof. Khatun, a resident of Assam, has been held at the Matia Detention Camp despite a lack of evidence linking her to any foreign country. She is among the 63 detainees the Assam government claims are foreigners and must be deported—a claim that has been challenged for its lack of legal and evidentiary basis.

The state’s affidavit, submitted in court, asserts that 270 persons, including 63 from Bangladesh, are currently detained at Matia. In past hearings, including one on January 22, 2025, Assam has repeatedly argued that none of these detainees are Indian and that deportation is warranted. However, when directly questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about the country of origin of these detainees, the Assam government’s counsel erroneously insisted that all were declared foreigners—a claim that lacks evidence and legal credibility.

Khatun’s case is part of the broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. The original petitioner, Rajubala Das, had sought directives preventing Assam authorities from detaining individuals without demonstrating a realistic possibility of deportation. Ajabha Khatun, detained in Matia Detention Camp, has filed both an Impleadment Application and an Application for Directions to challenge the order facilitating her deportation. She argues that she is an Indian citizen and that the Tribunal’s decision was marred by procedural and evidentiary irregularities.

Denial of fundamental rights in Ajabha Khatun’s case

Ajabha Khatun’s case, once again, highlights the systematic denial of fundamental rights to individuals declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). In her case, her denial of rights began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for Barpeta Assembly Constituency doubted her citizenship and forwarded her case to SP Barpeta (Competent Authority) under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act, 1983/The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. The Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta district passed its order declaring her non-Indian on February 8, 2019. She was arrested, however, only in September 2024 after which CJP has assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. It was only after the state filed an affidavit in the original Rajubala case, providing a list of 63 detainees on February 3, 2025, through which the government erroneously informed the Court were foreigners that the CJP team found Ajabha to figure on the list (serial number 18).

Since her citizenship had been doubted and the question of whether the said Ajabha Khatun was a citizen of India or not remained unanswered, her right to cast a vote has been put in abeyance. Notably, while her constitutional rights to vote were snatched away, the ERO inquiry report which does not record any reasons for the arbitrary action in striking her name of the electoral rolls raised more questions than it answers.

From the moment a notice was issued against her, in 2017, she was deprived of procedural fairness—a core component of natural justice. During the FT proceedings despite the proffering of witness testimony and crucial documentary evidence, a misplaced application of burden of proof was applied, her father’s evidence deposing that she was his daughter was disregarded and she was declared non-Indian.

Additionally, it is essential to highlight that an investigation report was submitted by Local Verification Officer Dipankar Baruah to the Election Registration Officer (ERO), 43 No. Barpeta LAC. This report, marked as Annexure-A, formed the basis for the reference made against the Opposing Party. However, points 15 and 16 of Annexure-A expose glaring inconsistencies:

• Point 15 explicitly asks whether the Opposing Party (Ajabha Khatun) migrated to Assam (Yes/No), yet the LVO fails to provide any response.
• Point 16 further inquires that, if the Opposing Party did migrate—about the place of origin (State or Country) and the time frame of migration (before January 1, 1966, between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, or after March 25, 1971). Both these critical fields are left entirely blank in the investigation report.

This omission makes it undeniably clear that the LVO had no basis in fact to substantiate the allegation of migration against the Opposing Party. If the investigating officer himself did not raise any doubts, on what basis did the ERO and Superintendent of Police (SP) initiate this reference?

With no substantive claim or evidence against the Opposing Party, the reference is arbitrary, baseless, and legally unsustainable. Ajabha’s challenge against the order of the Tribunal remains is now pending before the Gauhati High Court.

Beyond these substantive and procedural violations, Khatun’s detention at Matia Detention Camp amounts to an infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Arrested in September 2024, she has been confined for an indefinite period without a criminal charge, in conditions the Supreme Court itself has recognised as deplorable. Furthermore, her right to equality under Article 14 has been denied, as citizenship determination processes disproportionately target marginalised communities, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. The denial of her right to reside and settle in India (Article 19) further compounds this injustice, as she faces the possibility of deportation despite having lived in Assam her entire life.

Besides, since 1997, her access to receive the benefit of government schemes has been limited, due to non-issuance of Aadhar cards. Since her unique identity card has not been issued by the government, basic welfare facilities, such as ration, has been out of bounds for her.

This case is further crucial because it exemplifies the larger crisis of wrongful citizenship determinations in Assam. If Khatun were to have been deported despite the absence of substantive evidence, it would have set a dangerous precedent where individuals, particularly the poor and marginalised, can be stripped of their citizenship arbitrarily. The state’s approach in this case—ignoring due process, misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court, and failing to establish any real connection between detainees and a foreign country—exposes the structural failures of the FT system. Ensuring that Khatun’s rights are upheld is not just about her case; it is about holding the state accountable for its unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of individuals declared foreigners.

More broadly, the case underscores why every person under the threat of deportation must be allowed to exhaust all legal remedies before any steps are undertaken. Deportation is an irreversible action with life-altering consequences, often resulting in statelessness, separation from families, and denial of basic human rights. Ensuring access to legal recourse safeguards against wrongful expulsions and upholds the rule of law. Given the well-documented flaws in the FT process, the judiciary must act as a check on executive overreach, ensuring that no individual is deprived of their rights without rigorous scrutiny.

Key issues in the case

1. Arbitrary declaration as a foreigner: The applicant was declared a foreigner without substantive proof.
2. Violation of procedural fairness: The Foreigners Tribunal failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for her to prove her citizenship.
3. Lack of material linking the applicant to another country: The State has failed to establish any connection between the applicant and a foreign country.
4. Impact of wrongful deportation: Deportation could lead to statelessness and irreversible human rights violations.

Legal grounds for impleadment and directions

The applicant’s legal claims are twofold:

1. Impleadment as a necessary party: Given the direct impact of the Supreme Court’s deportation order, Ajabha Khatun must be impleaded to protect her fundamental rights as her case remains pending in the Gauhati High Court and her legal remedies have not been exhausted.
2. Application for Directions to stay the deportation order: The applicant seeks judicial intervention to halt her deportation, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful. Since there had been no grant to interim relief by the Gauhati High Court, the applicant urged the Supreme Court to ensure that no action is taken against her till she is heard and her proofs of citizenship are appreciated.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): Discriminatory treatment in citizenship determination processes disproportionately affects marginalised communities.
2. Article 19 (Right to Reside and Settle in India): Deportation without due process violates her constitutional right to reside in India.
3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Arbitrary detention and wrongful deportation violate her right to live with dignity.

Lack of evidence for proving foreign nationality:

1. The Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration was based on procedural flaws and lacked substantive evidence. The Tribunal did not appreciate the voter rolls presented as evidence, containing her father’s name, her husband’s name as well as her own name.
2. The FT ignored her father’s testimony which flies in the face of the primary rules of Evidence under the Evidence Act.
3. The State’s assertion that her nationality is “known” –in one set of documents –while keeping that category “blank” in another —contradicts both the facts and the Tribunal’s failure to identify any foreign connection. While her name figured in the name of the 63 deemed worthy of deportation by the state, her legal remedies have yet to be exhausted and she only has a FT order against her.

Pending legal challenge before Gauhati High Court:

1. The applicant’s challenge before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 6626/2024) is at the motion stage.
2. Proceeding with deportation while the case is sub judice violates principles of judicial fairness.

Analysis of the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

The Foreigners Tribunal 1^st Barpeta, Assam, in its order dated February 8, 2019, declared Ajabha Khatun a post-1971 foreigner based on alleged failure to prove Indian citizenship. However, it is the argument of the applicant that the order reveals severe procedural and evidentiary flaws:

• No independent investigation appears to have been conducted to verify her citizenship before the notice was served to her and her name struck off the electoral rolls
• Documentary evidence was disregarded without justification.
• The burden of proof was misapplied under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

It is essential to note that the following evidence had been submitted by Ajabha Khatun to prove her citizenship:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 showing her grandfather, father, and herself as registered voters.
• Gaonburah certificates confirming familial relationships.
• Affidavits and cross-examinations corroborating her Indian lineage.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal rejected this evidence based on hyper-technical objections, without addressing the substantive proof of her citizenship. Further issues with the decision of the FT are:

• The inquiry report forming the basis of the allegations was not served on the applicant.
• The report merely stated a “suspicion” of foreign nationality without any concrete evidence.
• The ERO’s report striking her off the electoral rolls has also been from the documents available been the result of a conclusion reached without any investigation or inquiry.
• The Tribunal’s approach was inconsistent with established judicial principles requiring prima facie material before declaring a person a foreigner.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal’s decision stands in direct violation of established precedents, as it fails to establish a prima facie case. In legal proceedings, the necessity of demonstrating an initial case with sufficient evidence is fundamental to ensuring due process. By neglecting this requirement, the Tribunal undermines the legitimacy of its decision-making process. Furthermore, the absence of substantive evidence renders the declaration legally untenable. Without concrete proof to support its conclusions, the decision lacks a firm legal foundation and is susceptible to challenge. Such a deficiency not only weakens the authority of the ruling but also raises concerns about its adherence to principles of justice and fairness. The IA provides the following judicial percent’s that were violated by the FT while declaring its order:

1. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer [(1995) 3 SCC 100] – Due process requires disclosure of reasons before removing a person from voter rolls.
2. State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013 SCC OnLine Gau 1) – Tribunals must ensure prima facie material exists before issuing notices.
3. Haidar Ali v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Gau 683) – Recognised the perfunctory and arbitrary manner of Foreigners Tribunal proceedings.
4. Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695) – Authorities must have substantive grounds for suspecting foreign nationality.

Conclusion and prayer

The case of Ajabha Khatun exemplifies the systemic failures in citizenship determination in Assam. If the Supreme Court proceeds to direct deportation of those “”declared to be foreigners”, without acknowledging that at least 20 of the 63 inmates have cases pending at various Constitutional Courts, and without considering Ajabha Khatun’s case, it will result in violation of constitutional and international human rights norms. The applicant, through her interventions, had requested the Supreme Court to:

1. Implead her as Party Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 234 of 2020.
2. Stay the deportation order until her case before the Gauhati High Court is resolved.
3. Scrutinise Foreigners Tribunal procedures to prevent arbitrary declarations of foreign nationality.

This case underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in citizenship determination to prevent wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals.

महाराष्ट्र के मालवण में India Vs Pakistan क्रिकेट मैच के बाद कुछ लोगों पर पाकिस्तान समर्थित नारेबाज़ी के आरोप लगे, जिसके बाद दुकान पर बुलडोज़र कार्रवाई देखने को मिली। pic.twitter.com/zEsCQhYi7L

— Ashraf Hussain (@AshrafFem) February 25, 2025

Reports on the incident first surfaced in The Indian Express on Tuesday. Reportedly, the boy had been apprehended immediately after, first sent to an observation home and then released to relatives. He had been initially produced before the district Child Welfare Committee and sent to a remand home. The parents, who were produced before a local Sindhudurg court, were first sent to magistrate’s custody until adequate legal aid was obtained after which they were granted bail. Bail formalities however took some time so reportedly they were released only on Wednesday. Meanwhile their home and scrap shop had been razed to the ground, reportedly not by any official bulldozers but by vigilantes belonging to controversial organisations.

On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had delivered a landmark judgment addressing the issue of illegal demolitions, a phenomenon popularised as “bulldozer justice”. The judgment, which is widely regarded as a significant in protecting fundamental rights, critiques the executive’s use of property demolition as a substitute for criminal prosecution. The judgment asserted that the executive cannot bypass judicial processes to punish an accused by demolishing property, as this oversteps executive powers and undermines the rule of law. The Court described these arbitrary demolitions as “high-handed” and deemed demolitions without the authorities following the basic principles of natural justice and acting without due process to be a “chilling sight”.

Sindhudurg SP Saurabh Kumar Agrawal told The Times of India, “The anti-national slogans led to our lodging an FIR.”

The three were booked under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 197 (imputations/assertions prejudicial to national integration, and 3 (5) (acts with common intention) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. For offences under Sections 196 ((any person who promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and acts likely to prevent their maintenance) and 197 (acts likely to prejudice national integration) and 3(5) (when two or more persons have committed a criminal act in furtherance of a common purpose (under the BNS, 2023. The maximum punishment is 3 years in jail or fine or both.

Hence, based on the complaint by a VHP worker, the police acted and detained the family: a scrap metal trader, his wife, and their teenage son.  The minor was sent to a juvenile home, while his parents were initially remanded to 14 days of judicial custody. However, they were subsequently granted bail.

The Bulldozer’s fury: demolition controversy

Other reports indicated that, on February 24, it was none less than the Malvan Municipal Council, under the leadership of Chief Officer Santosh Jirge, that took a drastic step by demolishing of the family’s scrap shop claiming on the back of Sunday’s complaint that the constructions were “unauthorised” and obstructing traffic “The concerned scrap metal business had done unauthorized construction here. Moreover, this scrap metal business was also obstructing traffic in the city,” stated Jirge to the BBC Marathi.

This action, however, appeared to be influenced by Shiv Sena MLA Nilesh Rane (brother of BJP MLA and right-wing leader Nitesh Rane), who publicly condemned the family’s alleged actions. Rane shared visuals of the demolition on X, stating, “In Malvan, a Muslim migrant scrap dealer raised anti-India slogans after the India-Pakistan match yesterday. As an action, we will definitely expel this outsider from the district, but before that, we immediately destroyed his scrap business.”

“Shiv Sena’s Nilesh Rane shared the visuals of the bulldozer action against the shop on X and stated, ‘In Malvan, a Muslim migrant scrap dealer raised anti-India slogans after the India-Pakistan match yesterday. As an action, we will definitely expel this outsider from the district, but before that, we immediately destroyed his scrap business. We thank the Malvan Municipal Council administration and the police administration for taking prompt action,'” as seen on Rane’s X account.

मालवणात एक मुसलमान परप्रांतीय भंगार व्यवसायिक यानी काल भारत पाकिस्तान मॅच नंतर भारत विरोधी घोषणा दिल्या.
कारवाई म्हणून आम्ही या परप्रांतीय हरामखोराला जिल्ह्यातून हाकलून देणारच पण त्या अगोदर तात्काळ त्याचा भंगार व्यवसाय उध्वस्त करून टाकला.
मालवण नगर परिषद प्रशासन आणि पोलीस… pic.twitter.com/LK1yDPuLa6

— Nilesh N Rane (@meNeeleshNRane) February 24, 2025

Parents of boy get bail but can’t leave state without court’s permission

In the remand application before the court, police stated that the complaint was filed by Malvan resident Sachin Varadkar, a 35-year-old labourer and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) worker. Varadkar told The Indian Express that he had overheard 15-year-old boy shouting “anti-national” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match on February 23. Following this complaint, the boy’s parents were arrested.

However, on February 25, a local court in Malvan, granted them bail. The court rejected the police’s request for custody, placing conditions on their release, including restrictions on leaving the state without court permission, cooperation with the investigation, and weekly attendance at the local police station until the chargesheet is filed. Despite being granted bail, the couple was not released until late Wednesday as the bail formalities were still being processed, as reported The Indian Express

The absence of evidence: a case built on flimsy claims?

As per BBC Marathi report, a crucial aspect of this incident is the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations. Sindhudurg Superintendent of Police Saurabh Agarwal confirmed, “There is no video available regarding the anti-national slogans.” The police action was based solely on a complaint, casting doubt on the reliability of the accusations.

“Sindhudurg Superintendent of Police Saurabh Agarwal, while reacting to the matter, said, ‘An investigation is underway in this case. There is no video available regarding the anti-national slogans. We have taken this action based on a complaint from a person. We are investigating the matter,'” he stated.

Legal expert Aseem Sarode criticized the demolition, deeming it illegal and arbitrary. “Taking such action without giving any notice even if the residence is unauthorized is illegal,” said Sarode to BBC Marathi. He also raised concerns about the rise of “illegal power centres” and the dangers of “self-policing.”

While speaking to BBC Marathi, Sarode said that“Taking such action without giving any notice even if the residence is unauthorized is illegal. The second thing is why the municipality did not notice this earlier? All the procedures of giving notice and then understanding their side are written in the law. Taking such unilateral action just because some leader tells you to is very wrong. This increases the risk of an illegal power centre starting,” according to BBC Marathi.

Political fallout and community tensions

The incident triggered strong political reactions. Vinayak Raut, a leader from the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena, condemned the alleged anti-national slogans and questioned the role of the Maharashtra Home Department. “It is condemnable that Pakistani people come to a small town like Malvan and do business there,” said Raut.

“While interacting with the media, he said, ‘It is condemnable that Pakistani people come to a small town like Malvan and do business there. The pests who live in Malvan and raise slogans of ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ should be crushed. Who supported these Pakistani people there? Who encouraged them to do business? If Pakistani people are coming to a small town like Malvan, what is the Maharashtra Home Department doing?’” as reported BBC Marathi.

Locals organised a motorcycle rally, demanding strict action against the family. Reports circulated on social media, claiming that lawyers in Malvan would boycott the family’s case. However, Satish Kumar Dhamapurkar, president of the Malvan Taluka Bar Association, refuted these claims. “This is incorrect information. We have not taken any decision to boycott or not to take legal papers,” Dhamapurkar clarified.

The family’s residency: questions and investigations

Superintendent Agarwal confirmed that the family originally hails from Uttar Pradesh and has been residing in Sindhudurg for 20-25 years. They possess Aadhaar cards, voting cards, and PAN cards issued in Sindhudurg. “The persons against whom the case has been registered are originally from Uttar Pradesh. However, they have been residing in Sindhudurg for the last 20-25 years,” confirmed Agarwal.

“The persons against whom the case has been registered are originally from Uttar Pradesh. However, they have been residing in Sindhudurg for the last 20-25 years. Their Aadhaar card, voting card and PAN card are also from Sindhudurg. Were there any irregularities in obtaining all these documents? We are investigating this,” Agarwal stated.

Nilesh Rane, however, questioned the legitimacy of their residency and documents. “They are three brothers, where did they come from, how did they come? How did they come to Malvan 10-12 years ago, no answer has been found yet,” Rane stated in a video.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Nilesh Rane FC (@nileshranesamarthak)

A town divided: unanswered questions and lingering tensions

The Malvan incident has left a community grappling with unanswered questions and lingering tensions. The absence of concrete evidence, the swift punitive action, and the involvement of non-governmental entities have raised serious concerns about the erosion of due process and the rule of law.

“No evidence surfaced on anti-India slogan and Malvan never had a history of communal tension,” reports indicated. “Doubt of whether any such slogan was raised. This is not confirmed however. Malvan never had a history of communal tension: According to a video shared by the Hindutva Watch, claims that the shop of the family raised in the presence of local right-wing leaders, they also raised the slogans against the Muslim family.

However, the Malvan incident presents a complex situation marked by rapid action and numerous unanswered questions. The swift arrest of the family, the demolition of their shop, and the lack of concrete evidence raise concerns about due process and the influence of political entities.

Was the demolition legally justified, especially without prior notice?

How did a single accusation lead to such drastic measures, and what role did political figures play in these actions?

The absence of video evidence for the alleged slogans leaves the foundation of the case in doubt. Were the family’s residency documents properly vetted, or were they used as a pretext for further action? The community’s response, including rallies and social media claims, underscores existing tensions.

Related:

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Minister’s casteist remarks and tribal violence spark fury

The post A 15-year-old boy “accused”, family shop and home demolished in direct contravention of SC orders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the latest of such letters, Stalin writes,

“My dear sisters and brothers from other states, Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and many more are now gasping for survival.

“The push for a monolithic Hindi identity is what kills ancient mother tongues. UP and Bihar were never just ‘Hindi heartlands.’ Their real languages are now relics of the past.

Tamil Nadu resists because we know where this ends. தமிழ் விழித்தது; தமிழினத்தின் பண்பாடு பிழைத்தது! சில மொழிகள் இந்திக்கு இடம் கொடுத்தன; இருந்த இடம் தெரியாமல் தொலைந்தன!

#தமிழ்_வாழ்க #LetterToBrethren
#StopHindiImposition #SaveIndianLanguages”

My dear sisters and brothers from other states,

Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and… pic.twitter.com/VhkWtCDHV9

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) February 27, 2025

Tamil Nadu goes to the polls next year and this issue of autonomy, federalism and the Tamil language is going to dominate. Last week, in a fiery response to the union’s move on the National Education Policy (NEP), Chief Minister MK Stalin  claimed that this will push Tamil Nadu ‘backward by 2000 years.’ These moves reflect the deep-rooted resistance within the state against the Union government’s continued disregard for federalism and linguistic diversity. Stalin has further emphasised that the NEP, with its centralised approach, ignores the unique educational needs of each state and is a blatant effort to homogenise education across India.

Last week Stalin’s strong and principled opposition to the union government on the imposition of the National Education Policy (NEP) and its three language policy as also the withholding of state funds by the union also echoed on social media garnering widespread support.

This is what you call an Opposition! Bravo! @mkstalin https://t.co/am1ZuKwZvt

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 22, 2025

Related:

Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy

The post ‘TN resists Hindi domination because we know where it ends, the extinguishing of ancient languages’: ML Stalin to DMK cadres appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, says the statement issued by the DUJ, a pattern is clearly visible in this episode. The DUJ, along with other journalists’ bodies, has been demanding that the authorities reinstate the system of journalists’ passes. The Delhi government seems to be copying the increasingly restrictive methods being employed in Parliament to restrict coverage. The DUJ has repeatedly protested the fact that the Parliament Secretariat now issues only temporary/ sessional passes even for veteran journalists as well as those who fall into the long and distinguished journalists category.

The DUJ has also condemned the basis of the central and state accreditation policies that are discriminatory in composition, favour certain journalists, are biased against independent journalists and even target select unions and associations. These policies and practices should be reviewed.

The Delhi Union of Journalists has urged the Delhi Assembly authorities to immediately issue regular passes for all eligible journalists to cover the Assembly proceedings, in the interests of transparency.

After all, the statement adds, “the nation wants to know. “ The statement has been issued by Sujata Madhok, President, SK Pande, Vice President and Am Jigeesh, General Secretary.

Related:

Stop covering up tragedies, say NAJ-DUJ to govt

NAJ, DUJ, APWJF Welcome Bail to Journalists

Hindustan ko bolne do, says DUJ 

The post DUJ condemns denial of media entry into Delhi Assembly by BJP government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The signs of the rise of the Right are evident across Europe. In France, the National Rally, despite not winning a majority in the end, became a key party in France winning 142 seats out of the National Assembly’s 577 seats. In January 2025, Jean-Marie Le Pen, one of Europe’s most prominent right-wing figures and founder of the National Rally, died aged 96. His daughter, Marine Le Pen, had long led the party he founded in 1972—the National Front (renamed National Rally in 2018). Jean-Marie was expelled from his party in August 2015 amidst a feud with his daughter.

In the National Front’s early days, Jean-Marie Le Pen was a pariah, his radical views on immigration and nationalism relegating him to France’s political fringes. His first presidential bid in 1974 garnered less than 1% of the vote, highlighting his marginal status at the time. In stark contrast, the 2002 election marked a significant leap for Le Pen, as he secured over 15% of the votes in the first round, propelling him into the second round against Jacques Chirac. This dramatic increase in support underscored the growing influence of his far-right ideology and the National Front’s rise from the political fringes to a major force in French politics.

Marine Le Pen transformed the party into a major force, renaming it National Rally to shed its racist and anti-Semitic associations. She softened its rhetoric, distanced it from her father’s extremist views, and rebranded it as a mainstream alternative. This “de-demonization” strategy enabled electoral breakthroughs. The journey from Jean-Marie’s early irrelevance to Marine’s mainstreaming of far-right ideology encapsulates this article’s theme: the rise of far-right movements in Europe, their evolution from marginal to influential players, and the disruptions they pose to the existing world order.

Historical Context

The rise of far-right movements was shaped by socio-economic anxieties, cultural shifts, and political opportunities. Post-war Western Europe experienced economic growth, wealth distribution, and social stability, but as this stability eroded, right-wing extremism and populism found new openings. Immigration, national identity, and sovereignty became central issues for far-right mobilization. The 1973 oil crisis marked the end of post-WWII prosperity, fuelling discontent. Rising opposition to the welfare state, and tax systems, and increased xenophobia amid non-European immigration further accelerated this trend.

Global Catalysts

Several world events reinforced far-right expansion. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 heightened anxieties over national identity and border security. Globalization caused economic disruptions, leaving many feelings marginalized. The rise of multiculturalism and the perceived decline of traditional values triggered a cultural backlash, which far-right movements exploited. These factors deepened insecurity and alienation, making certain segments of the population receptive to far-right rhetoric. It is within these conditions we find homophobia, racism, etc. today in Europe.

National Variations

The far right rose differently across Europe. In Germany, reunification in 1990 created economic and social strains, which the extreme right leveraged. In Austria, Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) gained influence, entering government in 2000. In France, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front capitalized on economic discontent and anti-immigrant sentiment. These cases illustrate how far-right movements adapted to specific national contexts, exploiting existing grievances to reshape political landscapes.

Current Political Landscape

The contemporary rise of far-right parties across Europe is marked by significant electoral gains and increased visibility. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has emerged as a dominant nationalist force. Recently, speaking at the United States’ Conservative Political Action Conference, she criticized what she saw as a double standard, noting that when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair built a global left-liberal network in the 1990s, they were hailed as statesmen, whereas figures like Trump, Meloni, Milei (Argentina’s President), and possibly Modi are now labelled as threats to democracy. Giorgia Meloni is arguably the most prominent face of the right-wing conservative parties in Europe although she has been described by some as pragmatic and shrewd in her politics.

In Germany, the AfD has become the second-largest party, capitalizing on economic grievances and anti-immigrant sentiments. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has embraced far-right policies, consolidating power through nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. And in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally continues to challenge mainstream parties.

Frustration with the welfare state and tax policies, perceived as excessive, has further driven national populism. The failure of centrist parties to address these concerns has created a political vacuum that far-right movements exploit.

Cultural and social factors also play a key role. The 2015 migration crisis intensified fears of cultural displacement and strengthened anti-immigrant sentiments. Many national populist voters seek to reassert national identity, viewing globalization and international institutions as threats to their communities and traditions.

Political factors further enable the rise of the far right. The erosion of liberal and social democratic traditions has weakened centrist alternatives, while anti-establishment sentiment and political distrust push voters toward radical right-wing populism. Crises—whether economic, social, or security-related—provide fertile ground for far-right movements, which thrive on instability, inequality, and mistrust of mainstream politicians.

Understanding the reasons for the rise of Right

Gramscian hegemony provides a lens through which we can view the rise of the far-right as a challenge to the established cultural and political dominance of centrist ideologies. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist theorist, argued that hegemony is the process by which a dominant group maintains its power not just through coercion, but also through consent. This consent is achieved through cultural and ideological means, making the dominant group’s worldview seem natural and inevitable.

In the context of contemporary Europe, the far-right can be seen as a counter-hegemonic force. They challenge the hegemonic narratives of centrist ideologies, which have long dominated European politics. By questioning the established order and offering alternative visions, far-right movements tap into the frustrations and grievances of segments of the population who feel marginalized or ignored by mainstream politics.

The neoliberal backlash theory suggests that the economic policies of the past few decades have created conditions ripe for far-right populism. Neoliberalism, characterized by free-market policies, deregulation, and reduced government intervention, has led to increased economic inequality and job insecurity. These economic conditions have driven voters to seek alternative solutions, making them more susceptible to the messages of far-right parties.

Far-right movements often capitalize on these economic anxieties by promising to restore economic stability and national pride. They appeal to voters who feel left behind by globalization and economic liberalization, offering a narrative that blames external forces and marginalized groups for their economic hardships.

Empirical research supports these theoretical perspectives. For instance, studies have shown that economic inequality and job insecurity are significant predictors of support for far-right parties.[1] Additionally, qualitative and quantitative analyses of right-wing populist groups across various European countries reveal common themes of anti-immigration sentiment, nationalism, and a rejection of the political establishment.[2]

The formation of the European Union (EU) has had a profound impact on cultural nationalism in Europe. The EU was designed to foster economic and political integration, creating a unified European identity. However, this process has also led to a sense of cultural homogenization, where local traditions and identities are sometimes overshadowed by a broader European culture. This has created a tension between the desire for a unified Europe and the need to preserve national and regional cultural identities.

Eurocentrism and Cultural Nationalism

The dominance of homogenized Western culture, particularly American influence, has further complicated the cultural landscape in Europe. The spread of Western media and multinational corporations has led to concerns about cultural erosion and the dilution of local traditions. This has fuelled a backlash against globalization and has provided fertile ground for cultural nationalist movements. These movements often position themselves as defenders of national identity against external influences, appealing to those who feel their cultural heritage is under threat.

The Rise of Right-Wing Political Parties

The rise of right-wing political parties in Europe can be seen as a response to these cultural and economic anxieties. These parties often capitalize on fears of cultural erosion and economic insecurity, promising to restore national pride and protect traditional values. For example, the refugee crisis in Europe, which brought over a million asylum seekers to Germany between 2015 and 2016, amplified fears of cultural and economic instability, leading to the rise of nationalist parties like Alternative for Germany (AfD). Similar anxieties have driven support for right-wing movements in Scandinavia, where concerns over immigration and cultural identity have surged.

What happened to the Left in Europe?

The European left has declined due to economic shifts, internal divisions, and cultural nationalism. Once dominant, left-wing parties have lost their traditional working-class base, leading to fragmentation between social democrats and progressives. Economic changes, such as the decline of industrial jobs and the rise of precarious labour, have weakened solidarity, while concerns over immigration and national identity have further eroded leftist appeal. Many voters see left-wing parties as ineffective in addressing these issues, fuelling distrust in their leadership.

Right-wing nationalism has surged by capitalizing on cultural anxieties, emphasizing sovereignty, and positioning itself as a defender of national identity. Left-wing parties struggle to counter this narrative, as their focus on economic justice and globalization often overlooks cultural concerns. While some resistance exists—seen in Portugal’s socialist government, Sweden’s centrist-left coalition against the far right, and Italian opposition to Giorgia Meloni—these efforts remain limited.

More recently—in the German elections—while AfD fared well, the Left Party also improved its performance by securing more than 8% of the vote. Although it is lesser than the AfD or the Conservatives, 25% of the young population between the ages of 18-24 voted for the Left Party in Germany. This shows a polarised electorate and indicates that the younger population’s support is up for grabs if the left can put efforts to secure it.

Implications of the Right’s Rise in the EU

The global rise of far-right movements challenges the post-WWII liberal order, undermining cooperation, human rights, and democratic norms. Nationalist policies promote protectionism and isolationism, weakening international institutions and efforts to address global issues like climate change. In Germany, the AfD’s opposition to climate action threatens international agreements. These risks create a fragmented world order where unity and global cooperation become increasingly difficult.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite their gains, far-right movements face several challenges. Electoral volatility is a significant factor, as their support can be fickle, often tied to specific issues or crises. Policy implementation is another hurdle, as the far-right’s radical proposals often face resistance from established institutions and the broader electorate. Additionally, shifting demographics, particularly the increasing diversity of European societies, may limit their long-term appeal.

Conclusion

The rise of the far-right in Europe is a complex phenomenon, rooted in historical grievances, economic anxieties, and cultural concerns. The rise of far-right movements in Europe is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a global tide of right-wing nationalism. From India to Argentina and the United States, right-wing parties are forming transnational networks to amplify their influence. Examples include Elon Musk’s support for Germany’s far-right AfD, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s appearance at the U.S. Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where she framed herself as part of a global conservative coalition alongside figures like Donald Trump and Narendra Modi. These alliances reflect a strategic effort to legitimize far-right ideologies on the global stage.

Yet, the challenges facing these right-wing coalitions are significant. Their agendas—marked by climate denialism, opposition to immigration, and scepticism toward international cooperation—often clash with urgent global priorities like poverty alleviation and climate action. As scholars like Thomas Piketty have argued, there is a general movement in the world toward more equality and social change. Indeed, the internal contradictions within right-wing movements—such as tensions between economic liberalism and cultural nationalism—may limit their long-term viability.

Moreover, the far right’s reliance on fear and division risks alienating broader electorates, particularly as demographic shifts and civil society resistance intensify. While these parties may temporarily capitalize on instability, their inability to address systemic issues like climate change or inequality without undermining their core ideologies suggests their dominance could be short-lived. As history shows, movements built on exclusion rarely sustain themselves in an interconnected world. The future may yet belong to coalitions that prioritize inclusivity, equity, and global cooperation.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

[1] Gagatek, W. (n.d.). Explaining the Rise of the Radical Right in Europe 2. [online] Available at: https://www.martenscentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Martens-Centre-Policy-Brief.pdf.

[2] Wodak, R., KhosraviNik, M. and Mral, B., 2013. Right-wing populism in Europe: Politics and discourse (p. 179). Bloomsbury Academic.

The post The Rise of the Far-Right in Europe: From margins to mainstream appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Escalation of protests

On February 25, the protests reached a boiling point when authorities, under heavy police security and the imposition of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), initiated a land survey for the construction of a road connecting to the proposed port. Anticipating resistance, the district administration enforced prohibitory orders from 6 AM to 9 PM, preventing public gatherings. However, this move only fuelled the outrage, with schoolchildren and entire families joining the protests.

Determined to halt the survey work, hundreds of fishermen, including women and elderly members of the community, gathered at the shore in Kasarkod and staged a sit-in protest. The situation took a dramatic turn when over 50 protestors, including several women, waded into the sea, threatening mass suicide. Three women lost consciousness due to heat exhaustion and were rushed to hospitals, with one requiring critical care at Manipal Hospital.

Amidst the chaos, police detained more than a hundred protestors, including key leaders of the fishing community, accusing them of violating prohibitory orders. The arrests further enraged the demonstrators, who warned of escalating their protests unless their fellow protestors were released. In a show of solidarity, a young girl left a note threatening to jump into the sea, holding the state’s Fisheries Minister, Mankal Vaidya, accountable for the distress inflicted upon the fishing community.

1 of 5

State repression and suppression of dissent

Rather than addressing the genuine grievances of the community, the Karnataka government and district administration have reportedly resorted to heavy-handed measures to quell the protests. The imposition of prohibitory orders was a clear attempt to suppress dissent and create a hostile environment where the voices of the fishermen could be stifled. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, the state deployed a large police force to intimidate the protestors, using arbitrary arrests and excessive force to disperse the gatherings.

The police crackdown was marked by signs of brutality and disregard for basic human rights. Protestors were forcibly dragged away, shoved into police buses, and detained without proper justification. Reports indicate that some were denied access to legal aid and held in custody for extended hours without clear charges. The authorities’ decision to conduct overnight raids in search of protestors who had spoken to the media further demonstrates their intent to silence any opposition to the port project.

The betrayal by Fisheries Minister Mankal Vaidya has only deepened the outrage. Once a vocal opponent of the port under the previous BJP administration, he has now aligned himself with corporate interests, disregarding the very people he once promised to protect. His refusal to intervene meaningfully, despite multiple pleas from the fishing community, has fueled accusations of political opportunism and abandonment of his responsibilities.

Devastating impact on livelihoods

For the 6,000 families that depend on fishing as their primary source of income, the construction of the port represents an existential threat. Fishermen argue that the project will destroy crucial fishing zones, disrupt marine biodiversity, and render many of them jobless. Additionally, the planned four-lane road leading to the port has already displaced local vendors and affected small-scale businesses tied to the dried-fish industry. The community fears that further infrastructure development, including a railway line, could lead to mass displacement of around 600 families, stripping them of their ancestral lands and livelihoods.

The destruction of olive ridley turtle nesting sites is another critical concern. The coast of Kasarkod is an ecologically sensitive area, home to annual nesting of these critically endangered sea turtles. Despite documented evidence of nesting activity, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a fishermen-led petition in 2021, citing a flawed report from the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), which failed to account for the nesting season. Activists argue that the government and the courts have colluded to ignore environmental regulations in favour of corporate interests.

Legal and political setbacks

Efforts to halt the port project through legal channels have met repeated setbacks. In addition to the Karnataka High Court ruling, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) rejected a petition challenging the construction of the four-kilometer-long road on the grounds that it violated Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. Despite mounting evidence of environmental violations, authorities continue to push ahead with the project, disregarding the legitimate concerns of the local community.

The district administration’s use of excessive force to suppress the protest has further deepened the mistrust between the government and the fishing community. Reports suggest that police conducted overnight raids in search of protestors who had spoken to the media, raising concerns about the state’s attempts to silence dissent. The deployment of heavy security forces, including riot police, to facilitate the survey indicates that the state sees its own citizens as obstacles rather than stakeholders in development.

A community’s unwavering resistance

Despite facing repeated crackdowns, legal hurdles, and betrayals by their own representatives, the fishermen of Honnavar refuse to back down. Their struggle has become emblematic of the broader fight against unchecked industrial expansion at the cost of local communities and ecological sustainability. Fishermen leaders have vowed to continue their resistance until the port project is scrapped entirely.

The protests at Kasarkod are not just about a single infrastructure project; they represent a larger battle against corporate encroachment, environmental destruction, and the marginalisation of traditional coastal communities. The state’s heavy-handed approach, marked by repression and disregard for public sentiment, has only strengthened the resolve of the protestors. As the confrontation between the fisherfolk and the government intensifies, it remains to be seen whether the authorities will acknowledge the voices of the people or continue to prioritise industrial interests at their expense.

Related:

Displaced and denied the right to fish, Muslim fishermen in Gujarat now prevented from voting

Duty of GOI to ensure that innocent fishermen are not punished: SC

TN: Samsung Workers Continue Protest, Accuse Management of Vindictive Action

The post K’taka: fisher-folk take to the sea in defiance of Honnavar port project appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Where is justice lost…what happened in these five years? Many innocents are still behind bars and many accused are still roaming free. One of them has even become an MLA and minister on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket.

Five years ago, between February 23 and February 26, 2020, a conspiracy was hatched to light a communal fire in Delhi. The north-eastern part of the capital city was made the target of this attack.

About 53 people lost their lives in this communal violence. Hundreds were injured. There was huge loss of life and property in the violence that lasted for four days. Many houses and shops were burnt to ashes.

In common parlance, we call this a ‘riot’, but if the right words are used, it was an attack. A revenge against the Shaheen Bagh movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act or CAA. Statistics testify this.

Delhi Police figures say that among those killed, 40 were Muslims and 13 were Hindus.

Unfortunately, the government and the mainstream media largely reported one-sided stories and blamed the Muslim community for this violence. This is what is being propagated even today.

As per the Special Cell and Crime Branch of Delhi Police, there was a “deep conspiracy” behind the Delhi riots, the “foundation of which was laid” during the anti-CAA and NRC protests in 2019.

This conspiracy has been mentioned in case number 59/2020. Delhi Police considers former JNU student leader, Umar Khalid, as the “mastermind” of the Delhi violence.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad has argued that the violence was part of a conspiracy to create trouble during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India.

The violence started in Jaffrabad in North East Delhi, where women were staging a sit-in protest against the CAA on the Seelampur-Jaffrabad-Maujpur Road.

At that time, the freshly minted BJP leader, Kapil Mishra (who had switched over from the Aam Aadmi Party), called upon Delhi Police to clear the streets, and threatening to do so himself with the help of his supporters. It is after this that the violence broke out.

Recall that despite all their efforts, BJP had badly lost in the Assembly elections held in February 2020.  Many analysts say that the stunning defeat had flustered BJP. (This year that defeat has been avenged. After 27 years, BJP has once again come to power in Delhi with full majority.)

The backdrop of the communal violence had already been created, but ultimately it is innocent people who became its victims.

In 2022, four former judges and a former Home Secretary had released a fact-finding report on the reality of the Delhi violence. The report had raised serious questions on the investigation by Delhi Police. Also, strong comments were made on the role of Union Home Ministry, Delhi government and the media.

The fact-finding report also found that speeches made by BJP leaders like Kapil Mishra had also played a role in instigating people, which led to the violence.

Social activist Harsh Mander had even filed a petition in Delhi’s Patiala Court saying that an FIR should be registered against Kapil Mishra. This petition is still pending in the court.

Notably, in July 2020, Delhi Police had told the Delhi High Court that no evidence had been found against Kapil Mishra and other BJP leaders’ speeches having instigated the violence.

The same Kapil Mishra has now become an MLA and minister by contesting the recent Delhi Assembly elections from Karawal Nagar on a BJP ticket. But there is no discussion in the media about his role in the 2020 communal violence.

According to various media reports, the police have registered a total of 758 FIRs related to the violence.

Some reports published in 2024 said a total of 2,619 people had been arrested, out of which 2,094 people are out on bail.

The court has so far found only 47 people guilty and has acquitted 183 people. Cases against 75 people have been dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Delhi Police has so far arrested at least 24 people, of which 10 have been released on bail in the case of Head Constable Ratan Lal, who was killed in the line of duty during the Delhi violence.

Also, the 11 accused arrested in the murder case of Ankit Sharma, who worked in the Intelligence Bureau, are still in jail. Sharma’s body was found in a drain in Chand Bagh on February 26, 2020.

Notably, the fact-finding report has put its finger on  another accused in the Delhi violence —  Delhi Police. Questions have been raised on the role of Delhi Police in allowing these riots to happen and for inaction and delay in stopping the violence. Besides, Delhi Police have also been accused on brutalities.

Hearing in a case related to the Delhi riots in September 2024, a court had acquitted 10 accused persons, raising questions on the ‘theory’ of Delhi Police. All the accused belonged to the Muslim community. They were accused of attacking a house and a shop in Gokulpuri police station area of ​​North East Delhi.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramchala of Delhi’s Karkardooma Court had said that “suspicions over the allegations against the accused are not beyond doubt.”

During these four-five years, there were many such occasions during the hearing in the court, when the court made harsh remarks on the Delhi Police and described the level of their investigation as poor.

In August, 2023, while hearing the arrest of three people in the case of rioting in FIR No. 71/20 case of Dayalpur Police Station, Karkaduma Court had commented that the incidents had not been properly and completely investigated. It noted that the charge sheet in the case had been filed with prejudice in a bid to hide the mistakes made in the beginning.

Because of this kind of investigation and attitude of the police, many youth are still languishing in jail.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to Delhi riots accused Gulfisha Fatima, but asked the Delhi High Court to hear her bail petition soon. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gulfisha, had said that she had been in jail for four years, and her bail petition had been pending in the High Court for a long time.

Earlier, on October 25, 2024, the Supreme Court had given a similar order in the case of another riot accused, Sharjeel Imam.

However, in March 2022 itself, councillor Ishrat Jahan, an accused in the violence, got bail. She was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).

The bail petition was filed in the court on behalf of former Congress councilor Ishrat Jahan, which said that the police did not have a single evidence against her.

Earlier, in June 2021, Delhi High Court had granted bail to Pinjra Tod activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were arrested under UAPA Sections on charges of rioting.

At that time the High Court had said that giving inciting speeches or blocking roads is not unusual when there is widespread opposition to the actions of the government and Parliament. Even if we assume that the alleged inflammatory speeches, ‘chakka jam’, inciting women to protest and other acts, even if these violate the limits of the right to peaceful protest given in the Constitution, the act cannot be termed as a terrorist act, its conspiracy or its preparation.

Alas, Umar Khalid did not get bail or such comments.

Delhi Police’s Special Cell and Crime Branch consider Khalid to be the ‘mastermind’ of the Delhi violence. He has been in jail since September 2020. He has been charged with terrorism, rioting and criminal conspiracy under UAPA. The trial in this case has not started yet.

Umar Khalid’s bail plea has been rejected twice by two different courts, and hearings on his case have been adjourned umpteen times.

Khalid’s bail plea remained pending in the Supreme Court from May 2023 to January 2024, but the debate on it could not be started even once. After this, he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court and went back to the trial court.

On February 20, 2025, Khalid’s bail plea was heard in the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, his lawyer told the HC that merely being a member of a WhatsApp group was not evidence of involvement in any crime.

His lawyer Trideep Pais told the court that Khalid had been in custody as an undertrial for a long time. He said that the delay in the trial was also a reason due to which Khalid should get bail. The senior advocate argued that on the basis of equality with the four accused in this case who have been granted bail, Khalid should also be granted bail.

The bench headed by Justice Naveen Chawla has now ordered the next hearing on Khalid’s bail plea on March 4.

So, if we look at how justice has progressed in these five years, it can be said that while one set of accused —  Umar Khalid or Gulfisha or Sharjeel Imam — has not got bail yet, And one of the accused (although Delhi Police does not consider him an accused) Kapil Mishra has become an MLA and the Law and Justice Minister in the Delhi government. Along with this, he has got charge of Development, Art and Culture Department, Language Department, Tourism Department, Labour Department and Employment Department.

The session of the new Delhi Assembly has started. It would be fitting if a report on the progress of investigation in Delhi riots is tabled so that the country knows what the police under Home Minister Amit Shah did for justice in these five years.

(Translated from the original article published on Newsclick’s Hindi website)

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post 5 Years of Delhi Riots: Some Punished, Some Rewarded! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly having links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed his journalistic work on displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged state excesses, which many believe led to his prosecution as an act of state repression against dissenting voices.

Singh was initially not named in the FIR but was later implicated based on alleged digital evidence obtained from co-accused individuals. His previous encounters with the authorities include a 2019 arrest under similar charges, where he was eventually released on default bail due to the failure of the police to file a chargesheet in time. His arrest came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, raising concerns over state surveillance and retaliation against critical journalism.

His case mirrors a broader crackdown on journalists, activists, and human rights defenders under UAPA. Notably, student leader Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi and Gulfishan Fatima remain behind bars as under trials and Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old tribal rights activist, died in jail while facing questionable UAPA charges. These instances reflect a growing trend of using stringent anti-terror laws to silence dissent.

The United Nations Human Rights Office has also expressed concern over the misuse of UAPA in India, urging the government to review its application and ensure that it is not being used to target dissenting voices. The UN specifically called for the dropping of charges against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, who were prosecuted under UAPA for their comments on Kashmir.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in politically sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The order may be read here:

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in such sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Legal Issues Involved

1. Application of UAPA’s stringent bail provisions:

• The High Court and Supreme Court relied on Section 43 D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that bail cannot be granted if the court believes the allegations are “prima facie true.” The threshold for bail under UAPA is significantly higher than in regular criminal cases
• The courts have interpreted “prima facie true” broadly, often placing the burden of proof on the accused, rather than requiring the prosecution to demonstrate substantial evidence at the bail stage.

2. Lack of independent evidence against Singh:

The primary evidence against Singh appears to be electronic data allegedly recovered from an SSD card seized from a co-accused. His defence argues that:

• No direct incriminating evidence was found from Singh’s residence or personal devices.
• The alleged videos and photographs are inconclusive in proving any criminal intent or Maoist affiliation.
• Digital evidence can be easily manipulated, and its authenticity should be scrutinized before being treated as conclusive proof.

Violation of fundamental rights:

• Singh’s arrest and prolonged detention raise concerns under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
• The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders have highlighted Singh’s case as an example of state-led suppression of press freedom
• His prosecution under UAPA fits a pattern of using anti-terror laws to target activists, journalists, and dissidents.

A slew of judgements of the constitutional courts analysed by our team below illustrate how bail under this draconian counter-terror law has been addressed. Before this, in 2020, our team had analysed how various courts dealt with the issue of bail under the stringent UAPA. That legal resource may be read here.

Precedents

Observations of the Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021)

The Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) clarified the necessity of an independent judicial assessment in bail matters under the UAPA. The Court observed that:

1. Mere membership in a banned organisation does not amount to criminal activity: The Court ruled that the prosecution must establish a direct and substantial connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities. A person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of association.

On plain reading of Section 38, the offence punishable therein will be attracted if the accused associates himself or professes to associate himself with a terrorist organisation included in First Schedule with intention to further its activities. In such a case, he commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation covered by Section 38. The person committing an offence under Section 38 may be a member of a terrorist organization or he may not be a member. If the accused is a member of terrorist organisation which indulges in terrorist act covered by Section 15, stringent offence under Section 20 may be attracted. If the accused is associated with a terrorist organisation, the offence punishable under Section 38 relating to membership of a terrorist organisation is attracted only if he associates with terrorist organisation or professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities. The association must be with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. The activity has to be in connection with terrorist act as defined in Section 15. Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that if a person charged with the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 proves that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation during the period in which the name of the organisation is included in the First Schedule, the offence relating to the membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) of Section 38 will not be attracted. The aforesaid clause (b) can be a defence of the accused. However, while considering the prayer for grant of bail, we are not concerned with the defence of the accused. (Para 13)

2. Independent judicial scrutiny is essential: Courts cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s claims under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA. The judiciary must conduct a thorough review of the material evidence before concluding that the allegations are “prima facie true.”

“..By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise..” (Para 21)

3. The Court emphasised that the offences under Sections 38 and 39 require mens rea (guilty intent). Mere association or possession of Maoist literature does not satisfy the requirement of intention unless there is active participation or acts showing furtherance of terrorist activities.

“Thus, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of associating or  professing to be associated with the terrorist organisation and the offence relating to supporting a terrorist organisation under Section 39 will not be attracted unless the acts specified in both the Sections are done with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. To that extent, the requirement of mens rea is involved. Thus, mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.” (Para 15)

4. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite the strict conditions in UAPA, especially when prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights. The accused had already been in custody for over 570 days, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court restored the Special Court’s order granting bail to the accused.

“As held in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the stringent restrictions imposed by sub-section(5) of Section 43D, do not negate the power of Constitutional Court to grant bail keeping in mind violation of Part III of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the accused no. 1 is taking treatment for a psychological disorder. The accused no. 1 is a student of law. Moreover, 92 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Even assuming that some of the witnesses may be dropped at the time of trial, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in a reasonable time as even charges have not been framed. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1967 Act and the punishment can extend to 10 years or only fine or with both. Hence, depending upon the evidence on record and after consideration of relevant factors, the accused can be let off even on fine. As regards the offence under Section 13 alleged against accused no. 2, the maximum punishment is of imprisonment of 5 years or with fine or with both. The accused no. 2 has been in custody for more than 570 days.” (Para 42)

The judgement in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) may be read here:

Observations in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

1. The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for four years. The trial court has not yet framed charges. The prosecution intends to examine at least 80 witnesses, making the conclusion of the trial uncertain.

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: 

(i)  The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; 

(ii)  Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and 

(iii)  As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.” (Para 7)

2. The court emphasized that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.”  (Para 8)

3. The appellant remains an accused, not a convict.  The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty must not be ignored.

“We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” (Para 20)

4. The court noted that jails are overcrowded, and undertrial prisoners suffer due to delayed trials. It referred to Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 311), highlighting that prolonged incarceration has severe social and psychological consequences. (Para 14)

5. The court referred to Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, which mandates that trials must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

“The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.” (Para 15)

6. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the court held that statutory restrictions on bail (like UAPA’s Section 43-D (5)) cannot override constitutional rights. The court reiterated that when trials are excessively delayed, bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence. (Para 16)

7. The judgment noted that criminals are made, not born, and the criminal justice system should consider social and economic factors that may influence crime. The court emphasized that justice should be tempered with humanity, quoting the principle that “Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future.”

“Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” (Para 18)

The judgement in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022)

1. The appellant had been in custody as an undertrial for almost 8 years (since 08.05.2014). Only 6 out of 109 witnesses had been examined so far, indicating an unreasonably delayed trial. The trial court estimated that the case might take 2-3 more years for completion.
2. The Supreme Court had directed priority examination of three prosecution witnesses who had raised concerns about threats to their lives.

Among these witnesses: One (Devendra Patel) was declared hostile. The other two (Hemant and Pappuram) did not provide any deposition implicating the appellant. The State’s case was largely based on the appellant’s alleged communication (31 conversations) with a co-villager, who was accused of being a sleeper cell module head of the Indian Mujahideen.
“We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat to their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis.” (Para 8)

3. The court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where bail was granted in cases of long incarceration. It noted that UAPA’s bail restrictions (Section 43D (5)) are comparatively less stringent than NDPS Act provisions, which demand a prima facie case of innocence before granting bail. (Para 12)

4. One co-accused, Adil Ansari, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2020. The State argued that the role of the appellant was different, but the court acknowledged this factor in deciding bail.

“No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said accused is different.” (Para 13)

5. The impugned High Court order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The judgment made it clear that these observations were only for the purpose of deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.

The judgement in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022) may be read here:

Observations in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

1. The Court noted that 12 out of 14 accused persons in the case had already been granted bail, either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The number of prosecution witnesses had been reduced from 114 to 100, and only 40 witnesses had been examined so far.

Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020. (Para 5)

This ruling highlights the importance of parity in bail matters, considering that a majority of the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the prolonged trial delay was a factor in the decision.

The judgement in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024)

1. The charge sheet did not contain specific material proving that the appellant participated in, abetted, or incited unlawful activities or terrorist acts. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was a member of a terrorist gang or organization under the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA.

“We may note here that, assuming that the appellant knew that co- accused Athar Parvez was associated with PFI, it is not listed as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Moreover, the charge sheet does not contain any material to show any connection of the appellant with PFI before letting out first floor premises to accused no.1.” (Para 6)

2. The Court found that the statement of a protected witness (Z) had been misrepresented in the charge sheet, raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

“Thus, paragraph 17.16 purports to reproduce the statement of protected witness Z. In terms of our earlier order, the translated version of the statement of protected witness Z, recorded before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has been produced in a sealed envelope. We find that the statement substantially differs from what is narrated in paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet.” (Para 10)

3. The Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, emphasizing that even under stringent statutes like UAPA, bail should not be denied when statutory conditions are met.

“…when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail..”  (Para 21)

4. The Court held that unjustly denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“…If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.” (Para 21)

The judgement in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Yedala v. State (2024)

The case was related to the murder of two politicians by members of the CPI (Maoist), a terrorist organization notified under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and filed a chargesheet against 79 accused. The appellants had been in custody for over four years and seven months without the framing of charges.

The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. After analysing the entire prosecution case, the court concluded that there was no strong material linking the accused to the crime. Since the prima facie case was weak, the statutory bar on bail under UAPA did not apply.

“…Taking the material against the appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to sub section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these observations.” (Para 21)  

The judgement in Yedala v. State (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021

1. The Court emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an accused is not entitled to bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. However, upon scrutiny of the material placed before the Court, it was found that the primary accusation against the appellant was that he paid levy/extortion money to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC). The Court held that payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding.

A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy / extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization ((Para 11 (A))

2. The Court noted that the charge sheet alleged that other accused persons, who were members of the terrorist organization, had been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in the Amrapali and Magadh areas. The appellant was in the business of coal transportation in that region and had made payments under duress. It could not be said prima facie that the appellant conspired with the other members of TPC or raised funds to promote the organization.

“…It is alleged in the second supplementary charge- sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization.” ((Para 11 (A))

3. The prosecution argued that the appellant had been in constant touch with members of the terrorist group. The Court noted that the appellant had stated in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he was summoned to meet A-14 and other members in connection with the payments. The Court held that merely meeting the members of TPC, without further evidence of conspiracy, does not establish a prima facie case of involvement in a terrorist conspiracy.

“Another factor taken into account by the Special Court and the High Court relates to the allegation of the Appellant meeting the members of the terror organization. It has been held by the High Court that the Appellant has been in constant touch with the other accused. The Appellant has revealed in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC that he was summoned to meet A-14 and the other members of the organization in connection with the payments made by him. Prima facie, we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization.”((Para 11 (B)))

4. The Court referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, which set the parameters for granting bail under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. The Court held that while prima facie satisfaction of allegations is sufficient to deny bail under UAPA, in this case, the material did not meet the threshold to establish a clear case against the appellant.

“After a detailed examination of the contentions of the parties and scrutiny of the material on record, we are not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him. We make it clear that these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial.” ((Para 12))

The judgement in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021may be read here:

Singh’s case underscores the precarious state of press freedom and the judiciary’s cautious approach in UAPA matters. While national security concerns must be addressed, an overbroad application of UAPA risks eroding fundamental rights. The denial of bail in Singh’s case, despite the legal precedents favouring a more balanced approach, raises significant questions about the selective and inconsistent application of UAPA laws. The courts must ensure that stringent bail conditions do not serve as a mechanism for prolonged incarceration without trial, which contradicts the very principles of justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

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

Related: 

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA?

Petitions challenging stringent provisions of UAPA to be heard by the SC

The post SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister MK Stalin’s fiery response to the NEP, which he claims will push Tamil Nadu ‘backward by 2000 years,’ reflects the deep-rooted resistance within the state against the Union government’s continued disregard for federalism and linguistic diversity. Stalin has further emphasised that the NEP, with its centralised approach, ignores the unique educational needs of each state and is a blatant effort to homogenize education across India.

This is what you call an Opposition! Bravo! @mkstalin https://t.co/am1ZuKwZvt

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 22, 2025

Tamil Nadu’s long-standing resistance to Hindi imposition

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi imposition is deeply entrenched in its socio-political fabric. The anti-Hindi movement in the state has a long and vibrant history, beginning as early as 1937, when the C. Rajagopalachari-led Congress government in the Madras Presidency attempted to introduce Hindi in schools. This triggered a massive outcry, leading to widespread protests by students, teachers, and political leaders who saw this as an attempt to undermine Tamil language and culture

The language protests reached a boiling point in 1965 when the Indian government attempted to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language of the country. Students, intellectuals, and political leaders took to the streets, culminating in violent protests that ultimately forced the Centre to relent and retain English as an associate official language alongside Hindi. These events cemented Tamil Nadu’s defiant stance against linguistic imperialism.

Nehru’s 1959 promise and the betrayal

In the wake of these protests, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1959, assured the people of Tamil Nadu that English would continue as an official language for as long as non-Hindi speaking states wanted it. However, successive governments have tried to renege on this promise, subtly pushing Hindi through policies like NEP. The so-called three-language formula is nothing but a tool to coerce non-Hindi speakers into learning Hindi while Hindi-speaking states face no such compulsion to learn southern languages.

A flawed model: Hindi-speaking states lagging in education

The Centre’s argument that Hindi is necessary for national integration crumbles under scrutiny. Hindi-speaking states consistently perform poorly in education, employment, and economic indicators. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, the heartlands of Hindi, have some of the lowest literacy rates in the country, proving that Hindi is not a magic wand for progress. If anything, Tamil Nadu, which has refused to embrace Hindi, has done far better in education, employment, and social development.

The NEP and its assault on federalism

The NEP is not just about education; it is a direct attack on the federal structure of the Constitution. Education, which was originally in the State List, was forcibly moved to the Concurrent List in 1976, taking away states’ autonomy over a crucial subject. The NEP exacerbates this by allowing the Centre to dictate syllabi, control educational institutions, and impose a uniform framework that disregards regional languages and cultures. The Tamil Nadu government’s demand to restore education to the State List is, therefore, not just about resisting Hindi but about reclaiming constitutional federalism.

Succinct. Articulate. Objections to Bill both national and a federal, serious federal concern. This unikn govt is a hatchet regime rejecting the tenets of the Indian Constitution! @mkstalin https://t.co/2tyC8P3bU7

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 23, 2025

Mohan Bhagwat’s questionable advice to ‘ditch English’

Amid this policy battle, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has added fuel to the fire by advising Hindus to stop speaking English and embrace Indian languages instead. Ironically the RSS that claims itself to be a merely ‘cultural outfit’ is not simply the backbone of the three times elected Modi regime, but often wades in everything that is political.

Withholding funds: The centre’s strong-arm tactics

Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement the NEP has led to the Union withholding Rs 2,150 crore in education funds, a clear act of coercion. This financial strangulation tactic is reminiscent of colonial-era policies where dissenting states were punished. The Union’s message is clear: ‘Implement our policies or face financial retribution.’ But Tamil Nadu is not one to bow down and its chief minister M.K. Stalin in fact said he is not ready to accept NEP even if centre offered Rs. 10,000 crores.

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the NEP and Hindi imposition is not just about language—it is about protecting the rights of states, preserving linguistic diversity, and upholding the federal structure of India. The state has historically been at the forefront of social justice movements, and its current stand against NEP is another chapter in its fight against central overreach.

The Union must realise that a one-size-fits-all policy will never work in a country as diverse as India. Until then, Tamil Nadu will continue to resist, unyielding and unapologetic.

Related

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In context, the Court’s decision is a part of its ongoing investigation into genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya in Myanmar from 2012 to 2018. Welcomed as an impartial and independent decision by international human rights organisations, this decision marks a critical moment in the long and challenging pursuit of justice for the Rohingya: This is the first time that arrest warrants have been ordered in relation to the Myanmar military’s genocide against the Rohingya in 2017.

A perusal of this order issuing arrest warrants show that they are not determinative of guilt or responsibility for these international crimes, but instead aim to summon the 25 named individuals to testify before the Court as part of its investigation. We believe these individuals will be treated in accordance with standards of international justice, including the affordance of due process and the opportunity to present evidence in their defence.

If these warrants are taken to their logical end, an impartial inquiry into justice and accountability, not only for the Rohingya but for all people of Myanmar, the Argentinian government has now been called upon to request Interpol to issue Red Notices for the 25 named individuals to initiate their extradition to Argentina.

Details of the suit under universal jurisdiction

Tomas Ojea Quintana is the human rights lawyer who served as U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar between 2008 and 2014. In this case, he has represented the Burmese Rohingya Organization U.K., which filed a case in an Argentine court in 2019 that allege genocide and crimes against humanity were committed by senior Myanmar military officials against Rohingya Muslims. An interview with him may be read here.

The arrest warrants were issued for those named in the suit including the de facto leader of the democratically-elected government, Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi was

Removed from power when the military took over the country in a 2021 coup and is reportedly under house arrest but the junta has not disclosed her exact location. Interestingly, the Argentine suit was filed under the principle of “universal jurisdiction” enshrined in Argentina’s constitution, which holds that some crimes are so heinous that alleged perpetrators thousands of miles away can be tried. The reasons why members of the now deposed civilian government are named in the suit because they were in charge of the government in 2017, and Aung San Suu Kyi defended the military’s actions in 2019 to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands. However, members of Myanmar’s shadow National Unity Government, made up of other leaders deposed by the coup and their allies, have requested that Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders be removed from the arrest warrant because the Rohingya could be unfairly blamed for adding a blemish to the reputation of Myanmar’s most popular political figure. But Quintana said the court decided that she and the others must be included to show that the court is impartial. 

Independent International Fact-Finding Report, 2018, UN response

A report by the United Nations in September 2018 severely indicted the Myamar military on the mass persecution of the Rohingyas. The present development therefore follows the release of a report into the circumstances surrounding the mass exodus of more than 700,000 Rohingya people from Myanmar, beginning in mid-August 2017 – events previously described by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

The crimes committed include murder, rape, torture, sexual slavery, persecution and enslavement, according to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar.

Speaking to journalists in Geneva, the investigators – Marzuki Darusman, Radhika Coomaraswamy and Christopher Sidoti – underlined the horrific and organised nature of the brutality meted out on civilians in Myanmar’s Rakhine state since 2011, as well as Kachin and Shan states. “The fact-finding Mission has concluded, on reasonable grounds, that the patterns of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law that it is found, amount to the gravest crime under international law,” Mr. Sidoti said.

“These have principally been committed by the military, the Tatmadaw,” he added, referring to Myanmar’s armed forces. “The Mission has concluded that criminal investigation and prosecution is warranted, focusing on the top Tatmadaw generals, in relation to the three categories of crimes under international law; genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

This case

According to the news available with the United Nations on this crucial matter affecting human rights, in November 2019, the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK filed a petition on behalf of Rohingya victims requesting the Argentinian courts to open an investigation into the role of Myanmar’s military and civilian leaders in committing genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya. The details are available here. Two years later, on November 2021, an investigative judge of the Federal Criminal Court of Argentina commenced investigations, and in 2022, delegated investigative powers to the Federal Prosecutor’s office. Since then, the Mechanism has been assisting and sharing evidence with the Prosecutor’s office following a request for its support. In pursuance of the matter, last year, in June 2024, the Federal Prosecutor petitioned the Federal Criminal Court to issue 25 arrest warrants for 25 suspects from the Myanmar military, security forces and civilian government.  Thereafter, on February 13, 2025, the Federal Criminal Court ordered the arrest of these suspects. The arrests aim to bring the suspects before the court for a preliminary hearing, which is part of the investigative stage. The court may then decide whether to refer any suspects to trial on specific charges.

What is universal jurisdiction?

This principle means that some crimes are so serious in nature that a national court may, depending on their laws, prosecute alleged perpetrators even if there is no connection between the crime and that country. Based on universal jurisdiction, perpetrators of serious international crimes may be prosecuted by a national court irrespective of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim. For more information, see the OHCHR website.

How does the Mechanism support universal jurisdiction cases?

The Mechanism has a mandate to support universal jurisdiction cases that concern serious international crimes committed in Myanmar through sharing evidence and analysis with relevant investigative, prosecutorial or judicial authorities, as long as the jurisdiction in question provides basic guarantees for a fair trial that meets international standards and cannot impose the death penalty. Since 2021, the Mechanism has been an Associate Member of the European Network for investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, also known as the European Genocide Network. This enables cooperation with national investigative and prosecutorial authorities across Europe and other jurisdictions.

Related developments

Turkey: In March 2022, the Myanmar Accountability Project submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office in Istanbul concerning crimes committed by the military following the coup. The Turkish authorities have yet to announce any response to the complaint.

Germany: In January 2023, 16 applicants from Myanmar, supported by the non-governmental organization Fortify Rights, submitted a criminal complaint to the Federal Public Prosecutor General of Germany against senior military officials and others. The Federal Prosecutor has rejected this complaint in September 2023.

Philippines: In October 2023, five victims and their families filed a joint criminal complaint before the National Prosecution Services in the Philippines alleging the commission of certain war crimes in Chin State, Myanmar, in 2021. The Philippines authorities have yet to announce its response to the complaint.

United Kingdom: The Counter Terrorism Command of the UK Metropolitan Police has opened structural investigations for each of the situations under investigation by the International Criminal Court, which includes Bangladesh/Myanmar. This means that the case is ongoing, under investigation and they are identifying potential witnesses and examining the alleged crimes.

Related:

Killing by Hunger: Rohingya Muslims starved after Cyclone Mocha in Rakhine state, UN denied access: Myanmar

Cut in WFP funding threatens Rohingyas with hunger, deprivation: Bangladesh

Rohingyas sue Facebook for $150 billion over failing to police communal hate speech

The post Rohingya Genocide 2012-2018: Argentinian Court issues arrest warrants to Myanmar military leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.