The report, titled “Excluded, Targeted, & Displaced: Communal Narratives and Violence in Uttarakhand,” is based on field investigations, victim testimonies, police records, court documents, official notices, and media reports. It records incidents from districts including Uttarkashi, Tehri, Chamoli, Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, and Haldwani, and examines how criminal allegations, administrative actions, religious mobilisation, and government policies intersected with communal narratives on the ground.

According to APCR, the report traces how these incidents unfolded over time, the nature of violence and displacement experienced by affected families, and the responses of the police and state authorities in each case.

Details of the Report: A pattern takes shape

According to APCR, communal violence in Uttarakhand cannot be understood as a series of isolated incidents. From 2021 onwards, Muslims across districts have faced targeted violence, economic boycotts, evictions, intimidation, and attacks on religious spaces, often following rumours, allegations, or political mobilisation by Hindutva groups. These incidents occurred across Uttarkashi, Tehri, Chamoli, Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, and surrounding regions, affecting shopkeepers, migrant workers, religious institutions, and long-settled families—many of whom had lived in Uttarakhand for decades.

The report notes that many affected Muslim families trace their migration to Najibabad, Uttar Pradesh, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, well before Uttarakhand became a separate state in 2000. Despite this, they are repeatedly branded as “outsiders.”

The Haridwar Dharm Sansad, 2021: APCR identifies the December 2021 Haridwar Dharm Sansad as a critical flashpoint. At this three-day conclave, multiple Hindutva religious leaders delivered speeches calling for violence against Muslims, the establishment of a Hindutva rashtra, and the suppression of Islam and Christianity. Speakers named in the report include Yati Narasinghanand, Prabodhanand Giri, Yatindranand Giri, Sadhvi Annapurna, Swami Anand Swaroop, and Kalicharan Maharaj.

Police complaints were filed following public outrage, but the report notes that the event contributed to the normalisation of openly violent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the state.

Administrative drives and communal framing: In 2023, the Uttarakhand government initiated a statewide drive to identify and remove “illegal structures” on government land. Right-wing groups framed this as action against “land jihad” and “mazar jihad.” By May 2024, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami claimed that 5,000 acres had been recovered.

APCR records that mosques and mazars were disproportionately targeted, while comparable scrutiny was not applied to religious structures of other communities. This framing, the report states, created public legitimacy for demolitions and heightened communal tensions.

Purola, 2023- allegations and aftermath: In Purola, Uttarkashi district, a case alleging the kidnapping of a minor Hindu girl by Ubaid Khan and Jitendra Saini triggered widespread unrest. In court, the girl later stated that she had not been abducted and that the police had coerced her statement. Despite the acquittal, right-wing protests escalated.

Muslim families were forced to flee or sell properties. A Hindutva Maha Panchayat was organised, prompting intervention by the Uttarakhand High Court, which reminded the state of its duty to maintain law and order. Following the incident, the Chief Minister announced background verification measures, stating that people would be able to live in Uttarakhand only after verification.

Uttarkashi, 2024- mosque targeting and mob violence: On October 24, 2024, a rally led by Swami Darshan Bharti demanded demolition of the Uttarkashi mosque. The rally turned violent: five police personnel and over 30 civilians were injured, and Muslim shops were vandalised and looted.

Despite assurances to the High Court, a Hindutva Mahapanchayat was allowed on 1 December 2024, where speakers—including BJP MLA T Raja—issued threats involving bulldozers. APCR records that this directly violated the spirit of the High Court’s directions.

Testimonies document shopkeepers suffering losses of ₹50,000 to ₹1 lakh, broken shutters, looted goods, and lasting fear.

Tehri region- Srinagar, Chauras, Kirti Nagar: In Srinagar, Muslims reported being pushed out from Kirti Nagar and Chauras, following “love jihad” allegations. At least 15 shopkeepers were evicted and forced to return to Najibabad.

APCR records how communal narratives entered schools, with teachers recounting speeches about “love jihad” and “land jihad” at official functions. Muslim government employees reported being labelled outsiders and accused of occupying land or jobs.

In Chauras, after allegations about a relationship between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, at least five Muslim shopkeepers fled, despite no complaint from the woman’s family.

Gauchar, Chamoli- Escalation from a minor dispute: On October 15, 2024, a parking dispute between two men—one Hindu, one Muslim—escalated into communal mobilisation. Right-wing groups intervened, leading to the eviction of at least 10 Muslim shopkeepers.

Families who had lived in Gauchar for 45 years fled overnight. APCR documents mob intimidation at hospitals, vandalism of shops, and police-escorted evacuations.

Nanda Ghat- Forced overnight displacement: Nanda Ghat witnessed one of the most severe incidents. Following an eve-teasing allegation against a Muslim barber, a sequence of protests culminated in large-scale vandalism on September 2–3, 2024. Shops were looted, ₹4 lakh in cash stolen, vehicles thrown into rivers, and a makeshift mosque destroyed.

Police advised Muslims to leave for their own safety. Thirty to thirty-five people were escorted out in police vehicles, effectively evacuating the community. Despite High Court directions later ensuring protection, most families did not return.

Nainital, 2024- Violence following a criminal allegation: In April 2024, after the arrest of Mohammad Usman under POCSO and BNS provisions, protests turned violent. APCR documents stone-pelting, vandalism of Muslim shops, attacks on eateries, and an assault on Nainital Jama Masjid, which is located next to the police station.

Despite repeated requests, additional forces were not deployed for hours. No FIR was registered for damage to the mosque, even after multiple hearings.

Expansion to Haldwani: Following Nainital, right-wing groups moved into Haldwani, pressuring Muslim shopkeepers to change names or shut businesses. Long-standing establishments reported threats after their religious identity became known.

Legislative changes and institutional targeting: APCR documents the passage of the Uniform Civil Code (2024) and subsequent 2025 amendments, along with changes to anti-conversion laws and minority education governance. These laws increased penalties, expanded definitions of unlawful conversion, and altered the structure of madrasa regulation, raising concerns among Muslim communities about loss of autonomy.

The UMMEED portal and demolitions: The report records that the UMMEED portal digitisation drive required all waqf properties to register within a short deadline. Due to technical failures and documentation requirements, 75% of waqf properties remained unregistered. These were automatically classified as “disputed.”

Between June and November 2025, APCR records the demolition of over 300 Muslim shrines and dargahs, including registered properties such as Hazrat Kamal Shah Dargah in Dehradun. The Supreme Court later issued contempt notices in some cases.

Conclusion drawn by the report

The APCR fact-finding report concludes that the incidents documented across Uttarakhand between 2021 and 2025 cannot be viewed in isolation. Based on field investigations and verified records, the report finds that Muslim individuals and families were repeatedly subjected to violence, threats, vandalism, economic exclusion, evictions, and displacement following communal mobilisation, allegations, or administrative action.

The report records that in several locations, police protection was either delayed or inadequate, FIRs relating to attacks on Muslim property and religious places were not consistently registered, and affected families were advised to leave areas “for their own safety.” Many of those who fled had lived in these towns for decades and were forced to abandon homes, shops, and livelihoods without any formal rehabilitation or assurance of return.

APCR further notes that administrative measures—such as demolition drives, verification exercises, and regulatory actions—often coincided with periods of heightened communal tension, deepening insecurity among minority communities. Taken together, the report documents a sustained impact on the safety, dignity, and ability of Muslims in Uttarakhand to live and work without fear, and places these findings on record for judicial, institutional, and public scrutiny.

The report may be read below:

Related:

Bihar under BJP: Hate attacks against Muslims spiral, one dies

India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims

Weaponising Sufism and Wahhabism to Subjugate Muslims

Delhi Court sentences riots accused for promoting hatred against Muslims, sentences him to 3 years in custody

The post From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a notification uploaded on the board’s website, the 50 supernumerary seats shall be distributed strictly based on the NEET-UG merit of the candidates concerned and their preferences among the seven newly established government medical colleges. The U-turn came after weeks of national outrage when the board had r said it cannot conduct fresh counselling for MBBS admissions and that the allocation of supernumerary seats to those who were admitted to the SMVDIME should be decided at the government level.

This sudden clarification came in a letter to the Union Territory’s health and medical education department, which sought its intervention in the relocation of students of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME).

Now, the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) said it will  conduct fresh counselling for the 2025-26 session for the medical students of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME). Students have now been called for their counselling tomorrow, Saturday January 24 reports The Hindistan Times and Indian Express. This is for allotment of colleges across the Valley and Jammu.

The students, it is reported, would now be adjusted in seven government medical colleges of the union territory – three in the Kashmir valley and four in the  province of Jammu. While 22 seats are available spread across Kashmir colleges, 28 students will be adjusted in Jammu.

The National Medical Commission (NMC) had earlier this month withdrawn the permission it had earlier granted to SMVDIME to conduct an MBBS course in the current academic year. This has left 50 MBBS students who joined the institute without a college. Ironically, the NMC had cited deficiencies in college infrastructure and operations; however, the much criticised decision had come in the wake of far right-wing groups protesting against the course’s demography – of the 50 students, 44 were Muslim, and most were from Kashmir.

“That the Board shall conduct the physical round of counselling to accommodate MBBS students of SMVDIME Katra to the Govt. Medical Colleges within the UT of J&K against the supernumerary seats so created,” the BOPEE has now said in a fresh notification.

The notification said that the Health and Medical Education department has conveyed the seat matrix of the 50 supernumerary seats. As per the matrix, seven additional seats each have been allotted in four government medical colleges in Jammu province – GMC Udhampur, GMC Kathua, GMC Rajouri and GMC Doda – while seven additional seats each have been allotted in GMC Baramulla and GMC Handwara. Eight have been allotted in GMC Anantnag. Incidentally, the seven government medical colleges that have been allotted the supernumerary seats have been set up only in the past seven years. The government has not allotted any supernumerary seats in premier institutes like GMC Srinagar, GMC Jammu or the SKIMS Medical College.

Previously, in a communication to the J-K’s Health and Medical Education department dated January 21, BOPEE had said it cannot conduct fresh counselling for the 2025-26 session, and asked the J-K government to admit students to supernumerary seats in other medical colleges “at its own level”. “The creation and allotment of supernumerary seats doesn’t fall within the ambit of BOPEE,” the communication said. The change of stand came within hours. In fact, both communications are dated January 21.

Related:

Partitioned minds, a Saffron Fatwa & Denial of Fair Opportunity: Mata Vaishno Devi University, Jammu

The post Flip and then a Flop: 50 students of the Vaishno Devi MBBS institute will now be admitted to 7 medical colleges in Jammu, Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Who is Shambhaji Bhide?

A former active member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bhide formed the SPH in the mid-1980s and has developed some following among hardliners in west Maharashtra’s Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Belgaum districts.

Interestingly, Bhide and another right-wing hardliner by the name of Milind Ekbote were named in an FIR in January 2018 for their alleged role in the violence in Bhima Koregaon, near Pune. The violence erupted during an annual event that Dalits organise to commemorate the Battle of Bhima Koregaon.  Thanks to the active involvement of then then dominant political leadership under Devednra Fadnavis, in 2022, the criminal case against hm was dropped for “lack of evidence.”

There have been previous occasions when Bhide was also accused of indulging in violence. In 2008, reportedly, members of his outfit ransacked cinema halls for screening the film Jodha Akbar, which they had labelled “anti-Hindu” (Indian Express). The following year, members of his outfit were linked to the riots in Miraj in Sangli that started over the erection of an arc depicting Shivaji killing the Adilshahi commander Afzal Khan. In 2017, an FIR was lodged against Bhide and activists for allegedly obstructing a procession in Pune. In the Miraj case, police later arrested a local NCP leader for masterminding the riots. The cases related to the protest against Jodha Akbar were dropped by the government. Some years ago, Bhide invited sharp criticism for claiming that if a married couple eats mangoes from his orchard, they would be blessed with a male child. The comments led to a series of PILs and police complaints being filed against the Hindutva activist.

In a brazen instance of hate speech reported by the India Today group’s Mumbai Tak, Bhide had on June 7, 2023, exhorted “Hindus” to hack Muslim men who engage in love jihad, i.e. who fall in love with Hindu women. The controversial video is available online here.

In August 2025, several followers of Bhide, inspired by his brand of vitriol reportedly were responsible for the mob lynching of 20-year-old Suleman Pathan in a village near Jamner town of Maharashtra’s Jalgaon district. The incident had occurred on August 11, when Pathan was sitting in a café with a Hindu girl in Jamner town. Incensed, a mob of Hindu men dragged him out, assaulted him, kidnapped him and assaulted him at various spots en route to his village Betawad Khurd, where his family too was assaulted by the mob. Pathan died soon after.

This is one example of the posters and Instagram visual of his organisation’s page.

The Wire found a total of 53 different accounts in the name of Bhide’s Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan on Instagram and other social media platforms. Its growing popularity has meant that there are now separate accounts for the outfit’s local branches – small Maharashtra towns like Jamner, Baamni, Mulshi, Talegaon, Ratnagiri, Shirpur, Ghodoli, Karad, Kasarwadi and Bhiwapur have active Shiv Pratisthan Instagram pages, apart from pages representing bigger cities like Mumbai and Pune.

These pages use content which is strongly provocative, exhorting young Hindus to arm themselves in defence of their faith and ‘any incursions’ from outsiders. This can be interpreted differently and with mal-intent. The Shiv Prathisthan’s Jamner unit page has over 8,000 followers already, a sizeable number for a small outfit in a town which has just over 46,000 people residing, according to the 2011 Census.

It is not coincidental that the outfit and its members live on the margin of the law, benefitting from an administration that benefits from its crude and divisive mobilisation. For example, soon after Pathan’s lynching, the outfit organised a silent morcha against love jihad, with many holding placards and banners decrying such inter-faith relationships. It has even put up posts abusing Pathan as a balatkari (rapist) and jihadi and sought to defend his lynching.

This year as this effort at ‘igniting’ and ‘mobilising’ youth has the potential also of leaving a trail of divisive polarisation behind.

Related:

Tushar Gandhi lodges police complaint against Sambhaji Bhide over insults to Mahatma Gandhi

HC directs police to file report on Sambhaji Bhide’s role in violence: Bhima-Koregaon Case

Sambhaji Bhide was recommended for Padma Sri by Maharashtra Government!

The post Maharashtra: Shambhaji Bhide begins his “Yatra” in Kolhapur between January 23-26 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After this order, both will be released from custody in the case being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Gorkhe and Gaichor are required under the conditions laid down by the High Court, have to pay bail bond of ₹1 lakh with surety each and attend the NIA Mumbai office on the first Monday of every month.

A detailed order is yet to be published by the Court. Both Gorkhe and Gaichor were represented by senior lawyer Mihir Desai. This case, also known as the Elgar Parishad case, was earlier handled by the local Pune police and later taken over by the NIA.

The special NIA court in Mumbai had in February 2022 refused bail to Delhi University associate professor Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members Gorkhe, Gaichor and Jyoti Jagtap, all arrested by NIA in 2020. It has taken four years since that refusal of bail for the Bombay High Court to grant this relief.

The special court had accepted prosecution’s case about the alleged role of the accused at the Elgar Parishad event and links to banned organisations attracted stringent UAPA provisions, and found no ground to depart from the statutory bar on bail in UAPA cases. Based on this reasoning, the court had rejected permanent bail to them though it granted interim bail to Sagar Gorkhe to enable him to prepare for and appear in his law examinations, noting his past compliance with bail conditions.

The Court allowed Gorkhe temporary release from November 20 to December 16, 2025 for the same. The accused then approached the High Court which allowed Gorkhe’s and Gaichor’s appeals today.

Hany Babu had secured bail in December last year.

Over a period of two years after the FIR was filed in 2018, sixteen persons were arrested in the Elgaar Parishad–Bhima Koregaon case, nine initially by Pune Police in 2018 and seven later by the NIA after it took over the probe. Of the 16, Jesuit priest and activist Father Stan Swamy died in custody in 2021. Swamy was 84 at the time of his death.

Most of the remaining 15 accused have secured bail or temporary bails from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court. With today’s order by Bombay High Court, only lawyer Surendra Gadling would continue to remain in jail. Two others, tribal rights activist Mahesh Raut and cultural activist, Jyoti Jagtap are out on interim bails.

Charges in the case are yet to be framed and trial is yet to begin as discharge applications of the accused are being heard. The NIA is also yet to hand over electronic evidence, which it has claimed is key, to the accused persons. 

Trajectory of the arrests

Although named as an accused in the original FIR, Gorkhe and Gaichor were arrested two years after the others. Both Gorkhe and Gaichir have been associated with the Kabir Kala Manch, a cultural group involved in anti-caste campaigns in Maharashtra. In 2011, however, the then Congress- led government accused the organisation of being a front for the banned Naxal movement in the state. Ever since, any association with Kabir Kala Manch has been looked at as illegal by the law enforcement. Both Gorkhe and Gaichor have faced incarceration in the past and an earlier case is pending against them.

Related:

Bombay HC bail for Hany Babu signals a critical reassessment of the Bhima Koregaon Case

Bombay High Court grants bail to Rona Wilson and Sudhir Dhawale in Bhima Koregaon case

Bhima Koregaon case: 5 years on, charges not framed despite repeat extensions

Gautam Navlakha granted bail by Supreme Court in Bhima Koregaon case; orders him to pay 20 lakhs for the expenses incurred during his house arrest

The post BK16 Case: Bail for Sagar Gorkhe and Ramesh Gaichor, five years and five months after arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The victim has been identified as Mayanglambam Rishikanta Singh (31), a resident of Kakching Khunou in Meitei-majority Kakching district. Singh was abducted along with his wife, Chingnu Haokip, who belongs to the Kuki-Zo community, from her home in the Tuibong area of Churachandpur on Wednesday evening, according to The Indian Express.

Abduction and killing

Police officials told The Telegraph that three to four armed men, reportedly masked, arrived at the couple’s residence in an SUV around 7–7.30 pm. The couple was forcibly taken away towards the Natjang (or Nathjang) area, located about 25–30 minutes from Tuibong, within the same district.

While Haokip was later released—reportedly pushed out of the moving vehicle—the assailants drove Singh further and shot him dead. His body was recovered by police around 10.30 pm, and was later taken to the district hospital morgue in the early hours of Thursday, officials said.

A suo motu case has been registered, and investigations are ongoing.

Video sparks outrage

A video that surfaced on social media late Wednesday night shows a man sitting on the ground in near darkness, pleading with folded hands before individuals who remain off-camera. Moments later, a burst of gunfire is heard, after which the man collapses. The video reportedly carried the chilling message “No peace, no popular government”, a reference to ongoing efforts to restore an elected government in Manipur (The Hindu, Scroll).

According to The Hindu, the clip was initially circulated on WhatsApp from an IP address traced to Guwahati, though the circumstances of its recording and dissemination remain under investigation.

Identity and background

Singh had married Haokip in 2022, before the outbreak of ethnic violence in Manipur in May 2023. After marriage, he reportedly adopted the tribal name Ginminthang. Family members and local sources told The Indian Express that the couple had faced social ostracisation from both sides and were living separately for extended periods.

Singh had been working in Nepal under a contractor and returned to Manipur on January 19, just three days before the killing. He had been staying at his wife’s home in Churachandpur since December 19, local police officials said.

Some reports suggested that local Kuki groups had allowed him to stay, though the Kuki National Organisation (KNO)—an umbrella body of Kuki militant groups under a Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement—has categorically denied granting any such permission or having any involvement in the incident, as reported by The Hindu.

Suspected militant involvement

While no group has officially claimed responsibility, security agencies suspect the involvement of the United Kuki National Army (UKNA)—also referred to as UNKA—a militant outfit that is not a signatory to the SoO agreement with the Centre and the Manipur government, according to The Indian Express.

Senior security officials quoted by The Indian Express described the killing as a “political execution”, aimed at destabilising the situation and derailing efforts to restore a popular government in the state. However, police have stressed that these claims remain under investigation, and no conclusive attribution has yet been made.

Protests and political fallout

The killing triggered protests in Kakching district, where family members and local residents blocked roads, burnt tyres, and staged sit-ins at Khunou Bazar and along the Imphal–Sugnu road, as per the report of The Telegraph. Demonstrations were also reported from parts of Imphal East district, with Meitei organisations condemning the murder and questioning the effectiveness of central forces despite heavy deployment.

The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity and the Meitei Heritage Society described the killing as a “cold-blooded execution of a Meitei civilian” and demanded swift accountability.

Late Thursday night, the Manipur government handed over the investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla announced. In an official statement, the Governor expressed deep sorrow over Singh’s death, extended condolences to the family, and said intensive combing operations involving state and central forces had been launched “on a war footing” to apprehend those responsible.

Broader context of violence

The killing comes at a sensitive political moment. Manipur has been under President’s Rule since February 2025, following the resignation of then Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The President’s Rule is set to expire on February 13, and the Centre has been exploring possibilities of forming a popular government.

Since ethnic violence erupted on May 3, 2023, clashes between Meitei and Kuki-Zo-Hmar communities have left over 260 people dead and displaced more than 60,000, making it virtually impossible for members of the two communities to safely enter each other’s areas. For mixed Meitei–Kuki-Zo couples, living together or even visiting family has remained fraught with danger.

Dear of Gang Rape Survivor

The lingering fallout and tragedy that continues in Manipur since the outbreak of targeted mass crimes in May 2023 was also reflected in the tragic death of a 20-year-old Kuki woman who was gang-raped in Manipur in May 2023. She dies, it is reported on January 10, of a prolonged illness linked to her injuries, Newslaundry reported on Saturday, January 17. Her family said she never fully recovered from the physical and psychological trauma of the assault.

Parallel protests by Kuki women

Separately, on January 22, hundreds of Kuki-Zomi women staged a sit-in protest at Tuibong in Churachandpur, demanding the Prime Minister’s intervention for justice in cases of sexual violence and killings of Kuki-Zomi women during the Manipur crisis, as per The Hindu.

The demonstration, organised by the Kuki Women Organisation for Human Rights (KWOHR) and the women’s wing of the Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF), followed the death of a Kuki woman who allegedly succumbed to trauma-related illness after being gang-raped during the early phase of violence in May 2023.

In a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister, the groups alleged that at least 29 Kuki-Zomi women were killed between May 2023 and November 2024, and demanded time-bound investigations, prosecution of perpetrators, recognition of the crimes as crimes against humanity, witness protection, compensation, and long-term rehabilitation.

A fragile and divided state

As Manipur remains deeply divided along ethnic lines, the killing of Mayanglambam Rishikanta Singh—and the disturbing manner in which it was carried out—has once again exposed the fragile security situation in the state, raising serious questions about civilian safety, militant activity, and the prospects of political normalcy returning anytime soon, even as the State remains under President’s rule.

Related:

Manipur gang-rape survivor dies without justice, three years after 2023 ethnic violence

Broken State, Divided People: PUCL releases report of Independent People’s Tribunal on Manipur

Manipur Violence: Two years down, health rights activists demand restoration and spread of essential services all over state

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

The post Abducted While Visiting Wife, Killed on Camera: Manipur’s fragile peace shatters again appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For a country that saw the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and many such incidents where lack of regulation resulted in massive loss of human life and toll on victims that exists to date, this turnaround is rather surprising. That too, for it to have triggered by a judgement of the Supreme Court, an institution that has been a guardian of environment from the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, where tree-felling and non-forestry activity in forests across the country was stopped by an order of the Supreme Court to the Niyamgiri hills case where indigenous Dongria Kondh tribe successfully fought against Vedanta Aluminium’s bauxite mining project, using the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 to assert their cultural and religious rights over the sacred hills.[1]

Background: Tracing the Origins of “Prior” Clearance

To appreciate the magnitude of the conflict between the May 2025 and November 2025 Vanashakti judgments, it is essential to situate the dispute within the broader evolution of environmental constitutionalism in India.

In the wake of the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, India developed a legal regime grounded in the “Precautionary Principle.” Interpreted by the Supreme Court as part of Article 21 (the Right to Life), this principle requires that environmental protection measures must anticipate, prevent, and address sources of environmental degradation before any damage occurs.

The principal mechanism for implementing this principle is the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. Introduced in 1994 and updated in 2006, the EIA framework mandates that certain industrial and infrastructure projects must secure “prior” Environmental Clearance (EC) before any construction begins. The underlying rationale is that any environmental harm, such as deforestation or wetland destruction, is often irreversible. If assessments are conducted post-construction, they serve merely as a bureaucratic formality, failing to achieve the goal of sustainable development.

However, a significant gap has emerged between this normative ideal and the realities of India’s rapid industrialization, ready crony land grab. Successive governments, prioritising the “Ease of Doing Business,” began to grant “ex post facto” (retrospective) clearances to projects that had already commenced operations unlawfully. This practice created a moral hazard—companies found it cheaper to violate the law and pay penalties later than to undergo the rigorous and time-consuming process of prior assessment. The Vanashakti litigation originated when the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) attempted to formalize this practice through a 2017 Notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), thereby turning what was intended as amnesty into a standard procedure.

The May 2025 Judgment: The Normative Firewall

On May 16, 2025, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a judgment that aimed to uphold the “Rule of Law” over economic expediency.

Textualist Rigidity and the “Anathema” of Retrospection

The May judgment adopted a strict and literal interpretation of the EIA Notification 2006, holding that the requirement for “prior” EC is mandatory. Relying on precedents such as Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020), the bench emphasised that ex post facto clearances are “completely alien to environmental jurisprudence” and constitute an “anathema” to the EIA framework. Permitting operations without prior assessment, the Court reasoned, effectively condones violations. If EC is eventually denied after construction, the environmental harm is already irreversible; if granted, the “precautionary principle” is rendered meaningless.

The Sanctity of Executive Undertakings

The Court also scrutinised the legal history of the 2017 Notification, which had offered a six-month “amnesty” window for violators. When challenged before the Madras High Court, the Union Government had assured the court that this was a “one-time measure.” The May bench found that the subsequent 2021 OM—which perpetuated the amnesty indefinitely—breached this judicial undertaking. The Court held that the executive cannot renege on its assurance to the court, striking down the 2021 OM as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.[2]

Rejection of Monetary Regularisation

The May judgment explicitly rejected the notion that penalties under the “Polluter Pays Principle” could substitute for prior compliance. It noted that while Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides for penalties, it does not authorize the regularization of illegal structures. As a result, the Court held that even if penalties are paid, illegal constructions lacking prior clearance must be halted and demolished. The bench stressed that the “Polluter Pays Principle” cannot be twisted into a license to pollute.[3]

The November 2025 Review: The Pragmatic Recalibration

In a dramatic turnaround just six months later, a three-judge Review Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai (with Justice Bhuyan dissenting) set aside the May judgment.

 The “Per Incuriam” Doctrine and the Battle of Precedents

The Review Bench invoked the doctrine of per incuriam—rendered in ignorance of binding law—to overturn the May judgment. The majority held that the May Bench had failed to consider coordinate bench decisions in Electrosteel Steels Ltd. (2021)[4], Pahwa Plastics (2022)[5], and D. Swamy (2023)[6].

The May Bench had relied on Common Cause and Alembic to assert that ex-post facto EC is illegal. The Review Bench argued that while Alembic described such clearances as “anathema,” it ultimately allowed industries to continue operating after paying fines.

The Review Bench interpreted the relief granted in Alembic (allowing the industry to operate) as the binding principle of law, whereas the May Bench considered the relief as an exceptional measure under Article 142, treating the prohibition on retrospective EC as binding law.

Ultimately, by prioritising Electrosteel—which stated that the Environment Protection Act “does not prohibit” ex post facto clearance—over the strict reading of Common Cause, the Review Bench found the May judgment erroneous for ignoring the more recent “balanced approach” adopted by the Court.[7]

2. The Doctrine of “National Assets” and Sunk Costs

Economic consequences were a decisive factor in the Review Judgment. The Court accepted the Union’s argument that the May judgment would require the demolition of “national assets” valued at over ₹20,000 crore.[8]

The Court cited specific examples such as the AIIMS hospital in Odisha (962 beds) and the greenfield airport in Vijayanagar as projects facing potential demolition.[9]

The Review Bench further argued that demolishing these large-scale projects would cause more environmental damage (from dust and debris) than allowing them to remain operational. The Court rhetorically questioned whether demolishing effluent treatment plants would truly benefit environmental protection.[10] This reasoning, in effect, used environmental concerns to justify non-enforcement of environmental law.

Statutory Flexibility

Contrary to the May judgment, the Review Bench held that Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act does not mandate demolition. The Act, according to the Review Bench, allows for flexibility, and the executive can “amend or modify” notifications as needed.[11] Thus, the 2021 OM was not seen as violating the “one-time” judicial undertaking but as a valid exercise of executive power, especially as it was issued following directions from the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Analytical Critique: The Erosion of Certainty

The rapid shift between the Vanshakti verdicts reveals a deep schism within India’s environmental constitutionalism. While the Review Judgment saved billions in investment, it set a precarious precedent that undermines the rule of law in three key areas.

The Inversion of Stare Decisis (Precedent)

The main issue with the Review Judgment is its handling of precedent. Justice Bhuyan’s dissent pointed out that Electrosteel and Pahwa—relied on by the Review Bench—were two-judge bench decisions, as was Common Cause, which formed the foundation of the May judgment and offered a comprehensive interpretation of the EIA Notification.

The Review Bench declared the May judgment per incuriam for not following Electrosteel, but the dissent argued that Electrosteel itself was per incuriam for disregarding the binding principle established in Common Cause.[12]

The Review Bench’s position—that the relief granted in Alembic (allowing industries to continue) constitutes binding laws jurisprudentially problematic. The Supreme Court often uses its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to grant case-specific relief while maintaining a contrary legal principle. By elevating discretionary relief to binding precedent, the Review Judgment effectively legalises violations, signaling to lower courts that statutory prohibitions on retrospective clearance can be ignored when economic stakes are high.

The Institutionalisation of Fait Accompli

The Review Judgment entrenches the doctrine of Fait Accompli in Indian law, suggesting that violations on a sufficiently large scale become practically irreversible.

By explicitly referencing the ₹20,000 crore investment as a justification for recall, the Court signaled that the “Right to Environment” is subordinate to the “Right to Investment.” This creates a dangerous incentive for developers to proceed with construction and heavy investments before obtaining clearance, believing that courts will hesitate to order the destruction of “national assets.”

Moreover, the reasoning that demolition itself would cause pollution effectively shields all large-scale illegal infrastructure from enforcement. The further along illegal construction is, the more “environmentally damaging” it becomes to remove, thus guaranteeing its persistence. This undermines the “Precautionary Principle,” which is based on prevention rather than after-the-fact remediation.

Simply put, if the municipality of a city refrains from demolishing the encroachment buildings on banks of lakes, the city will be prone to flood and is exposed to more vulnerabilities than before. Vanshakti II judgement fully fails to engage with this very obvious and basic logic.

Conclusion: From Gatekeeper to Toll Collector

The shift from the May judgment to the November Review marks a transformation in the Supreme Court’s role in environmental governance. The May judgment sought to act as a Gatekeeper, upholding the “Prior Clearance” requirement to prevent environmental degradation before it occurs. In contrast, the Review Judgment recasts the Court as a Toll Collector, allowing violations to continue in exchange for fines and remedial actions.

While the Review Judgment provides a practical solution to the immediate issue of “stranded assets” such as the Odisha AIIMS and the Vijayanagar Airport, it causes enduring harm to the credibility of India’s environmental regulatory regime. It endorses the executive’s strategy of “dilution by notification,” where statutory mandates are weakened to accommodate industrial needs. Most significantly, it undermines the finality of Supreme Court judgments, implying that even environmentally protective verdicts can be recalled if the economic arguments are persuasive enough.

For developers, the message is unambiguous: compliance is optional, so long as one can afford the cost of post-facto forgiveness.

Amen.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organization)

[1] Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment & Forest &Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011

[2] Para 30, Vanshakti v. Union of India 2025 INSC 718 (Vanshakti I)

[3] Para 27, Vanshakti I

[4] Electrosteel Steels Limited v. Union of India and Others  (2023) 6 SCC 615

[5] Pahwa Plastics Private Limited and Another v. Dastak NGO and Others (2023) 12 SCC 774

[6] D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others (2023) 20 SCC 469

[7] Para 55.1, CREDAI vs. Vankshakti 2025 INSC 1326 (Vanshakti II)

[8] Para 108, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[9] Paras 109, 110, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[10] Para 7 (VIII), Vanshakti II (Justice K. Vinod Chandran)

[11] Para 75, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[12] Para 20, Vanshakti II (Justice Bhuyan)

Related:

Cries for Environmental Justice: India at a low 176/180 countries in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index

June 5: World environment day & the increasing importance of seed conservation by farmers and rural communities

Strengthening indigenous communities means protection of the environment 

The post The Judicial Ouroboros: The Vanashakti Reversal & Crisis of Environmental Finality in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to police officials, the bodies of the couple were buried behind a temple on the outskirts of the village and were recovered following the confession of the accused. As reported by The Quint, the main accused have been identified as Rinku Saini and Satish Saini, Kajal’s brothers, while a third brother has also been named in the FIR. Two of the accused have been arrested so far.

Arman, aged 27, had reportedly been working in Saudi Arabia and had returned to India a few months ago, during which time he was residing in Moradabad. It was during this period that he met Kajal Saini, 22, and the two entered into a romantic relationship. However, Kajal’s brothers were strongly opposed to the interfaith relationship and had allegedly pressured her to end it, as reported by NDTV.

Approximately three days before the recovery of the bodies, both Arman and Kajal went missing. Arman’s father, Haneef, subsequently lodged a missing persons complaint at Pakwara Police Station. During the investigation, police discovered that Kajal was also untraceable, raising further suspicion.

Upon questioning Kajal’s brothers, police say they confessed to murdering the couple. Based on their disclosure, the accused led investigators to the burial site. The bodies were exhumed in the presence of a magistrate and sent for post-mortem examination, following due legal procedure.

Shockingly, the accused told investigators that they had tied the hands and legs of both victims before hacking them to death, an account that has intensified concerns around premeditated violence driven by notions of family “honour,” as reported by NDTV.

Confirming the developments, Satpal Antil, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, stated:

“During the investigation, it was found that the woman’s brothers murdered both individuals. After they confessed, the bodies were recovered at their instance. The spade used in the crime has also been seized.”

थाना पाकबड़ा क्षेत्रान्तर्गत ग्राम उमरी में एक युवक व युवती की हत्या के प्रकरण में थाना पाकबड़ा पर सुसंगत धाराओं में अभियोग पंजीकृत किया गया है। पुलिस द्वारा त्वरित कार्यवाही करते हुए 02 आरोपी भाईयो को हिरासत में लिया जा चुका है प्रकरण में अन्य आवश्यक विधिक कार्यवाही प्रचलित है। pic.twitter.com/3KVkT2Vp4b

— MORADABAD POLICE (@moradabadpolice) January 21, 2026

Police have registered a case at Pakwara Police Station under Crime Number 18/26, invoking Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), based on a complaint filed by Arman’s family. The incident has sparked outrage and renewed concerns over honour-based violence, particularly targeting interfaith relationships, in Uttar Pradesh and beyond. Further investigation is underway, and police have stated that action will be taken against all those found involved in the crime.

Related:

Street Pressure, State Power, and the Criminalisation of Choice: How Hindutva groups are pushing Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law

Allahabad HC: Quashes FIR under draconian UP ‘Anti-Conversion Act’, warns state authorities against lodging ‘Mimeographic Style’ FIRs

Allahabad HC slams overzealous police action, says distributing Bibles or preaching Christianity is not an offence under UP conversion law

A New Silence: The Supreme Court’s turn toward non-interference in hate-speech cases

The post Interfaith couple tied, hacked to death in Moradabad; woman’s brothers arrested in alleged honour killing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In UP’s Sambhal, lawyers protest against the transfer of chief judicial magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer. His transfer is purportedly linked two seperate orders of registration of FIRs against policemen including ASP Anuj Chaudhary. pic.twitter.com/XNVrUYCTGB

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) January 21, 2026

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday, January 20, transferred 14 judicial officers, including the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sambhal Vibhanshu Sudheer.Aditya Singh, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambhal at Chandausi, has replaced Sudheer.

Sudheer, who has now been made Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sultanpur, had on January 19 ordered Sambhal police to lodge an FIR against then Circle Officer (CO) Anuj Chaudhary and SHO in connection with the shooting of a youth during the November 2024 Sambhal violence. The Sambhal police had stated that they would move the Allahabad High Court against the CJM court’s order.

Sudheer an upright judicial officer transferred several times

A social media user posted how Vidhanshu Sudheer, the chief judicial magistrate in UP’s Sambhal who had ordered an FIR against ASP Anuj Chaudhary and other police officers was transferred for the third time in less than a year!

Vibhanshu Sudheer, the chief judicial magistrate in UP’s Sambhal who ordered registration of FIR against ASP Anuj Chaudhary and other policemen, was transferred for the third time in less than a year. pic.twitter.com/ltASN2jADU

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) January 21, 2026

Attack on judicial independence

Severely criticising this serious slur on judicial independence, social media users likened this action by the higher judiciary to the transfer of Justice Muralidhar (Delhi HC, now retired) in 2020 after his midnight hearing and castigation of hate speech by BJP leaders who had uttered inciteful words like “Goli Maro Saalo ko.”

Muralidhar transferred after Delhi riots order. Justice Sreedharan transferred after order in BJP leader Vijay Shah’s hate speech case. Vibhanshu Sudheer transferred after directing FIR against police officers in Sambhal violence. What does this tell us about judicial…

— Ashish Goel (@ashish_nujs) January 21, 2026

This user even reminder the conscientious public how –in a publicised change of heart –even the Supreme Court Collegium notified the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan to the Allahabad HC and not to Chhattisgarh where he would have been senior most Judge! The Collegium made it public that the action was under the Union Government’s ‘advise’. This became public in October 2025. Earlier last year, Justice Sreedharan had ordered an FIR against BJP minister Vijay Shah for his “scurrilous language” against an Indian Army Officer, Colonel Sofia Quraishi, who was one of the representatives of the Indian army who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor last May.

Trajectory of Transfer: On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and B.V. Nagarathna, had first recommended the transfer of 14 judges, including Justice Sreedharan, from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court. However, two months later, on October 14, the Supreme Court Collegium withdrew its recommendation to transfer Justice Sreedharan to Chhattisgarh at the request of the Union Government. Instead, the SC decided to transfer him to the Allahabad High Court instead. Followed by this was a much-publicised statement published on the Supreme Court’s website, which stated that the decision to modify the recommendation was made following a “reconsideration sought by the Government.” No reasons were provided for the government-sought reconsideration of the Collegium’s recommendation publicly. This was the first time, the Collegium has publicly acknowledged that it revisited—and changed—its decision at the Government’s request

Fourteen transfers by Allahabad HC

In the transfer order released by Registrar General of Allahabad High Court, January 2026, Harendra Nath, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kannauj, has been made Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Kannauj in the exclusive POCSO case Court, replacing Alaka Yadav, who will be joining as Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gonda.

Special Judge/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gonda, Vikas has been made Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gonda, for trying cases of crime against women.

Urooj Fatima, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur will be joining as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, replacing Anshu Shukla.

Meanwhile, Anshu Shukla has been made Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur, replacing Gaurav Prakash, who will be taking charge of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. Prakash has replaced Rajendra Kumar Singh, who will be the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

He has replaced Shraddha Bhartiya, who has been made Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kannauj, replacing Jyotsna Yadav, who will now be Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

She has replaced Sneha, who has been made Secretary (Full Time), District Legal Services Authority in Kannauj. Outgoing Sambhal CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer has replaced Alunkrita Shakti Tripathi, who will be Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Sultanpur, replacing Shubham Verma. Verma will be joining as Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur.

Related:

“Sambhal: Anatomy of an Engineered Crisis”- How a peaceful Muslim-majority town was turned into a site of manufactured communal conflict

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

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

The post CJM who ordered FIR against police for 2024 Sambhal violence case transferred by Allahabad HC, new trend? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing an application filed by Hindu Front for Justice, which sought permission for day-long Basant Panchami rituals at the site on January 23, coinciding with Friday Juma Namaz. The proceedings and directions were reported by LiveLaw.

Background: A contested sacred space

The Bhoj Shala, an 11th-century monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), occupies a deeply contested place in India’s religious and legal landscape. Hindus regard the structure as a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati), while Muslims consider it the Kamal Maula Masjid.

Since 2003, a court-monitored arrangement has been in place permitting Hindu puja on Tuesdays and Muslim namaz on Fridays, a fragile equilibrium that has periodically come under strain, as per The Hindu.

Arguments before the Court

Appearing for the Hindu applicants, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that Basant Panchami holds exceptional religious significance, with the auspicious muhurat extending from sunrise to sunset, during which uninterrupted pujas and havans are traditionally performed.

Jain urged the Court to consider whether Juma Namaz could be shifted to after 5 PM, allowing Hindu rituals to continue throughout the day without interruption.

Representing the Muslim side, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee, firmly opposed the suggestion, pointing out that Juma Namaz is time-specific and must be performed between 1 PM and 3 PM, in accordance with Islamic religious practice. He clarified that once the namaz concluded, worshippers would vacate the premises, as has been the practice.

Justice Bagchi intervened during the exchange, remarking that the Court was conscious of the religious significance of both practices and cautioning against arguments that ignored doctrinal constraints—an observation noted by LiveLaw.

Administration’s role and court-endorsed arrangement

Seeking to de-escalate tensions and ensure public order, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India and the ASI, proposed a pragmatic administrative solution. He suggested that if the mosque committee provided an estimate of the number of persons expected to attend the namaz, the district administration could cordon off a separate enclosure within the compound, complete with distinct ingress and egress, and issue passes to prevent overcrowding or provocation.

Khurshid agreed to furnish the numbers on the same day, a position welcomed by the Court. The Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh also assured the Bench that law and order would be strictly maintained, a commitment the Court formally recorded, as reported by Bar & Bench.

Supreme Court’s recorded directions

In its order, the Bench recorded the consensus arrangement as follows:

“A fair suggestion was given that for the duration of Juma Namaz between 1 PM and 3 PM, an exclusive and separate area within the same compound, including separate ingress and egress, shall be made available so that namaz can be performed peacefully. Similarly, a separate space shall be made available to the Hindu community to conduct traditional ceremonies on the occasion of Basant Panchami.”

The Court further noted that the district administration may issue passes or adopt any other fair mechanism to ensure that no untoward incident occurs.

In a rare and deliberate appeal, the Bench urged both communities to exercise mutual respect and restraint, stressing that cooperation with civil authorities was essential to maintaining communal harmony.

Clarification on pujas and non-interference with merits

When Jain pressed the Bench to explicitly record that Basant Panchami pujas could continue uninterrupted from sunrise to sunset, the Court clarified that this was already permitted under an existing ASI order, and nothing in its directions curtailed that right.

Importantly, the Bench emphasised that its directions were purely interim and facilitative, and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the larger dispute, which remains sub judice.

Larger Case: ASI survey and High Court proceedings

The application was heard in the backdrop of a Special Leave Petition filed in 2024 by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Dhar, challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the disputed complex.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court had allowed the survey to continue but imposed strict safeguards:

• No physical excavation that could alter the structure’s character
• No action on the survey findings without the Supreme Court’s prior approval
• Maintenance of status quo at the site

During Thursday’s hearing, LiveLaw reported, the Court was informed that the ASI has completed the survey and submitted its report in a sealed cover to the High Court.

Accepting a suggestion by Salman Khurshid, the Supreme Court directed that:

• The High Court may unseal the ASI report in open court
• Copies be supplied to both parties
• Where copying is not feasible, inspection may be allowed in the presence of counsel
• Parties be permitted to file objections
• The matter thereafter be taken up for final hearing

The Court further directed that the writ petition pending before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court be heard by a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice or one of the senior-most judges, and disposed of the SLP accordingly.

Continuing status quo

Until final adjudication, the Supreme Court ordered that:

• Status quo at the site shall be maintained
• Parties must continue to abide by the ASI’s April 2023 operational order
• No step shall be taken that alters the religious character of the structure

A judicial tightrope

The Court’s orders reflect a careful judicial balancing act—protecting religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26, while preventing escalation at a site emblematic of India’s broader debates on faith, history, and constitutional secularism.

By foregrounding administrative coordination, mutual respect, and non-interference with pending adjudication, the Supreme Court has, for now, sought to ensure peace at Bhoj Shala—while leaving the ultimate question of its religious character to be resolved through due process of law.

Related:

In UP’s Mosque Coverings, a New Chapter From The Hindutva Playbook Unfolds

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

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

Sufidar Trust, Walajah Big Mosque: The 4 decades long tradition of Hindus serving Iftar meals to Muslims during Ramzan

Conspiracy or Coincidence? Mosques defaced in March after spate of hate speeches provoking the crime weeks before

CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA

The post Supreme Court brokers interim peace at bhoj shala, allows basant panchami pujas and Friday namaz under strict safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“An FIR against a 14-year-old child is not law enforcement. It is fear,” tweeted Ravi, a LinkedIn influencer, highlighting the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government’s role. Supporters, including parody accounts mimicking political figures, shared clips of Gautam critiquing media bias and religious hypocrisy, drawing parallels to historical figures like Bhagat Singh. One widely shared post contrasted Gautam with a 14-year-old promoted as a “spiritual guru,” lamenting: “One asks questions and gets an FIR; the other gets a throne. That’s the caste difference.” Allegations of targeted anti-Dalit caste bias have also been made.

Another post said, “An FIR against a 14-year-old child is not law enforcement. It is fear. The Yogi government filing an FIR against Ashwamit Gautam , a 14-year-old content creator from Lucknow, is deeply disturbing and shameful. This is not about justice this is about a government that cannot tolerate questions.

Ashwamit is not a criminal.
He does not spread violence.
He does not promote hatred.

His only “crime” is that he asks questions about unemployment, inflation, and government policies questions that millions of Indians are already asking.

A 14-year-old boy who speaks with logic, clarity, and courage, making long analytical videos without scripts, reaching lakhs of youth this should have been celebrated in a democracy. Instead, he is being intimidated with an FIR.

Why?

Because he is young, Dalit, and fearless.

Power is not scared of criminals; it is scared of awareness. It is scared of a generation that refuses to stay silent. Vague FIR language, no clear sections disclosed, no transparency this is nothing but using law as a weapon to spread fear.

The message is loud and clear: “If you question the government, you will be punished even if you are a child.”

This is not just an attack on freedom of expression. It exposes caste and class bias. Would the same action be taken if this child was spreading hate or praising those in power? We all know the answer.

Criticism is not anti-national. Questioning the government is a constitutional right. If a 14-year-old is asking tough questions, the government should reflect not repress.
FIR instead of encouragement.

Fear instead of dialogue.

This is not strength this is insecurity.

History teaches us one thing: governments that silence voices never last. Children who speak the truth may be targeted, but they are never erased.

Stand with Ashwamit Gautam
Silencing a child exposes the weakness of power, not the crime of the child.”

Hero Ashwamit gautham

At just 14, Ashwamit stands tall.
A Dalit boy with courage beyond his years, questioning power and speaking truth to authority. pic.twitter.com/TybtmlhICz

— VoiceOfMadiga-ಮಾದಿಗ ಧ್ವನಿ® (@JaiBhimMadiga) January 19, 2026

Ashwamit Gautam, 14-year-old content creator who was pointing out the need for basic things like education, good roads, clean water, electricity & clean air is NOW facing FIR.

While that superstitious human samosa is getting awards from Union Minister/Ethanol Billionaire. pic.twitter.com/rfsFf7qa3D

— Dr Ranjan (@AAPforNewIndia) January 18, 2026

एक 14 साल के लड़के की आवाज़ से डर गई सरकार FIR तक पहुंच गई,
⁰आश्वामित गौतम लखनऊ का वो क्रांतिकारी बच्चा जो अंबेडकर भगत सिंह और चे ग्वेरा को पढ़ता है l।

इतनी कम उम्र में सरकार और सिस्टम से सवाल पूछता है।
⁰इंस्टाग्राम पर 666K फॉलोवर्स हैं बेहतरीन कंटेंट पोस्ट करते हैं आश्वामित… pic.twitter.com/LlCce5AJvu

— Ankit Yadav (@Ankitydv92) January 14, 2026

FIR

The FIR was reportedly lodged by the Lucknow police citing concerns over Gautam’s online activities. Police authorities have not disclosed the specific legal sections invoked or identified the complainant. Sources familiar with the matter say the case relates to content perceived as critical of the state administration says Deshambhini.

The young 14 year old, Gautam has built a substantial following on social media through long-form analytical videos discussing rising inflation and the cost of living, unemployment among young people, widening social inequality, and issues affecting the Dalit community. His unscripted videos have gained traction among youth audiences across Uttar Pradesh.

The decision of the UP administration to initiate legal action against a minor has drawn sharp criticism from civil society members, digital rights activists, and opposition leaders. Many have questioned the intent behind filing an FIR against a child for political expression, calling it intimidation rather than law enforcement.

Supporters argue that Gautam has neither incited violence nor promoted hatred, and that his content is protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression. They maintain that questioning government policy on employment, inflation, and social justice is a legitimate democratic exercise, not a criminal offence.

Other critics of his content have described his rhetoric as provocative and potentially disruptive to social harmony, a justification rights groups say is increasingly used to silence dissenting voices.

Several activists have also alleged caste and class bias, noting that Gautam belongs to the Dalit community. They have questioned whether similar action would have been taken if the content praised those in power.

The lack of transparency surrounding the FIR has further fuelled concern. “When the state responds to criticism from a child with police action instead of dialogue, it raises serious questions about democratic tolerance,” a digital rights advocate said.

To date, the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government has not issued an official statement on the case.

Related:

The Price of Dissent: In India, demanding accountability in times of grief must toe the line

In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad

Dissent Under Siege: Police action, suspensions, and the shrinking democratic space at TISS

The post UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos appeared first on SabrangIndia.