A brief background on the facts and legal proceedings:

Two days ago, on November 3, 2026, a Division Bench (DB) comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v Archana P.S. & Ors (W.A. 2276/2026), set aside a single judge’s interim order. The interim order had directed the university to accept the fees of 16 suspended students of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (Kalady, Ernakulam, Kerala) and let them appear for their exams. The appeal before the Division Bench (DB) was decided on grounds of pleadings and interim relief. In doing so, the DB quoted, and gave fresh life to, the 2017 observations in Dr Antony Thomas v V.M. Muhammed Rafique, to say that students engaging in such protest in an educational institution are liable to be expelled or rusticated.

The university has alleged that both obstruction and assault took place on August 13, 2026. Students on their part have disputed this, and an investigation is ongoing. NAJAR has stated that it takes no position on disputed facts and does not condone violence, if it has happened. But the issue of whether violence took place and whether peaceful protests have a place in a campus are entirely different questions, and the two must not be inter-twined. NAJAR believes that presenting non-violent campus protest as inherently ‘anti-democratic’ confuses peaceful agitation (for better facilities) or student rights with unlawful disruption and the same cannot be accepted.

Peaceful Protest in Academic Spaces is a Constitutional Right:

Article 19 (1) (a) and (b) under the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Nothing in the Constitution excludes dharna or satyagraha as forms of peaceful protest, and nothing suspends these rights when a citizen is a student or when the place is a university campus or academic institution. The Supreme Court has recognised peaceful protest as part of these freedoms, including in in the famed Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020).

Invoking Dr. Ambedkar to restrain peaceful protest is unfair:

On November 3, 2026; the Division Bench repeated the following observations of the Court in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique and others:

“Political activities like dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education.”

These observations apparently stem from Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s “Grammar of Anarchy”, wherein he had stressed that, where there are constitutional remedies available, there is no justification in adopting unconstitutional methods. However, says NAJAR, to misquote Dr. Ambedkar in such a skewed fashion, particularly in the context of student politics is nothing more than a futile attempt at stretching the clock of constitutionalism over institutional suppression. The whole ideation is problematic in manifold ways.

First, the above quoted passage is conditional. It says unconstitutional methods lack justification where constitutional methods are open. The relevant question is whether constitutional channels were actually open to these students, and the Court actually has not examined it on merit. When university authorities act arbitrarily, constitutional avenues inside the campus stand effectively shut. In such situations, peaceful protest is not a breakdown of law; it is the only remaining constitutional recourse to invoke administrative accountability.

Second, Dr. Ambedkar’s call to rely on constitutional remedies alone has to be read with the shift in his personal and political ideology pre and post adoption of the Constitution. The fact that in the pre-independence era, the people had to rely on both violent and non-violent means of protest against the colonial oppressors doesn’t vitiate the political reality of today, which many a times demand lawful means of protests including Satyagraha and dharna. In fact, more often it is the constitutional institutions that compel the citizens to adopt such means. Quoting Babasaheb, who himself led the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927, to justify a blanket ban on satyagrahas is selective. Equating non-violent protest with criminality distorts the original intention and warning.

Satyagraha and the role of student movements in India today:

Satyagraha was one of the methods of mass resistance during India’s freedom movement. It is difficult to call it ‘alien’ to constitutional democracy when this method, popularised by Gandhi himself, helped create one. Student movements, likewise, have shaped campuses in Kerala and the country, from the freedom struggle to later movements for rights and institutional reform. Back then, students boycotted colonial institutions and joined the Non-Cooperation and Quit India movements. In recent years, students have challenged sexist hostel curfews and caste discrimination on campus. After the NTA cancelled the NEET-UG exam amid paper leak allegations, students across the country peacefully took to the streets, following which Mr. Dharmendra Pradhan, former Union Education Minister, had to resign.

These movements are not ‘distractions’ from or ‘disruptions’ in education. They are how students and youth demand answers and accountability from educational institutions. To say that educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics is either political illiteracy or a much despicable attempt to isolate students from critical thinking and democratic expression.

NAJAR Re-affirms Right to Peaceful Organising and Protest:

NAJAR has emphasised that it believes that all students across campuses and learning spaces must have lawful channels to raise grievances, and institutions should answer reasonable grievances, rather than discipline or crack down on those who raise them. De-politicizing campuses strips students of their ability to question injustice and understand, reform social structures.

Belonging to a particular political ideology or refusing to tender an apology, or relying on matters yet to be evidentially ascertained, cannot be the reasons to shun protesting students from placing their reasonable grievances for institutional reforms, in a constitutionally democratic manner. Protesting peacefully does not make the students ‘less civilized’ or ‘unruly’.

Rather restricting the right to peaceful protest is a highly dubious attempt of subverting the progressive, democratic civic spaces in a state like Kerala, which is what it is today, thanks to democratic resistance, protests and the constitutional fights spearheaded by student and citizen movements!

Hence, the collective has also called upon the Sree Sankaracharya University to complete the enquiry promptly and fairly, in accordance with natural justice and proportionality. NAJAR has also urged that the 2017 observations of the High Court not be relied upon currently by the Kerala High Court to punish peaceful protests. Campus dissent must not be criminalised or treated as a threat to education.

Related:

Jamia’s Answer to Student Protest: Online exams, hostel closures and police detentions

Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

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

The post Kerala High Court’s Observations on Protest in Educational Institutions Unacceptable & Restrictive: NAJAR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar allowed the petitions challenging the deletion of their names and the rejection of their Form 8 applications, which are used by existing voters to update their residential addresses.

The court directed the Booth Level Officer (BLO) of the Santacruz Assembly constituency in Goa to include the petitioners’ names within 10 days, after verifying their residence.

As reported by LiveLaw, the bench said, “We allow the petition… We have rejected the contention of the ECI that the hearing in the present plea be deferred as the issue of SIR is pending before the Supreme Court…. This is not pertaining to SIR… We therefore ordered the BLO of Santacruz Constituency (in Goa) to add the names of the petitioners within a period of 10 days from today.”

The court also refused the ECI’s request to stay the operation of its order for two weeks.

Court questions requirement to submit enumeration forms

The dispute arose after the petitioners, members of the Salgaonkar family, approached the court stating that their names had been omitted from the electoral roll despite submitting Form 8 applications seeking changes to their residential addresses.

The ECI argued that under the SIR guidelines, voters were required to submit a pre-filled enumeration form along with Form 8. Since the petitioners had not submitted the enumeration forms, they were asked to file Form 6, which is meant for fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.

The bench questioned this requirement, pointing out that the pre-filled enumeration form contained a declaration that the elector continued to reside at the address recorded in the existing electoral roll.

Questioning how voters who had shifted residence could be compelled to make such a declaration, Justice Menezes observed:

“If a voter comes to you with Form 8, saying he has changed his address you just cannot tell that person that look your name isn’t included in the draft roll now you will have to fill in Form 6 (inclusion of new voter). Your enumeration form, basically has a declaration that a person continues to live at the address as mentioned in the existing voters list. But consider, if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration? Why can’t that person simply give a Form 8 because anyway, his name is there in the existing list he just wants to get his address changed.. Why compel enumeration form?”

The bench had also questioned why an existing elector seeking an address correction should be required to apply as a new voter.

Court flags risk of excluding eligible voters

During the hearings, the bench questioned the ECI’s approach of rejecting Form 8 applications instead of keeping them pending for verification. It also raised concerns about the consequences of compelling relocated voters to submit declarations that no longer reflected their actual residential status.

As reported by Bar and Bench, the court flagged a “catch-22 situation” in which voters who had shifted residence faced rejection of their Form 8 applications and were instead directed to submit Form 6, potentially creating further difficulties in establishing their electoral registration.

The ECI, represented by Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, argued that the draft SIR roll was prepared afresh (de novo) on the basis of newly collected enumeration forms. According to the ECI, voters whose names did not appear in the draft roll could not use Form 8 to modify an existing entry and were required to apply afresh through Form 6 during the claims and objections period.

The court, however, allowed the petitions and directed restoration of the six names. It also rejected the ECI’s request to defer the proceedings until the Supreme Court decides the broader challenges to the SIR process.

The detailed written order is awaited.

Related

ECI affidavit says SIR decisions were unanimous, but questions over two commissioners’ objections remain

UP voter lists: Software manipulates Voter’s names, Pilibhit investigation finds 10,470 irregular entries

Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions

The post Goa SIR: Bombay High Court orders ECI to restore names of six voters deleted from final electoral roll appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“My wife was feeling weak and dizzy, so we were just trying to sit for a moment, when the police began to drag us away. One lady constable said that my wife was acting,” said Virendra Bhandari, Ankita’s father as reported by the media, The Times of India and The Print.

A senior police officer told ThePrint that Ankita’s parents were removed as Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been imposed on Rajghat and its surroundings areas.  Ankita’s father, however, alleges police is tracking their location.

The Bhandari parents, along with social activist Yogita Bhayana and Congress leader Mumtaz Patel, had gone to Raj Ghat to offer prayers. “We have come here to pray for Ankita and get some strength. The Delhi Police has been tracking our phone location so as soon as reporters began speaking to us while we were catching our breath, they detained us,” Virendra Bhandari said. The expression of public protest was silent and peaceful.

आप ख़ुद ही पूरा वीडियो देखिए… अंकिता की माँ बेहोश पड़ी थी पास में एलएनजेपी हॉस्पिटल था लेकिन पूरे डेढ़ घंटे के बाद उनको बुरारी के सरकारी हॉस्पिटल ले जाया गया…. एक पीड़ित परिवार के साथ ऐसी सवेंदनशीलता ??? https://t.co/uGRhUVLjiT

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) November 5, 2026

Instead of allowing their anguish expression, the Delhi police appeared insensate and brutal. Reports state that the couple was allegedly kept in a police van for close to two hours. “They made us sit in the van for close to two hours without any water. My wife was feeling weak and they provided no emergency assistance, but kept on making rounds around markets and roads in that area,” he added.

Later, the police eventually dropped the duo at Burari Hospital, where Virendra claimed that his wife was not given proper treatment. “My wife was not happy with how she was being treated at the hospital so we just left. We don’t want this government’s treatment or help; we have seen enough mistreatment.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) M. Harsha Vardhan told ThePrint, “Parents of Ankita Bhandari were intending on putting up an indefinite dharna so they were removed. We have no issues with them sitting there for a few minutes, but when the police posted there learnt that they intended on doing an indefinite strike, we had to detain them.”

The officer added that the parents were not being tracked, but when they reached the spot, Central Industrial Security Force personnel present alerted the Delhi Police. “We had no intentions of detaining them for two hours but when the Central District police detains people, we take them to Burari or Chhatrasal area, so when Ankita’s parents complained of being unwell we took them to Burari hospital,” he said. He added that the time spent inside the vehicle could be due to the traffic congestion.

The development comes weeks after the Bhandari couple protested in the Capital against the appointment of Bharatiya Janata Party leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as the governor of Sikkim. The family has alleged that Gautam was involved in Ankita’s death.

Previously, in October 2026, the parents had also faced similar police brutality at India Gate. At the time, Leader of the Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi had also visited the site of the protest.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Will the Ankita Bhandari murder case, arrest of journalist, Negi affect the April 19 poll?

Ankita Bhandari Case: Protests for justice enters 7th day, victim’s parents leading the protestors, condemning the arrest of the journalist seeking action in Ankita’s case

The women India continues to ignore

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

The post Delhi Police: Ankita Bhandari’s parents detained, ‘Dragged, driven around, no help to unwell wife,’ says father appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The website of the organization has published a portrait of Gautam Adani, garlanded and looking upwards wearing a half-smile, who now joins an array of 33 global figures and companies lined up by Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) in its “2026 Press Freedom Predators List”. Donald Trump, US President, makes it on the list for the first time this year. OpIndia, which features pro-establishment critiques of independent media, is on the list again.

The list is RSF’s rather unique way to mark the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on November 2. It profiles 33 “press freedom predators” who targeted journalists and media outlets in 2026. “What do they have in common? A hatred of press freedom,” says RSF.

“This tongue-in-cheek awards list highlights the diversity and brutality of the tactics used to stifle journalism,” RSF says.

India has two entries – corporate giant Adani features as a representative of his Adani Group, which RSF says is a “predator” of the media for its “use of gag suits”. A journalist the group has been pursuing with a criminal defamation case due to articles published recently spent time in a prison in Gujarat. RSF notes that the conglomerate has “11 ongoing civil and criminal proceedings against journalists in India over their reporting on the Adani Group and its subsidiaries”.

The RSF report notes that the Adani Group seeks “to criminalise journalism via abusive legal proceedings against media outlets and journalists”, joining other noteworthy personalities with the same goal: Kazakhstan’s president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, making his debut, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

RSF cites from a lawsuit filed by Adani Enterprises on September 6, 2025, to illustrate its point:

“[T]he Plaintiff is aggrieved by the actions of certain reporters, activists and organisations, who, with malicious intent, have damaged the Adani Group’s reputation and also cost its stakeholders billions of dollars and also caused massive loss to the image, brand equity and credibility of India’s brand as a country… [T]he Defendants, by aligning with anti-India interests and continuously targeting the Plaintiff’s Infrastructure and energy projects, which are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security, have disrupted these projects with ulterior motives.” Adani Group is among several others who use lawfare to target journalists critical of them or their regimes as per the RSF’s 2026 report.

Ironically, the second Indian entry is media outlet OpIndia, which features this year for “fuelling public hatred through digital attacks on independent journalism, orchestrated or supported by those in power”. In its study of how OpIndia operates, RSF has previously noted that between January and September, 2025, it published 91 articles targeting journalists and media outlets, including 43 aimed exclusively at five journalists. “The RSF analysis found that of these 43 articles, 32 were followed by immediate waves of online harassment,” its study found.

OpIndia continues to find support from Google AdSense and other sources despite funding withdrawals as a result of the ‘Stop Funding Hate’ campaign, the RSF notes. Anne Bocandé, RSF editorial director, said:

OpIndia is a central cog in the systematic harassment of journalists in India, which puts them in very real danger. RSF calls on the Indian justice system to investigate the cyber harassment campaigns linked to these publications. Online platforms, particularly X, must act to remove the hateful content fuelling these attacks. What’s more, it seems that Google AdSense’s continued funding of this site is incompatible with its misconduct. The fight against online harassment is key in protecting journalists and press freedom in India.

The profile of OpIndia on the RSF site says, “Between 2023 and 2025, more than 300 publications targeting journalists were published on its website, often fuelling large-scale online harassment campaigns.”

OpIndia takes on independent sites, opposition-ruled state governments for their perceived wrongs. Screenshot taken on November 3, 2026. As per the RSF report, the journalists most frequently targeted on OpIndia were: Rajdeep Sardesai, consultant editor and anchor of India Today (36 articles); Arfa Khanum Sherwani, journalist of The Wire (18); Mohammed Zubair, Co-founder of the fact-checking website Alt News (15); Mahesh Langa, journalist at The Hindu (13), Ravish Kumar, independent journalist (11); and Prabir Purkayastha, chief editor of NewsClick (10).

Independent media outlets, The Wire, NewsClick and Newslaundry, were also among the main targets, RSF found, with 32, 17 and 16 disparaging articles documented, respectively, over this period. Together, such entities (among many others) have contributed to bring India’s media ranking in 2026 to 157th/180 – down six places from last year. As per the RSF rankings, India is part of a sea of red for lack of media freedoms in a vast part of the world:

The RSF recently provided a retrospective of the last 25 years in terms of media freedoms, in which it noted:

For the first time in the history of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low.

Donald Trump makes it to RSF’s top worst list

After narrowly missing the cut last year, US President Donald Trump earned his spot on the 2026 Press Freedom Predators List as a result of his appalling record of attacks on the press after less than two years of his second term.

“Since returning to the White House in January 2025,” writes RSF, US President Donald Trump has been “waging an assault on press freedom that is unprecedented in recent US history.”

The report lists verbal attacks, legal intimidation and administrative reprisals against media outlets he considers hostile. It says the Trump administration has restricted journalists’ access to government and military institutions, undermined the independence of public broadcasters and weaponised the broadcasting regulator against the press.

Besides it also cites the President responding to questions regarding the restriction of journalists’ access to the White House, September 2026:

“Oh, the ban on the – on the free press. Right? A very simple ban. I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can.”

Still, the US ranks 64th/180 on the rankings in 2026 though it has dropped 7 places from last year.

‘Familiar faces’

Adani Group, OpIndia and Trump feature on different lists within the RSF rankings. While Adani features in the “legal” category, OpIndia features on the “social” category and Trump sits among the political. But these are just three among the 33 RSF features.

RSF describes Russian President Vladimir Putin as “ever-present” on its rankings, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega as another “repeat offender” in the “security” category. It also refers to the “dismayingly unassailable” Israeli armed forces, Mexican cartels and Chinese Communist Party.

“Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, alongside the Israeli armed forces, has pursued its repressive policy against journalists in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon,” it says.

The only woman featured among the 33 is Margarita Simonian, the editor of Russia Today and other Russian outlets.

“She has called for the dissolution of RSF and congratulated Alexander Lukashenko after a plane was diverted to arrest the Belarusian blogger Raman Pratasevich,” RSF notes.

Earlier, while releasing the World Press Freedom Index, RSF noted that over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. “In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low,” it says.

Related:

Jahangirpuri: Navika Kumar, Anjana Om Kashyap demolish media credibility further

‘Godi media’ on a rampage: Mowing down of farmers labeled ‘clashes’, victims ‘khalistanis’

From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media

The post RSF classifies ‘Press Freedom Predators,’ Adani, OpIndia make it to the 2026 List appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kumar, an alumnus of HCU, said that in the absence of concrete action, he would be compelled to take the matter to the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Union Ministry of Education, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and other statutory authorities. He also said he would raise the university’s failure to take substantive action despite his multiple official complaints of class, caste and racial discrimination. He has attached a copy of the 16 April email as evidence.

Chronology of Events 

As reported by the Siasat Daily and other online media outlets like Maktoob Media reported that, a former student of the University of Hyderabad has lodged a formal complaint against Dr Vijay Ramdas Mandala, Associate Professor in the university’s Department of History, over an email in which the professor called him a “Dalit untouchable idiot” and described students from Bihar and Jharkhand as “third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots”.

Subodh Kumar, an alumnus of the university (MA History, 2017-19) and currently a PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham, wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, the university’s RC Cell and the University of Hyderabad Students’ Union on October 31, 2026, demanding institutional and disciplinary proceedings against the professor.

According to the complaint, Kumar and other alumni of the university were working with Dr Mandala earlier this year on an edited book volume. When one of the contributors communicated British university regulations for fieldwork in India to the professor, he “for reasons incomprehensible” resorted to “wanton abuse of students from marginalised backgrounds” in an email dated April 16, 2026, Kumar said.

The email in question

An email, sent from Dr Mandala’s account and signed “Dr. Vijaya Ramadas M., PhD (History), The University of Manchester, U.K., Associate Professor, Department of History, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad”, is addressed to one of the contributors. “The recent German PhD who comes from an untouchable Dalit background also said to me the same thing about his collection of archives in India,” the professor wrote, before telling the recipient that they were from “a high-risk country, specifically a civilizationally, politically, and economically backward state like Jharkhand.”

“A large chunk of the Indian population is from non-Aryan and non-wealthy backgrounds, including backward states like Bihar and Jharkhand, which resemble some countries in Africa on the political map of India and across the globe. This also happened to another Dalit untouchable idiot at Nottingham, who is working part-time in a hotel in England after his post-UK PhD,” the email read.

“Perhaps these students who come from poverty-ridden backgrounds develop such Pakistani-centric thinking (not knowing that one cannot emulate class, one should be born in a high class and culture) in a country known as Mini-Pakistan – England among India’s rich and high middle-class circles,” he wrote.

The professor went on to claim that “Europeans are, by all means, inferior to the Indo-Aryans in India”, and described the United Kingdom as “a global laughing stock” where “ethnic minorities such as Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans own the decision-making” and which “is no longer an Anglo-Saxon country.” Refusing to accept the recipient’s chapter submission, he wrote: “At Indian Business School, I do alert all the faculty across India not to entertain you, anti-Indian (typical of Pakis in England) across the leadership spectrum.”

“A cunning fox, after going anywhere, would remain a traitor to its home country, as it cannot be a tiger or lion in a trillion years, but would live on with its low-level roots and working-class upbringing,” the email said.  The email ended: “I am terminating further communication with you, but also will not provide academic support from third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots from Bihar and Jharkhand henceforth. Best wishes, Vijay.”

There is more. On April 27, 2026, Dr Mandala wrote separately to Kumar, saying he would not accept his chapter submission “as I have enough authors for my ongoing book project” and advising him to submit it to a peer-reviewed academic journal. “Also, do not include my name in any future academic references or in any communications of any kind henceforth,” the professor wrote. The email carried a disclaimer stating that it “does not represent the University of Hyderabad or any student community, but the views of an individual in a personal capacity.”

Meanwhile, the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) has flagged the alleged “casteist, classist and discriminatory remarks” of an associate professor against a former student of University of Hyderabad. SFI’s United Kingdom unit and HCU unit have both released statements condemning remarks by Dr Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, Associate Professor at HCU’s Department of History. Both have cited this email that was allegedly shared by the professor to a former student. SFI UK stated that Mandala called one of his students a “Dalit untouchable idiot” and demeaned students from marginalised backgrounds coming to the UK to pursue higher education, claiming that they lack class and culture. He also said that he “will not provide academic support for third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots from Bihar and Jharkhand henceforth,” the statement read.

According to the SFI unit at HCU, the incident was triggered over revisions to a book chapter when the student cited ethical constraints in anonymising individuals in his research.

“These remarks expose a deeply entrenched casteist and classist mindset that determines who deserves dignity, recognition and opportunities within academic institutions. Targeting a student because of his Dalit identity, regional background and economic circumstances is an attack on the very principles of equality and social justice that public universities are expected to uphold,” they stated in an Instagram post.

“The repeated deaths of marginalised students on university campuses have exposed the devastating consequences of caste discrimination, institutional apathy and the absence of effective grievance-redressal mechanisms. Behind these tragedies lie structures of everyday humiliation, unequal treatment, academic gatekeeping and the denial of dignity. It is precisely in this context that the remarks made by Dr Ramadas must be understood.” they added.

Mandala allegedly dismissed the remarks as a momentary flare-up of emotion when confronted by the university administration and the department, SFI UK said. The union added that the students had earlier received academic guidance and recommendation letters from Mandala while collaborating with him on academic publications, and abuse began only when they disagreed with him.

“Students depend on senior academics for references, research guidance and publication opportunities, and it is this dependence that makes such abuse an instrument of control,” they added.

“Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan students across Indian and UK universities continue to face casteism, gatekeeping and institutional indifference. Caste also follows Indian students abroad while remaining absent from the protected characteristics of the UK’s Equality Act 2010,” the statement read. SFI UK has demanded the dismissal of Mandala from all positions at the University of Hyderabad following a transparent inquiry with public findings and the registration of a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

They have also called upon the academic community in the UK to withhold collaboration with Mandala until these demands are met and upon publishers to review any contracts with him.

Meanwhile, Ajith, a PhD student at the university who is also associated with SFI, told Siasat.com that the student who received the email is currently doing a PhD in UK.

He had received a letter of recommendation from Mandala which helped him in his admission. Mandala later approached the student to contribute a chapter for a book he was editing but the student declined citing UK guidelines

.“The student would have to go through bureaucratic hurdles to contribute the chapter and delay his own PhD. It is very difficult to get an extension there so he politely declined the offer. However, the professor got offended and sent the abusive email.” Ajith said. He alleged that the university department also quietly brushed off the matter and said that they were closing it after receiving an apology from Mandala

“Matter will resolve”

Kumar first complained to the Head of the Department of History, but said he received only a formal apology, along with an explanation that the email was “only a momentary flare-up of emotions”.

On May 10, 2026, Head of the Department Prof. Y. Swarupa R. Shankar wrote to Kumar that she had spoken to the faculty member, who “agreed not to intervene with your fellowship and recommendation letter” and “also gave an apology letter.” “Hence, the matter will resolve and there will not be any problem from the faculty in your research and career. The department will be in your support,” she wrote.

Kumar rejected this. “The matter cannot be considered resolved merely based on an apology or an assurance of non-interference,” he replied on 13 May. He said he had submitted an official complaint concerning serious instances of racism, classism and caste-based discrimination, and that a junior colleague had independently lodged a separate complaint about related conduct.

“In a university that has previously witnessed the tragic death of Rohith Vemula, which brought national attention to the realities of caste discrimination within academic spaces, such matters cannot and should not be treated lightly or resolved informally,” Kumar wrote. “The University must demonstrate through its actions that discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated.”

He sought proceedings within a week. According to his latest complaint, his follow-up complaints to the Head of the Department demanding stricter disciplinary action received no further response.

Related:

ABVP fails to a win single seat in first election since Rohith Vemula’s death in University of Hyderabad

Muslim visitors denied entry into Hyderabad University campus, security officials defend action

Victory for now, but the Resistance Continues: Hyderabad Central University (HCU)

The post University of Hyderabad professor calls alumnus ‘Dalit untouchable idiot’; complainant rejects department’s bid to close matter with apology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by Mid-Day, passengers have alleged that private bus fares have surged to two or three times their usual rates. On one route, a ticket that ordinarily costs around Rs 700 was reportedly being sold for Rs 4,000. Other fares have reportedly touched Rs 6,000 to Rs 7,000, bringing the cost of travelling by bus uncomfortably close to that of air travel.

The steep increases have triggered considerable anger on social media, with passengers directing their criticism at Maharashtra Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik and his department. Their complaints raise a larger question about the state’s ability and willingness to ensure that private transport operators do not turn the festive rush into an opportunity for unchecked profiteering.

“Are there no regulations whatsoever on private bus ticket prices? Fares have reached Rs 6,000-7,000, almost the same as flight tickets. What are people who book at the last minute supposed to do? Celebrate Diwali in their paying guest accommodation?” one passenger wrote on X.

Another user questioned the transport minister’s apparent inaction, asking whether he was “asleep or pretending to be”. Sharing screenshots of fares listed on booking platforms, a passenger pointed to the disproportionate increase in ticket prices, asking how a fare of Rs 700 could suddenly rise to Rs 4,000.

The complaints reflect the particular vulnerability of passengers during festive periods. With trains and other affordable transport options often difficult to secure closer to the holiday, many travellers have little choice but to turn to private buses. Operators are able to capitalise on this limited availability, while passengers who have to make last-minute journeys are left bearing the financial burden.

PUNE PASSENGERS, DON’T PAY EXTRA THIS DIWALI!

Private bus operators cannot charge you whatever they wish during the festive rush.

Pune RTO has inspected 250 buses and has already taken action against 20 operators for fare violations.

Know your rights:
Maximum fare = 1.5 times the corresponding MSRTC fare.

Overcharging? Complain on WhatsApp: 8275330101

Send your name, mobile number & ticket photo.

Enforcement drive continues till November 20.

Operators violating the rules face legal action.

Don’t stay silent. Keep your ticket. Report overcharging. Share this information with fellow Pune travellers!

#Pune #PuneNews #PuneRTO

— Pune City Life (@PuneCityLife) November 2, 2026

Even after warnings by @RtoPune the fleecing still continues !

@PratapSarnaik when will this loot stop ?

Rs 900 ticket now Rs 2,200 : Pune travellers feel the pinch of Diwali bus fare surge @MMVD_RTO

On November 5, Pune–Nagpur private bus tickets range from about Rs 1,500 for non-AC to Rs 6,800 for a Volvo AC sleeper, per seat.
@IndianExpress

— Surajya Abhiyan (@SurajyaAbhiyan) November 1, 2026

Pune RTO launches inspection drive

Amid mounting complaints, the Pune Regional Transport Office (RTO) launched a special inspection drive on November 1 to check private contract buses and prevent operators from charging passengers’ excessive fares. According to The Times of India, the drive will continue until November 20, 2026.

RTO officials have clarified that private bus operators cannot charge more than 1.5 times the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) fare for the corresponding category of bus. Operators are also required to display fare charts inside their vehicles, enabling passengers to verify the applicable rates.

Officials have warned that action will be taken against operators found violating the prescribed fare limits. The inspection drive will also examine whether buses have valid permits, whether operators are carrying passengers beyond their authorised capacity and whether mandatory safety equipment is available.

Related:

Mumbai’s everyday life is getting costlier, one essential at a time

Maharashtra’s schools are struggling to survive as students protest, infrastructure crumbles and Marathi-medium institutions disappear

3,404 SIR Forms Found at Kharghar Xerox Shop: CJP, VFD and BCS demands answers from Maharashtra SEC

We Cannot Be Afraid’: Rhiya Ahir in Conversation with Teesta Setalvad

From the violence of 2024 to the Bakri Eid tensions of 2026, a fact-finding report examines Mira Road’s deepening communal fault lines

The post Diwali travel rush exposes unchecked profiteering by private bus operators as fares soar to Rs 7,000 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The fundamental problem today is our fixation on creating individual icons out of protests rather than focusing on the issues. I am not referring to every sit-in, because those who truly understand the legacies of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotirao Phule, and Periyar know better. A true movement is not merely about rhetorical slogans; it is much deeper. Look at the greatest revolutions brought about by Ambedkar and Periyar in India: they were silent revolutions. They did not merely seek to change others; they sought to equip the marginalized with knowledge and wisdom.

Ambedkarism is not merely the chant of “Jai Bhim.” It is the powerful legacy of keeping a movement alive even when it is not visibly occupying the streets. Its most potent aspect is its autonomy and its ability to cultivate leadership from the most marginalized sections of society. It refuses to merely pick up the flags of others or chant slogans for their causes.

Consequently, the central debate today is not between the Left and the Right, but about maintaining the independence of the Ambedkarite movement. People must understand that despite all the pulls and pressures that have existed since Baba Saheb’s time, the movement has refused to bow down. Today, everyone is chanting “Jai Bhim,” which reflects the power and success of the Ambedkarite movement. But consider the period before the 1980s, when academics rarely wrote about it, or the 1990s, when JNU liberals dismissed the Mandal Commission as “casteist.” Ambedkarism survived not because of patronage from the Left or the Right, but on its own foundational ground.

While I strongly advocate for alliances between the Left and other anti-caste forces, such unity must be predicated on a deep respect for the historical background of the anti-caste movement. We cannot work under the condition of a “patron.” Any alliance must accept the autonomy of Dalits, Backward Castes, and Adivasis. It is not merely an issue of “erasing caste” to fit into a mainstream narrative; it is about respecting the agency of those who have been historically wronged—not just by brutal physical oppression, but by Brahmanical intellectualism.

It is equally important to recognize the diversity of political thought, whether among the Left, Ambedkarites, or socialists. There are numerous factions within the Left, just as there is a rapid proliferation of Bahujan, Dalit, and Republican parties. Despite internal differences and fragmentation, both the RPI and the BSP have played massive roles in asserting the dream of Dalit political autonomy. There are resentments—not just in Left or liberal circles, but among Ambedkarites who wish to see the BSP rise but are disappointed by its current indifference. Chandrashekhar Azad is a new entrant, and while those with sentiments for the late Kanshiram Ji still prefer the BSP, many feel they would be a much more powerful force if they joined hands. This is the reality on the ground. Similarly, the Left has its own internal differences; for instance, AISA became far more powerful and widely accepted precisely because it engaged with caste discrimination and embraced an understanding of Ambedkarism.

We must also recognize that we are currently being co-opted by the modern warfare of capitalism. Many will not like to admit it, but capitalism creates “brands.” Often, these brands are built to demolish ideology, elevating the individual above the party. Political parties today thrive on branding, which is built on public events and optics. Young influencers are the products of this system; they create visible faces to be used accordingly. For example, when Rahul Gandhi invites a young Gen-Z face like Neha Bora instead of promoting traditional youth leaders like Deepankar Bhattacharya or the NSUI, it is a calculated branding exercise. Congress’s own people question why the NSUI isn’t being promoted, but the fact is, Neha represents both the youth and a marketable brand. The media will not bother with her party; it cares about her. That is how modern branding works.

Once you become part of an agitation, the media will ask you about everything—from Ambedkarism to Brahmanism. Caught in the limelight, many are ready to give their opinions on every issue under the sun. Sometimes, it is better to say, “I don’t know much about this,” but our current set of leaders feel compelled to speak on everything. Normal issues are deliberately made controversial so that the actual problem is ignored in favor of creating drama and securing screen time.

We need to stop dragging up historical grievances merely to critique contemporary individuals. Historical issues have been debated for decades, and we must understand that different parties have always formed alliances. It was never merely about individuals fighting; it was about parties fighting. Baba Saheb was supported by socialist leaders like Prof. N.G. Ranga and Ashok Mehta when he contested the Lok Sabha elections. Alliances are historical, but they must be principled.

The future of India will be secure if the Left forces, Ambedkarites, and Periyarists come together. But the essential ingredient of this togetherness is the acceptance of diversity and respect for the autonomy of individual parties and organizations. Ambedkarites face similar internal challenges within the Dalit movement, as hitherto unrepresented communities seek a share in the power structure. Nobody is ready to accept a dominant narrative, whether it comes from outside the movement or from within.

A true movement emerges from a long, arduous struggle, not merely from a sit-in or a viral protest. India’s oppressed fought for their share in society and politics on their own terms, and they secured it today. It is the victory of the self-respect movement of Dalits and the marginalized that all parties—which once opposed or ignored Dr. Ambedkar—are now compelled to chant “Jai Bhim.”

Yet, Ambedkarites must be careful: not everyone chanting “Jai Bhim” or “Jai Savitri” is a well-wisher of the community. The Dalit political struggle today is not about fighting to become backbenchers in a dominant-caste political structure. It will always be part of broader democratic movements, but only if its autonomy and independence are unequivocally respected and accepted.

*Human rights defender 

Courtesy: https://www.counterview.net

The post The spectacle of protest: Why the Ambedkarite movement must guard its autonomy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He joins Teesta Setalvad examining what the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) means for millions of voters, the exclusion it risks, and the deeper questions it raises about India’s democracy.

The post “It Is Not Just Numbers”: Prakash Raj on the Exclusion of 13.6 Crore Indians | SIR | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice,” the IFF said in its statement condemning the police action.

The following complete text is a statement issued by the Internet Freedom Foundation detailing how it was issued a legal notice on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh along with other organisations documenting censorship in India, and the police action that followed.

The Delhi Police has asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation’s account, six of its posts, the accounts of SFLC and @geoblockedindia, and posts by 16 other users, on the ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The posts document and comment on a legal notice sent in the RSS’s name to IFF, SFLC and @geoblockedindia, which demanded that the three-stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders. IFF received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of 3 November 2026.

IFF has called on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. If they are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court.

What happened thus far

On October 29, 2026 at 9:54 PM, IFF, SFLC and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page “legal notice” said to be issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the three to stop opposing the government’s blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm in writing within seven days that they would comply. It was signed by an unnamed “Authorised Signatory”. Several RSS office-bearers have since said on X that the notice is not authentic.

IFF replied to the notice, wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it, and published both the notice and its reply just the next day, on October 30. Undeterred by whether or not the notice was authentic, on October 31, 2026 at 8:06 PM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, filed an “Illegal Content Report” with X (reference LD-321926). It listed two posts: IFF’s post of October 30 on the notice, and SFLC post of the same day. The stated reason was that the posts are “defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”. The boxes for “safety/security”, “defamation” and “other” were ticked. The fields for the nature of the court order and court order details were left empty. The desired action was “Remove/withhold content”.

There is more. On November 1, 2026, a Sunday, a second notice arrived in the RSS’s name. It said the matter had been handed to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF’s X account and suspend the organisations. The Delhi Police had made its first request to X the previous evening. IFF did not know this until X told it on 3 November.

On November 2, 2026 at 8:51 AM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) filed a second notice with X (reference LD-322956). It lists 40 URLs. Thirty-seven are posts. Three are the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. This time the boxes for “Hate speech”, “defamation”, “safety/security”, “enforcement of court order” and “other” were all ticked. The court order fields were again left empty. The stated reason reads: “The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours.”

The 16 other users are @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind.

Their posts, as far as IFF can tell, comment on the notice or on the notice about it. X forwarded both notices to IFF on 3 November 2026, at 8:47 AM and 10:03 AM, saying it was doing so “in the interest of transparency” and that IFF may wish to seek legal counsel and challenge the request in court. X’s emails do not say that it has acted on the requests.

The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police’s Cyber Crime unit, one of them against the whole of the @geoblockedindia account.

IFF’s position

IFF has unequivocally condemned this legal action. A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship.

The notices would deliver exactly what the notice asked for as they would also remove the accounts of the three groups in India that keep public records of what is blocked, and of who ordered it. The posts in question are about a legal notice sent to us. They quote it, criticise how it was drafted, and say that we will carry on with our work.

A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it and that is not defamation of the sender. In the three weeks before the first notice, IFF assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India. SFLC’s Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first days 29 of October. @geoblockedindia publishes the orders behind such blocks when platforms disclose them. None of this is unlawful.

Documenting censorship and challenging it in court is what the Constitution expects of citizens. IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court.

Why the reports are unlawful

Defamation is not a police matter. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-cognisable and bailable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no court can take cognizance of it except on a complaint by the person aggrieved.

Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without an order of a Magistrate. The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) is not the person aggrieved. The notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no order of any Magistrate. Whether a statement is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing its author, with the defences of truth, fair comment and good faith available to that author.

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation on the strength of these safeguards alone. A police officer who asks a platform to remove speech as defamatory has decided the question himself, without a complainant, a court or a hearing. The posts are protected comment. Exceptions 1 to 3 to Section 356(1) protect the truth published for the public good, opinion on the public conduct of public servants, and opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question. The posts publish a notice that was sent to us and give our opinion of it. The RSS, if it sent the notice, chose to enter a public question. If it did not, the posts defame no one.

Further, Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) do not permit this. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary acquires “actual knowledge” only through a court order, or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are being committed. The court said that it would be difficult for intermediaries to judge the legitimacy of the millions of requests they receive, and that the burden must not be placed on them. Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in November 2025 and February 2026, now requires the intimation to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Deputy Inspector General, to be reasoned, and to specify the legal basis and the nature of the unlawful act, subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer. The three-hour window the notice invokes applies to a lawful order that meets these conditions. A web form that ticks “hate speech” and “enforcement of court order” while leaving the court order fields blank, and that gives one sentence of reasons for 40 URLs, is not such an order.

The notices by the Delhi Police are also disproportionate. They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively. They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on speech must be necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available, and that orders restricting speech must be published and reasoned. Removing an organisation’s entire account for criticising a legal notice fails each of these tests.

The effect is to silence documentation of censorship and providing legal aid to Indian internet users. The accounts named are those that record blocking orders in India. The notice asked them to stop. A takedown request that accomplishes the demand of an anonymous private notice is not law enforcement. It is the use of state power for a private end, which Article 14 forbids.

Demands put forward by the IFF

1. To the Delhi Police: Withdraw reports LD-321926 and LD-322956 and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and to IFF.
2. To the Delhi Police: Disclose the complaint on which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed, and whether any order of a Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS exists. Disclose every request made to any platform in this matter, including those made by the Cyber Crime unit against @geoblockedindia.
3. To X: Do not act on the reports. If any content is withheld in India, tell the affected user before acting, give them the full request, and name the legal basis. Publish both reports to the Lumen database, as the reporting form itself contemplates.
4. To the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs: Have the Secretary-level review required by Rule 3(1)(d) examine these intimations, and tell police forces that Rule 3(1)(d) is not a remedy for defamation, which the law reserves to the person aggrieved and to the courts.
5. To the RSS: State publicly whether it authorised either notice or any complaint to the police. If it did not, say so to the Delhi Police. If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court. We will continue to document blocking orders, to publish them, and to provide legal assistance to anyone whose account or post is withheld in India. Nothing in these notices changes that.

Related:

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

Judges differ on challenge against IT amendments of 2023, right to freedom of speech & expression hangs in balance

Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI

The post ‘We will challenge notices in Court’: IFF’s statement on legal notice over ‘defaming’ RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In constitutional jurisprudence, few distinctions are as crucial, or as frequently conflated, as the line separating the substantive protection of civil liberties from the procedural integrity of the rule of law. When state authorities deploy the machinery of criminal law to target citizens engaging in public protests, registering widespread First Information Reports (FIRs), executing indiscriminate detentions, and imposing coercive measures, the vindication of fundamental freedoms under Articles 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Indian Constitution is an urgent judicial duty. Yet, how a court achieves that protection determines whether its decision operates as a durable triumph of constitutional governance or as an act of unstructured, transactional equity.

The Supreme Court’s order of September 1, 2026, quashing over a hundred FIRs filed across multiple states during the student exam-irregularity protests, presents precisely this constitutional paradox. At first blush, the order appears to be an act of judicial benevolence since it relieves thousands of young student-protesters from the crushing burden of ongoing criminal prosecutions. However, a closer examination reveals that this relief was not achieved through judicial adjudication based in constitutional principle. Instead, it was delivered as the judicial rubber-stamping of a negotiated compromise between the executive branch and a protest organisation.

By invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to extinguish criminal proceedings en masse as part of a bilateral settlement, where the quashing of FIRs was effectively exchanged for the withdrawal of a planned protest march, the Supreme Court shifted its role from an independent court of record to an informal arbitral forum. In doing so, the Court’s methodology closely mirrored the traditional logic of a panchayat, an institution that prioritizes ad-hoc compromise, transactional peace-making. While protecting citizens from abusive state prosecution is unquestionably good, accomplishing it through judicial discretion en masse represents a subtle but dangerous denigration of the rule of law.

Relief as an Executive-Judicial Settlement

The legal proceedings surrounding the July 2026 student protests examination malpractices illustrate the operational mechanisms of this model. Following widespread demonstrations across Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, and Maharashtra, law enforcement agencies-initiated dozens of FIRs naming thousands of participants. The pattern was remarkably similar, a stenograph-ed pattern of behaviour that reflected close, cross border communications between different state police! In response, litigations were brought before the Supreme Court, challenging the proportionality of state force, the use of metallic pellet guns, biometric surveillance, and arbitrary detentions.

None of the original writ petitions prayed for a blanket judicial extinction of all criminal cases across the country without trial. Rather, they sought constitutional accountability, judicial scrutiny of police brutality, guidelines on crowd control, and the enforcement of personal liberty under Article 21. On August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court took a step toward structured adjudication by constituting a High-Powered Enquiry Committee, chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, to investigate police conduct, preserve drone and CCTV footage, and evaluate the legality of blanket prohibitory orders.

Later, the apex court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution. When the protest leadership agreed to withdraw a major national march scheduled for September 5, and in return, the state governments ‘consciously decided’ not to pursue the FIRs. On September 1, 2026, period and Court quashed 129 specified FIRs across five states, closing all unlisted FIRs nationwide arising from the same protest period, and recording the protest group’s formal withdrawal of its demonstration.

Why Procedure is Liberty’s Shield

To understand why this disposition degrades the rule of law, one must examine the architecture of criminal procedure. Criminal law is intrinsically individualised. An FIR is an assertion that a specific individual committed a specific statutory offence at a specific time and place. The statutory scheme for extinguishing criminal proceedings, whether through police final reports, executive withdrawal of prosecution under Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or judicial quashing under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), requires judicial evaluation of specific material.

When a High Court or the Supreme Court exercises its inherent power to quash an FIR, the well-established legal standard requires the Court to ask whether taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, does a prima facie criminal offence exist, or is the prosecution demonstrably malicious and an abuse of legal process? This inquiry is the essential mechanism through which the judiciary holds the executive accountable for illegal criminalisation.

In the September 1 order, this entire statutory and analytical framework was bypassed. The Supreme Court quashed 129 FIRs, which encompassed disparate charges ranging from mild unlawful assembly and road blockades to serious allegations of rioting, destruction of public property, and attempted murder, in a single, wholesale decree. The Court did not evaluate whether the allegations were legally unsustainable or factually fabricated. By replacing judicial scrutiny with executive acquiescence, the Court failed to make a finding that the state’s mass registration of FIRs was unlawful. Consequently, the protesters were administratively spared prosecution as an act of state grace, rather than legally vindicated as citizens exercising a fundamental constitutional right.

The Arbitrary ‘Antecedents’ Exception

The risks of abandoning statutory procedure become even more transparent when examining the exceptions carved out within the order itself. While granting blanket immunity to the majority of protesters, Paragraph 7 of the Court’s order excluded approximately 2,873 individuals. These individuals were denied relief and subjected to fresh criminal investigation solely because state police affidavits asserted that they had ‘serious criminal antecedents’ according to national police databases and were ‘prima facie present’ at protest sites.

This carve-out demonstrates the problematic layering of uncanalised discretion. One is that Indian criminal law contains no statutory principle authorising the judicial exclusion of individuals from general legal remedies based merely on ‘antecedents.’ In criminal jurisprudence, an FIR relates to a specific alleged act, not a person’s prior history. Second, the list of 2,873 excluded individuals was compiled using automated facial recognition technology matched against police databases, an unverified process that the Court accepted without independent judicial verification or procedural testing. And then, If the mass filing of FIRs against peaceful assembly was an abuse of state power warranting Article 142 intervention, on what legal principle does prior criminal history deprive a citizen of protection against an admitted abuse of state power?

Discretion inevitably breeds further discretion. Having constructed an extraordinary amnesty unmoored from code procedure, the Court was forced to construct an equally arbitrary threshold to limit that amnesty, relying on unverified executive data to divide citizens into protected and unprotected classes.

Evasion of Constitutional Duty

Perhaps the most defenceless aspect of the September 1 order is its explicit concluding direction: that the invocation of Article 142 was based on ‘peculiar facts and circumstances’ and ‘shall not be treated as a binding precedent.’ In recent years, the practice of issuing sweeping orders while simultaneously stripping them of precedential value under Article 141 has emerged as a frequent judicial technique. From a constitutional perspective, this practice is deeply problematic.

The primary obligation of an apex constitutional court is to declare generalisable legal principles that bind lower courts, discipline executive power, and guide future adjudication. The rule of law requires that like cases be decided alike. When a court decides a dispute, applies legal standards, and then declares that its ruling cannot be cited by any other citizen in any other court, it effaces the decision’s standing as law. It transforms the judgment from a rule of general application into a one-time privilege conferred upon specific litigants.

This non-precedent mechanism severely harms civil liberties jurisprudence. A student protester in a distant trial court facing an identical, fabricated FIR cannot cite the Supreme Court’s order as a legal standard. Trial courts and High Courts remain bound by rigid procedural rules, while the Supreme Court reserves to itself the exclusive power to randomly grant extraordinary, ad-hoc relief. Instead of diffusing liberty-protective legal standards throughout the judicial pyramid, the Court centralises power within its own hall, creating a regime where fundamental rights are accessible not as of legal right, but as a matter of top-tier judicial audience and transaction.

Ad-Hoc Compromise vs. The Rule of Law

It is in this structural departure from legal principle that the resemblance to a panchayat becomes unmistakable. In traditional Indian legal theory and sociology, a village panchayat operates on principles fundamentally distinct from a constitutional court of record. A panchayat does not adjudicate rights according to pre-existing, neutral, written laws, nor is it bound by strict procedural rules or formal evidence. Its primary objective is transactional dispute resolution: ‘buying peace,’ brokering compromises between powerful factions, and restoring social harmony through ad-hoc equity.

While informal compromise has a legitimate place in customary community spaces or private civil mediation, it is the antithesis of constitutional adjudication. A constitutional court exists to enforce jus (principled justice), and not merely to secure social peace at the expense of legal standards. The Supreme Court conditioning the quashing of unlawful prosecutions on a political party agreeing to call off a protest march is the Court adopting the precise logic of the panchayat. It treats fundamental freedoms, such as the right to peaceably assemble under Article 19 (1) (b), not as non-negotiable constitutional guarantees, but as bargaining chips to be traded away in exchange for executive leniency.

This approach creates severe long-term institutional risks. It signals to the executive that mass criminalization is an effective strategy; the state can file thousands of baseless FIRs against peaceful dissenters, safe in the knowledge that if public pressure escalates, the Supreme Court will facilitate a negotiated settlement without ever holding police officers accountable or declaring the state’s actions illegal. Conversely, it signals to citizens that relief from state coercion depends on organizational bargaining power rather than constitutional entitlement.

Emergency judicial relief brings immediate comfort to citizens facing state coercion. When the Supreme Court uses Article 142 to clear criminal cases against peaceful protesters, individual lives are saved from endless prosecution. Problems emerge when that relief depends on political bargaining. Trading criminal dismissals for cancelled rallies produces informal settlements. Declaring these orders without precedential value removes their legal weight. The Court assumes the role of a village panchayat, brokering temporary peace between unequal sides.

The consequences of this approach appeared during the October demonstrations against the Chief Election Commissioner. In September, the Court wiped away FIRs from student protests while leaving foundational legal questions unresolved. The bench did not evaluate whether police could issue blanket prohibitory notices under Section 163 of the BNSS or close transit networks. By treating the September quashing as an isolated compromise, the Court allowed law enforcement to retain unchecked statutory authority.

When citizens gathered again in October, authorities deployed their usual tactics. Officials shut metro stations and stopped incoming trains. Police also detained working lawyers on their way to court. Lacking prior legal standards, the bench convened emergency Sunday sittings to hear contempt petitions. Justices issued oral warnings that regulation cannot equal total prohibition while ordering police to remove restrictive notices from around court gates.

Had the Court articulated binding constitutional boundaries in September, executive agencies would have faced clear limits. Setting prospective rules constrains state authority and protects public assembly across future disputes. Settling individual cases through transactional orders creates administrative convenience today while guaranteeing repeated overreach tomorrow.

Structural Remedies

The critique of the CJP order is not to suggest that the Supreme Court should have allowed thousands of innocent students to be dragged through decades of oppressive trials. Rather, it demonstrates that a truly liberty-preserving court must protect citizens by developing and applying legal principles, rather than resorting to ad-hoc, non-precedential amnesties.

In landmark constitutional jurisprudence ranging from Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1962) to Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court established that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant statutory frameworks or override fundamental rights. To genuinely protect civil liberties against state overreach, the Court must deploy structural remedies grounded in Public Law. The Court should formally evaluate mass FIRs against the standards of Article 19 (1) (b) and Article 19 (3), explicitly ruling that the routine criminalization of peaceful assembly is unconstitutional and illegal. Under the doctrine established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court should impose direct compensatory damages on state authorities for malicious prosecution and illegal detention, creating a genuine deterrent against police abuse. By declaring clear, generalizable legal standards under Article 141, the Supreme Court empowers trial courts and High Courts across India to swiftly quash abusive FIRs at the threshold, ensuring equal protection for all citizens.

The protection of civil liberties and the preservation of the rule of law are not opposing values; they are mutually dependent. A judicial order that delivers immediate relief by sacrificing procedural rigor and precedential integrity provides only a fleeting, fragile sanctuary. True constitutional justice demands that the Supreme Court remain an uncompromising court of law protecting the citizen not through the informal compromise of a panchayat, but through the enduring, equalizing power of constitutional principle.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

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

A Constitutional Reset on Governor Assent: The Supreme Court’s opinion in the presidential reference on Articles 200–201

How permanent or temporary is Article 370?

Is Article 367 a tool for understanding or amending the Constitution? Abrogation of Article 370, Part 1

‘Reorganisation’ of J & K into two union territories, constitutional? Part III of the analysis in the 370 case

The post SC: Article 142, Mass Amnesties, and the Panchayatisation of the Rule of Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.