SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ News Related to Human Rights Tue, 20 Oct 2026 12:49:12 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ 32 32 Who will collect India’s data? Modi-led government opens census to private individuals https://sabrangindia.in/who-will-collect-indias-data-modi-led-government-opens-census-to-private-individuals/ Tue, 20 Oct 2026 12:49:12 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49711 The Centre’s amended Census Rules allow private teachers, members of societies and trusts, and other government-approved individuals to collect household information, without the notification setting out clear safeguards against political interference

The post Who will collect India’s data? Modi-led government opens census to private individuals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Modi-led government is widening the doors of Census 2027 to private individuals and organisations at a time when the collection of personal data has become inseparable from growing fears of citizenship scrutiny and electoral exclusion. A notification issued by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India on October 16, amending the Census Rules, 1990, now explicitly permits teachers from private educational institutions, members of societies and trusts, and virtually any person whom a state government or Union Territory administration considers “suitable” to be appointed as Census enumerators.

The timing makes the decision particularly alarming. The country is already witnessing opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, amid concerns over the exclusion of eligible voters. The Census questionnaire, meanwhile, seeks information extending beyond conventional demographic particulars, including Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile phone details, bank-account information, and the dates and places of birth of parents.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here, here, here and here.

The government has offered administrative convenience as a justification for widening the workforce. But a shortage of government personnel cannot explain away the dangers of unchecked discretion over who gets to collect citizens’ private information. Nor can assurances of data security substitute for transparent rules that prevent the exercise from being weaponised. The Census is a nationwide exercise through which the State collects sensitive information from millions of households. Expanding access to that information through an opaque and discretionary recruitment process, without publicly establishing robust safeguards against political interference and data misuse, raises serious questions about who the government intends to empower and for what purpose.

A backdoor for the Sangh Parivar?

The amended rules permit teachers from government, local authority, aided and unaided private educational institutions, as well as teachers associated with societies and trusts, to be appointed as enumerators. Clerks and officials from government departments, public sector undertakings, banks, companies and other institutions are also eligible. The third category allows the appointment of “any person” considered suitable by the State government or Union Territory administration.

The last provision is especially troubling. It leaves considerable discretion with the appointing authorities without specifying, in the notification, sufficiently clear criteria for eligibility, political neutrality or independent scrutiny.

On October 17, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of turning Census recruitment into an employment scheme for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers. In a post on X, Ramesh drew attention to an RSS training camp held in Belgaum from July 10 to 12, 2026, which he said had focused on Census 2027.

He also questioned the composition of the Union Home Ministry’s High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes, constituted on May 26, and its October 14 call for public inputs from Indian and foreign organisations. Linking these developments to the October 16 notification, Ramesh alleged that the government was preparing to recruit thousands of RSS-BJP workers under what he described as a “Rozgar Guarantee Yojana”. His warning was unequivocal: “. Just like with the SIR, dangerous manipulations will be carried out in the Census data as well.”

 

The CPI(M) has raised similar concerns. In a statement posted on X, party leader M.A. Baby warned that the amended rules could facilitate the entry of Sangh Parivar-linked individuals into the Census workforce, exposing citizens’ personal information to potential political misuse. He demanded that the amendments be withdrawn and an all-party consultation on Census methodology be convened immediately.

 

These allegations expose a fundamental problem with the government’s approach. When a ruling establishment has repeatedly been accused of using state institutions to advance its political agenda, widening access to sensitive household information through loosely defined recruitment criteria cannot be treated as an innocent bureaucratic exercise. The issue is not merely who gets a temporary job; it is about who is entrusted with collecting intimate details about people’s identities, families, documents and circumstances, and what prevents that access from being exploited.

Why does the Census need so much personal information?

The expanded recruitment rules are only one part of a larger problem: the growing volume of sensitive information being sought from households. As previously discussed, the 40-question Population Enumeration questionnaire includes several data fields not included in the 2011 Census. These include nationality, the spouse’s name, parents’ particulars, permanent residential address, digital literacy and the place of COVID-19 vaccination. Respondents are also asked about bank accounts and whether they possess Aadhaar, voter ID, a passport, a driving licence and a mobile phone.

The CPI(M) had already raised objections to this questionnaire. In a memorandum submitted to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner on August 24, M.A. Baby demanded that details such as Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers, bank-account information, religion and parents’ places of birth not be collected. The memorandum also sought strict safeguards against linking Census data with other databases.

These are questions the government cannot evade. What is the precise statistical necessity of collecting each additional data field? Who will have access to it? How long will it be retained? What prevents it from being linked to databases maintained for entirely different purposes?

A Census official told The Hindu that data collected through enumerators’ mobile applications would be centralised and deleted from the enumerators’ devices after their work was completed. The official also claimed that adequate checks were in place to protect privacy. That assurance does not answer the central questions. Deleting data from an enumerator’s phone does not establish who can access the central database, what safeguards prevent unauthorised sharing, or whether the information can be linked to other government records. Centralisation is not, by itself, a guarantee of security.

From SIR to Census: the danger of turning data into a tool of exclusion

The controversy cannot be separated from the political context in which it is unfolding. There are also reasons to question the political neutrality of the data-collection process itself. The Hindu reported in June 2026 that enumerators in Rajasthan had allegedly been instructed not to select certain government scheme-related responses that could reflect poorly on the government. The reported examples included open defecation, the use of wood or dung cakes as household fuel, and access to tap water. If government personnel are being instructed to avoid recording responses that might embarrass the ruling establishment, the integrity of the Census is already at stake. A national statistical exercise cannot be permitted to become a public-relations exercise for the government.

The shortage-of-staff argument is no excuse

The government has defended the expansion on practical grounds. According to The Hindu, around 34 lakh enumerators will be needed for the Population Enumeration phase. The exercise is scheduled for February 2027 across much of the country, while enumeration in poll-bound Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Goa is scheduled from December 1, 2026, to January 4, 2027. School examinations, Assembly elections and the deployment of government teachers for electoral duties have added to the administrative pressure.

Former Deputy Registrar General of India K. Narayanan Unni told The Hindu that the move appeared to reflect a shortage of government schoolteachers and personnel from government-aided schools. But administrative pressure cannot justify an unrestricted expansion of the workforce without adequate accountability. The previous practice of relying largely on government schoolteachers, revenue officials and other public personnel was not without its own shortcomings. Yet the move to widen recruitment demands a clear explanation of how standards of impartiality, confidentiality and accountability will be maintained.

The legal challenges surrounding the deployment of private schoolteachers further complicate the picture. The Hindu reported that the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed two Haryana government communications seeking details of teachers for Census duties on October 16. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had granted interim protection to associations representing more than 500 private unaided and minority schools in Maharashtra against notices, appointment orders and coercive action relating to Census deployment.

 

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post Who will collect India’s data? Modi-led government opens census to private individuals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Manipur SIR: Sabar Institute’s report records 1.59 lakh removals, two-thirds in hill constituencies https://sabrangindia.in/manipur-sir-sabar-institutes-report-records-1-59-lakh-removals-two-thirds-in-hill-constituencies/ Tue, 20 Oct 2026 12:30:30 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49704 Using official ASD lists, this preliminary report examines 158,677 names removed from Manipur’s electoral rolls during the 2026 Special Intensive Revision across all 60 Assembly constituencies and 3,014 polling booths, analysing geography, gender, age and recorded reasons for these removals

The post Manipur SIR: Sabar Institute’s report records 1.59 lakh removals, two-thirds in hill constituencies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> A preliminary report by Sabar Institute has recorded 1,58,677 names removed during Manipur’s 2026 Special Intensive Revision (SIR), with 66.4% of the removals concentrated in the state’s 20 hill constituencies. Women account for 55.96% of the names and form the majority of removals in every one of Manipur’s 60 Assembly constituencies.

The report, dated September 27, 2026, was prepared by Sabir Ahamed, Souptik Halder and Ashin Chakraborty. It analyses the Absent, Shifted and Dead (ASD) lists published by the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, examining removals by constituency, district, polling booth, gender, age and recorded reason.

Its main finding is the difference between the hills and the Imphal Valley. The hill constituencies recorded an average of 79 removals per booth, compared with 31.2 in the valley. Churachandpur district alone accounted for 38,264 names, nearly one-fourth of the state total.

The authors do not conclude that any community was deliberately targeted. They identify places and categories requiring closer verification, particularly because the records do not distinguish people displaced since May 2023 from those who moved voluntarily.

What the report examined

The study covers all 60 constituencies and analyses records from 3,014 polling booths across Manipur’s 16 districts. The statewide average was 52.6 removals per booth, rounded to 53 in the report’s summary.

The authors checked the constituency files against the combined state file. They report that the records matched name for name and that each constituency’s total agreed with the sum of its available booth records.

However, 27 booth records in seven constituencies could not be downloaded from the election website. These included 15 records in Tamei, four each in Chingai and Tadubi, and one each in Phungyar, Ukhrul, Karong and Kangpokpi.

The figures for these seven constituencies are therefore lower bounds: they count the available records and may understate the full number. All seven constituencies are in the hill group.

The report also states that the authors did not have the complete electoral rolls, including voter totals by constituency, booth, gender or community. It consequently provides counts and averages per booth, rather than the percentage of registered voters removed. It makes no comparison with winning margins or turnout because the necessary electoral rolls and 2022 result sheets were unavailable to the study.

Hill constituencies account for 1.05 lakh names

The report divides Manipur into three geographical groups: 39 valley constituencies, 20 hill constituencies and Jiribam, which it treats separately.

The valley group covers Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur, Thoubal and Kakching. The hill group covers Chandel, Churachandpur, Kamjong, Kangpokpi, Noney, Pherzawl, Senapati, Tamenglong, Tengnoupal and Ukhrul.

Nineteen of the 20 hill constituencies are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Kangpokpi is a general constituency situated in a hill district. Together, the hill constituencies accounted for 1,05,294 removals across 1,332 booths—66.4% of the state total. The 39 valley constituencies accounted for 51,106 removals across 1,640 booths, or 32.2%. Jiribam recorded 2,277 removals across 42 booths, accounting for the remaining 1.4%. The average number removed per hill booth was about two-and-a-half times the valley average. Jiribam’s average was 54.2.

These figures describe the distribution of recorded removals. Without the total electorate in each group, they do not establish the comparative probability of an individual hill or valley voter being removed.

Churachandpur accounts for nearly one-fourth of removals

Churachandpur district recorded 38,264 removals across its four constituencies: Saikot, Churachandpur, Henglep and Singhat. Its average of 132.4 removals per booth was the highest among the 16 districts. The district’s total exceeded the combined 33,896 removals recorded in Imphal East and Imphal West, which together contain 23 constituencies.

Among the other hill districts, Tamenglong recorded 10,973 removals, Kangpokpi 10,425, Ukhrul 10,050 and Senapati 7,689. Pherzawl recorded 6,732, Chandel 6,672, Tengnoupal 5,228, Noney 4,759 and Kamjong 4,502. In the valley, Imphal West recorded 17,187 removals and Imphal East 16,709. Thoubal recorded 6,957, Bishnupur 6,279 and Kakching 3,974.

The district comparison shows variation within the hills as well. Noney averaged 91.5 removals per booth, followed by Pherzawl at 86.3 and Chandel at 83.4. Senapati’s average was substantially lower, at 34.2. Kakching had the lowest district average, at 26 removals per booth. Bishnupur and Thoubal followed at 26.3 and 26.6 respectively.

Saikot records the highest constituency total

Saikot had the largest number of removals among all 60 constituencies: 14,152 across 84 booths. It also had the highest average, at 168.5 removals per booth.

Churachandpur constituency followed with 9,381 removals, Henglep with 8,130, Tamenglong with 7,000, Chandel with 6,672 and Singhat with 6,601. Ukhrul recorded 6,382, Tengnoupal 5,228, Nungba 4,759 and Thanlon 4,696. The ten constituencies with the highest removal totals were all in the hill group.

The ranking changes when measured per booth. After Saikot, Henglep averaged 135.5 removals, Singhat 117.9, Thanlon 114.5, Churachandpur 105.4 and Tamenglong 104.5.

Wangkhei stood out in the valley. It recorded 3,756 removals across 50 booths, averaging 75.1 per booth—more than twice the valley average and the eleventh-highest constituency average statewide. At the other end, Singjamei recorded the smallest total, at 671 names. Hiyanglam recorded 692 and Sugnoo 848. Thongju had the lowest average per booth, at 19, followed by Hiyanglam at 19.2 and Moirang at 19.6.

“Permanently shifted” is the most common recorded reason

The ASD records classify removals under four reasons. “Permanently Shifted” accounted for 72,473 names, or 45.7% of the total. Death accounted for 43,000 names, or 27.1%. Another 35,810 names, or 22.6%, were classified as “Untraceable/Absent”. The remaining 7,394, or approximately 4.7%, were recorded as already enrolled elsewhere.

These are the reasons entered in the records. The study does not independently establish the circumstances of every person listed under them. The geographical differences were substantial. In the valley, death accounted for 43.2% of removals, permanent shifting for 35.8%, absence or inability to trace the voter for 16.6%, and enrolment elsewhere for 4.4%.

In the hills, permanent shifting accounted for 50.4%, absence or inability to trace the voter for 25.7%, death for 19.1%, and enrolment elsewhere for 4.9%. Taken together, shifting and absence accounted for about 76% of hill removals, compared with approximately 52% in the valley.

The authors also found that constituencies recording more removals per booth generally had a larger share attributed to shifting and a smaller share attributed to death. They explicitly state that this relationship does not explain why the removals occurred.

Recorded reasons differ between constituencies

Nungba had the highest proportion of removals attributed to permanent shifting: 3,359 of its 4,759 names, or 70.6%. Tamenglong followed at 69.5%, Thanlon at 67.9%, Ukhrul at 67.1% and Tamei at 63.7%.

Death accounted for the highest share in Lamsang, at 62.9%, followed by Konthoujam at 62.4%, Patsoi at 62.1% and Thongju at 61.8%. Thanga had the highest proportion recorded as untraceable or absent: 675 of 1,087 names, or 62.1%. The corresponding shares were 48.6% in Uripok, 47.7% in Wangkhei and 44.6% in Tengnoupal.

Saikot recorded 5,611 names under this category, representing 39.6% of its removals. Its other entries comprised 5,242 permanently shifted voters, 2,839 deaths and 460 cases of enrolment elsewhere. Moirang had the highest proportion recorded as already enrolled elsewhere, at 21.1%, involving 199 names. Heirok followed at 12.7%, Mao at 11.2% and Uripok at 10.1%.

The report cautions that a high percentage within a constituency’s removals does not necessarily mean a large number of people. Both the count and its share need to be read together.

Women form the majority in every constituency

The records contain 88,799 women, 69,871 men and seven persons recorded under the “Other” gender category. Women constituted 55.96% of all names counted, while men constituted 44.03%. Women formed the majority in every constituency. Their share ranged from 51.1% in Patsoi to 68.8% in Wabgai. Other constituencies with high female shares included Bishenpur at 68%, Khangabok at 66.7%, Lilong at 65.6% and Wangjing Tentha at 64.3%. Thoubal and Keirao each recorded 64.2%.

At district level, women accounted for 64.1% of removals in Kakching, 63.5% in Thoubal and 62.9% in Noney. The female share was 58.4% in the valley, 54.8% in the hills and 54.6% in Jiribam.

The authors make a specific qualification: because the study lacks the gender composition of the full electorate, it cannot establish whether women faced a higher removal rate than men. It establishes that more women than men appear in the removal records.

Women’s removals are more often linked to shifting

The recorded reasons also differ by gender. Permanent shifting accounted for 52.4% of women’s removals, compared with 37.1% of men’s removals. Viewed across the entire permanent-shifting category, women accounted for 64.2% of those listed.

Death showed the opposite pattern. It accounted for 35.3% of men’s removals and 20.6% of women’s removals. Absence or inability to trace the voter accounted for 22.3% of women’s removals and 22.9% of men’s. Enrolment elsewhere accounted for approximately 4.7% in both groups. The report further records that 46,786 of the 88,799 women—about 53%—were listed against a husband’s name rather than a father’s.

The authors identify marriage-related changes of residence as an issue requiring attention when a woman’s enrolment moves between two places. However, the records do not establish how many women were removed specifically because of marriage or how many subsequently failed to secure enrolment at their new address.

The report does not claim that these figures demonstrate different treatment of women by election officers.

People aged 30–44 form the largest age group

People aged 30–44 accounted for the largest number of removals, at 57,103. They were followed by those aged 45–59, at 38,408. The records also included 25,086 people aged 60–74, 19,600 aged 75 or above, and 18,480 aged 18–29.

The statewide median age was 46. In the valley it was 48, compared with 45 in the hills and 44 in Jiribam. People aged 60 or above accounted for approximately 34% of valley removals, compared with 26% in the hills. The report connects this difference with the higher proportion of death-related removals in the valley.

Its age charts show that removals among older people were more often attributed to death, while those among younger people were more often attributed to shifting.

One-tenth of booths account for 36% of removals

The removals were concentrated in a relatively small number of booths. The most affected tenth—roughly 300 booths—accounted for 36% of all names counted. The most affected quarter accounted for 62%. The median booth recorded 32 removals, below the statewide average of 52.6. A total of 97 booths recorded at least 200 removals each.

Under the new 2026 booth numbering, Leijangphai in Thanlon recorded the highest count, at 426 names. Permanent shifting accounted for 96% of its removals. Hamleikhong Hundung in Ukhrul followed with 412, of which 84% were attributed to shifting. In Saikot, Tuibong (S.W.-II) recorded 396 removals and Khopuibung 386; untraceable or absent voters accounted for 84% and 75% respectively.

Wangkhei’s booth 12, listed as Kabo Leikai Nongpok in the report, recorded 369 removals, with 81% classified as untraceable or absent. Sadim in Karong also recorded 369, with 86% under that category. Kaimai in Tamei recorded 366 removals, 92% classified as untraceable or absent. Ukhrul (E-2) recorded 335 and Azuram in Tamei 324, with every removal at both attributed to permanent shifting.

Changed booth numbers affect comparisons

The report warns that booth numbers changed in 29 constituencies. Researchers cannot assume that a booth carrying a particular number before revision corresponds to the booth with the same number afterwards.

Across the records, approximately 62% retained their old booth number. The report therefore presents separate tables using the old and new numbering.

This distinction changes the highest booth total. Under the old numbering, Saikot’s part 49 recorded 446 removals—the largest count in that table. Its records are associated with new parts 53 and 54, and 78% were classified as untraceable.

Similarly, old part 78 in Churachandpur recorded 373 removals distributed across new parts 86 and 87.

The authors include both systems so that verification can identify the original polling area and avoid misleading comparisons caused by renumbering or the division of records.

Displacement cannot be separated from ordinary migration

The report places particular emphasis on displacement since May 2023. A person staying in a relief camp or another district may be recorded as shifted or untraceable at the original address, even when the departure was involuntary.

The source data does not identify displacement as a separate category. The study therefore cannot determine how many entries marked permanently shifted or untraceable concern displaced people.

This limitation is central to its findings. The concentration of removals in hill constituencies, together with their high proportion of shifting and absence entries, identifies where verification should begin. It does not, by itself, prove that those entries were incorrect or that a community was deliberately excluded.

The authors recommend checking these cases booth by booth, with particular attention to families unable to return to their recorded addresses.

Names cannot establish community identity

The report also examines the final word in people’s names, while expressly warning against treating it as a reliable community identifier.

Manipur’s electoral records contain different naming practices. A final word may be a clan name, village name, father’s name or title, rather than a surname.

Across 1,58,671 records used for this analysis, the authors counted 50,647 distinct final words. The ten most common accounted for 16.8% of those records.

The difference between the valley and hills was substantial. The ten most common final words accounted for 37.5% of the valley records examined, compared with 9.3% in the hills. The study counted 9,771 distinct final words in the valley and 42,871 in the hills.

Statewide, the most frequent were Devi, appearing 10,303 times, Singh, appearing 6,406 times, and Haokip, appearing 3,725 times.

The authors draw no conclusion about community-wise removals from these counts. They instead raise a practical concern automated methods that match or classify people by names may perform differently across Manipur’s naming systems and require careful examination.

Concerns extend beyond voting

The report discusses how uncertainty over electoral status can create difficulties in administrative processes where electoral documents are used to establish identity or residence.

It refers to cases examined by Sabar Institute involving passport renewal, Public Distribution System access, domicile and residence certificates, education and other services. These observations form part of its broader discussion of SIR; they are not findings established by the Manipur ASD dataset.

It nevertheless argues that demands for documents, repeated visits to offices and unresolved appeals can place additional burdens on affected people. It identifies displaced families, migrant workers, women changing residence after marriage, students, older people, persons with disabilities, third-gender electors and people with incomplete documentary records as groups requiring particular attention.

Verification, accessible appeals and publication of voter totals

The report recommends beginning verification with booths recording the largest concentrations of removals, especially cases classified as permanently shifted or untraceable.

It calls for publication of constituency-level voter totals so that researchers can calculate removal rates, rather than relying only on counts and averages per booth.

It also recommends simple objection procedures, accessible appeals and free legal assistance for people unable to manage the paperwork or afford repeated visits to administrative offices. Displaced families and women changing residence after marriage require particular attention, the authors state.

Its wider recommendations include transparency and human review where automated tools or discrepancy filters are used, documentation of individual cases by researchers and civil society groups, parliamentary scrutiny, and an independent nationwide study covering deletions, restorations, appeals and adjudication delays.

For Manipur, the report identifies a specific task that verify the concentrated removals in the hill constituencies and establish whether people recorded as shifted or absent remain eligible for enrolment, including those living away from home because of displacement.

The report may be read here.

Download PDF

Related:

Bringing together fact-finding reports on Manipur, a commitment to conflict-ridden Manipur

Just days before polling, two killed in fresh violence in Manipur

Back & Forth, Manipur govt’s decision to declare Easter Sunday a working day sparks outrage, govt backs down

Moreh, Manipur: CCTV footage supports claims of locals, show men in uniform indulging in arson, Assam Rifles personnel standing as mute spectators

 

 

The post Manipur SIR: Sabar Institute’s report records 1.59 lakh removals, two-thirds in hill constituencies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual https://sabrangindia.in/jnu-revokes-rustication-of-five-students-after-hunger-strike-agrees-to-withdraw-firs-and-review-cpo-manual/ Tue, 20 Oct 2026 11:31:31 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49699 The 13-point charter also called for the restoration of GSCASH, the return of JNUEE and action on wider concerns over campus infrastructure and governance

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a significant breakthrough after more than 17 days of protest, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has directed the revocation of the rustication of five students, including Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Aditi Mishra and vice-president K Gopika Babu. A letter signed by Dean of the School of Social Sciences Vivek Kumar confirms the decision, addressing one of the central demands of the indefinite hunger strike that began on October 3.

The decision follows discussions between student representatives and a university-appointed committee, which also yielded assurances on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, a review of contentious provisions of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual and the withdrawal of proctorial enquiries initiated during earlier campus protests. Hindustan Times reported that the university has also agreed to constitute committees with JNUSU representation to review the disciplinary provisions, examine the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) and address hostel reservation issues. The developments mark a breakthrough in the prolonged standoff, with further discussions also covering hostel infrastructure, library timings and the opening of a canteen at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG).

At the heart of the confrontation is the suspension and rustication of elected representatives of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), alongside the administration’s continued enforcement of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual, which students argue imposes punitive restrictions on protests and collective gatherings. The dispute also raises questions about the university’s response to students exercising their right to protest, particularly when disciplinary action has excluded elected representatives from the institution they are mandated to represent.

The Hindu reported that CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas had sought intervention from President Droupadi Murmu and Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi as the hunger strike has reached a critical point amid concerns about the deteriorating health of participants. Brittas, a former JNU student, has called for the revocation of the rustication orders and an expedited resolution of the students’ grievances.

Rustication of elected representatives lies at the centre of the dispute

JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president Gopika Babau and other students have participated in the indefinite hunger strike. As reported by Outlook, JNUSU joint secretary Danish Ali said the union, along with former president Nitish Kumar, was rusticated in February 2026 following protests against the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Central Library. Ali said the union and Nitish were rusticated for a year and fined ₹20,000 each, while eight other students were fined ₹19,000 each for their alleged presence at the protest.

The university had earlier suspended five students and declared them “out of bounds” in connection with the alleged vandalism of the facial recognition technology gates in November 2025. The administration has maintained that public property worth ₹20 lakh was damaged.

However, the continuing exclusion of elected student representatives has become a central concern in the present agitation. In his letter to President Murmu, Brittas argued that keeping elected representatives off campus directly affects the functioning of the students’ union and weakens the mechanism through which students collectively articulate their grievances.

The issue goes beyond the individual penalties imposed on the students. When elected representatives are barred from the university, their ability to represent constituents, participate in campus discussions and negotiate with the administration is significantly curtailed. Disciplinary action against individual students can therefore have consequences for the wider student body, particularly when it affects the functioning of an elected representative institution. JNUSU has maintained that its office-bearers represent a student constituency of approximately 9,000. Its demand for the revocation of the rustication orders is therefore tied to the question of whether students can meaningfully exercise their collective voice through an elected union.

CPO Manual and the shrinking space for campus dissent

The students’ have called for the withdrawal of objectionable provisions of the CPO Manual, alleging that its disciplinary framework enables the administration to impose substantial penalties and restrict assemblies and protests. The agitation follows a university general body meeting (UGBM) on October 3, which reportedly passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the manual. The students have argued that its provisions undermine legitimate democratic expression by exposing those who protest to punitive action.

Brittas raised similar concerns in his letters to the President and the Union Education Minister. As reported by The Hindu, he warned that disproportionate disciplinary measures could deter students from raising legitimate grievances for fear of punishment. He also invoked JNU’s foundational commitments to social justice, secularism and a democratic way of life, as reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.

President Droupadi Murmu, as Visitor of the university, has been asked to intervene under Section 8 of the Act. Brittas has urged her to facilitate the withdrawal of the rustication orders, address the disputed provisions of the CPO Manual and ensure that the outstanding grievances are resolved.

Students dispute the administration’s account of medical care

The disagreement has also extended to the provision of medical assistance to students participating in the hunger strike. In a statement reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit said that a committee headed by Professor Vivek Kumar, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, had held discussions with protesters on October 9 and October 14. The first meeting reportedly lasted more than four hours. According to the administration, two groups subsequently ended their hunger strikes after receiving assurances, while discussions with other protesters continued.

The administration has also maintained that the university’s Chief Medical Officer has monitored the health of hunger strikers and that medical check-ups have been conducted twice daily. It said medical assistance was extended to rusticated students on humanitarian grounds.

JNUSU, however, has disputed this account. In its statement, the union alleged that its rusticated office-bearers were denied medical check-ups during the first six days of the protest and that their vital signs were monitored through a private laboratory instead. The allegations directly contradict the administration’s claim that medical care was provided to rusticated students from the beginning of the agitation.

The union has also questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s visit to the hunger strike site at approximately 9 am on October 16. It alleged that the visit, which took place without prior intimation, risked creating the impression that only a small number of students were participating. The administration, meanwhile, stated that a representative had visited the site at approximately 8.50 am but found no students sleeping there.

A wider charter of demands remains unresolved

The agitation encompasses a broader set of concerns about the university’s academic environment, infrastructure and institutional accountability. Students have demanded the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), which was replaced by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As reported by Outlook, a student identified as Dhananjay argued that GSCASH offered a more inclusive platform, while students were in the minority under the ICC structure.

The demand places the question of gender justice alongside the wider dispute over student participation in university governance. The charter also includes a demand for an Equal Opportunity Cell under the proposed Rohith Vemula Act, an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, improvements to deteriorating campus infrastructure and the reinstatement of the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) in place of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Students have also opposed the introduction of recorded video lectures through the Siddhanta Foundation, alleging that the arrangement undermines the quality of teaching and the possibility of holistic academic development.

 

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis https://sabrangindia.in/indias-electoral-crisis-is-fast-becoming-a-civil-liberties-crisis/ Tue, 20 Oct 2026 08:46:59 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49695 The resistance to any form of democratic questioning, dissent or protest marks the Indian government’s response to widespread protests around #VoteChori

The post India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> There are moments in the life of a democracy when the conduct of the government becomes more consequential than the controversy it is attempting to contain. India has reached such a moment. What began as a dispute over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has developed into something more disturbing: a confrontation over the citizen’s right to question the institutions that regulate democracy itself.

On October 10, the United Nations Human Rights Office expressed concern over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, civil-society members, lawyers and journalists in India. It called for the release of those arbitrarily detained and urged respect for peaceful assembly. The government rejected the criticism. Similarly, over 100 Harvard University alumni issued a statement condemning police brutality, unlawful detention and constitutional rights violations.

That response was predictable. The events that produced the criticism were not.

Delhi witnessed an extraordinary mobilisation of state power against demonstrations demanding accountability from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. Protesters were prevented from assembling at Jantar Mantar. Police detained leaders, including MPs and former Chief Ministers. Police removed students from trains before they could reach the capital. Lawyers were detained. Journalists covering demonstrations were taken into custody. Police used force and violence against protesters, especially students: private parts of women were kicked and phones taken away. The internet was suspended in parts of central Delhi, Metro stations were closed, and railway services were severely disrupted.

The scale was extraordinary. On October 10, 45 Delhi Metro stations remained shut, while more than 250 railway services were cancelled or disrupted.

Eventually, Jantar Mantar itself got denotified by the Home Ministry as a protest site, even as right-wing groups were reportedly free to proclaim that they would “destroy all anti-Modi forces” and “slay protesters,” while the Delhi Police remained mute spectators.

Even a week later, the police continue to assault peaceful protesters carrying national flags, refusing to register an FIR over the police brutality. Leaders like Neha of AISA and Dipke are still being detained for prolonged periods, including at night, at undisclosed locations. Even delegations of lawyers and concerned citizens who march to police stations seeking answers are long-denied information about their whereabouts.

This was not proportionate policing of an unruly mob. Much of it was preventive action against citizens who had not committed violence. The distinction matters enormously.

Article 19 does not confer an unlimited right to occupy every road or disregard reasonable lawful restrictions. But travelling to a demonstration is not a crime. Reporting a protest is not participation in disorder. Representing protesters is not obstruction of justice. Peacefully demanding the resignation of a constitutional functionary is not an attack on the Republic.

When a government begins to erase these distinctions, law enforcement ceases to look neutral and begins to resemble political management.

The Supreme Court recognised the danger. In an exceptional Sunday sitting on October 11, it directed that peaceful and unarmed persons must not be illegally detained. It said Metro and railway services should function normally subject to genuine public-order necessities, free movement should be permitted, lawyers should not be obstructed in their professional duties, and internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with law.

A constitutional democracy should find it sobering that its Supreme Court had to remind, after strong attention-seeking, the executive of propositions so elementary.

The government cannot hide behind the legality of SIR

Electoral rolls require revision. Dead voters cannot remain indefinitely registered. Duplicate entries must be removed. People who have permanently shifted must be correctly recorded. Persons legally ineligible to vote cannot acquire electoral rights merely because an administrative error went unnoticed. Indeed, on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR, recognising the Election Commission’s authority under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act to undertake intensive revision. The Court also permitted a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes.

But the judgment contained an equally important restraint. The Election Commission does not become the final authority for terminating a person’s citizenship. Formal adjudication belongs to the competent authority under citizenship law.

The government’s defence therefore answers only one question: Can electoral rolls be revised? Of course they can. It does not answer the far more important question: How has that enormous power been exercised? Has the motive of conducting the exercise been to “clean” up the roles or to exclude pre-determined sections of voters?

More than 13 crore names were omitted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the nationwide revision. When exclusion occurs on such a scale, transparency is not optional. Nor can the government dismiss every criticism as partisan agitation, because some of the most serious objections have come from inside the Election Commission itself.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least fourteen occasions within ten months concerning voter enrolment, deletion, restoration and control over electoral-roll systems. Among the descriptions reportedly used were “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

One dispute involved Form 6, used for registering new voters. Changes introduced through the Commission’s digital system required applicants to answer questions linked to previous SIR records and their parents or grandparents. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly objected that the alteration had not been lawfully authorised and risked harassing first-time voters. The Commission subsequently removed the disputed addition from its ECINET portal in states where SIR had concluded.

That is not an insignificant administrative disagreement. It goes to the heart of who enters the electorate and under what conditions.

An institution weakened by the way its guardians are chosen

These developments cannot be separated from the altered architecture governing Election Commission appointments.

In Anoop Baranwal, the Supreme Court created an interim selection arrangement comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted legislation. The Modi government subsequently did enact legislation—but removed the Chief Justice from the committee and substituted a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The result is straightforward: the executive now holds two of the three positions on the selection committee. The Supreme Court itself has recorded that this replacement lies at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the 2023 law.

This does not establish the allegation that Indian elections have been “rigged”. But institutional independence is not sustained merely by the absence of proven misconduct. Constitutional bodies survive because citizens can reasonably believe that they are insulated from the government whose political fortunes their decisions may affect.

The Modi government weakened that perception even when it constructed an appointment system in which the executive enjoys a built-in majority.

Now, when questions arise inside the Commission itself, the government’s instinct appears not to be radical transparency but political defence.

That is precisely the wrong response.

This is how democratic erosion occurs

India is not formally under an Emergency. There has been no proclamation under Article 352.

Democracies rarely collapse in a single constitutional explosion. They are hollowed out institution by institution. The judiciary may continue to deliver important interventions, yet public confidence in its ability to consistently confront executive power has been strained. Large sections of the mainstream media, meanwhile, operate in an environment of concentrated ownership, political alignment and governmental pressure; India now ranks 157th of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 Press Freedom Index. Overall trust in news among respondents to the Reuters Institute’s 2026 India survey fell to 39 per cent.

Then comes the machinery of everyday coercion: a journalist detained, a lawyer obstructed, a student pulled from a train, an internet connection suspended, a Metro station closed, a peaceful assembly prohibited, a constitutional institution stripped of visible independence, a voter suddenly required to prove an entitlement once presumed secure.

Each abuse can be rationalised in isolation. Together they reveal the steady normalisation of a state in which institutions meant to restrain power are themselves losing credibility, independent scrutiny is treated as hostility, and coercion substitutes a democratic response.

An Emergency need not always be proclaimed and democratic freedoms can also be extinguished by accumulation.

If the Election Commission’s SIR is legitimate, accurate and procedurally fair, they should not fear scrutiny. If Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions can withstand examination, barricades cannot strengthen his credibility. If the allegations are false, the appropriate answer is evidence.

Instead, the spectacle presented to the country has been one of police buses, blocked stations, disrupted trains, internet restrictions and preventive detention.

The state has used coercive power to contain a crisis of institutional trust. In doing so, instead of an uncomplicated right approach, it has enlarged that crisis.

Publish the records. Explain the major categories of voter deletion. Make restoration simple and accessible. Answer Sandhu and Joshi’s objections point by point. Establish transparent audit trails for electoral databases. Investigate allegations of misconduct by police against journalists, lawyers and other demonstrators. Permit peaceful protest.

And above all, stop treating scrutiny of the institutions as hostility towards India.

The Chief Election Commissioner derives authority not merely from statutory tenure but from public confidence that the referee is independent of every player—including the one occupying the government benches. His resignation is thus non-negotiable.

The Modi government should understand a fundamental truth that every democratic government eventually learns: institutions cannot be protected from criticism by protecting them against criticism.

A confident democracy answers questions. An insecure state arrests those who ask them.

When the question is who remains entitled to vote, there can be no bigger test of the Republic.

(Amal Chandra is an Indian author, policy analyst, and columnist, currently serving as The Statement Fellow and Coordinator, South Asia at Students for Liberty; Shabnam K. is an alumnus of the University of Delhi and a former SBI Youth for India Fellow)


Related:

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

The post India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication https://sabrangindia.in/jamias-missing-students-union-two-decades-without-elections-and-a-protest-met-with-rustication/ Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:54:42 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49690 Students on Hunger-striking students allege physical assault and punitive disciplinary action; a seven-member committee has been formed, but the administration yet to commit to restoring elected representation

The post Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> At Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), a hunger strike demanding the restoration of the university’s students’ union has escalated into a confrontation over student representation, with protesters alleging that they were forcibly removed from the campus by university security personnel and Delhi Police in the early hours of October 17. The alleged eviction was followed by disciplinary action against protesting students, including the rustication of one student for a year and campus bans on others. On October 19, the university announced a seven-member committee to examine students’ grievances and work towards restoring “normalcy” on campus. But with no commitment to restoring the union announced so far, the question remains whether the committee will address the root of the unrest or merely manage its immediate fallout.

 

 

 

The agitation, which began on October 12, has revived a question that has remained unresolved for nearly two decades: who speaks for Jamia’s students? University-wide students’ union elections have not been held since 2006, when the administration discontinued them, citing incidents of violence and disruption on campus. The current protesters argue that departmental subject associations cannot replace an elected university-wide body capable of representing students across academic departments and collectively raising concerns about admissions, hostel facilities, access to campus resources and administrative decisions.

 

 

 

The confrontation has also brought the university’s handling of dissent under scrutiny. While the administration maintains that demonstrations must comply with campus rules and has defended its actions in the name of security and academic functioning, students have alleged physical manhandling during the eviction and questioned the disciplinary measures imposed on them. The issue, therefore, extends beyond the immediate question of whether student union elections will return. It concerns students’ ability to organise, question administrative decisions and seek accountability within an institution that shapes their academic lives.

 

From hunger strike to alleged forcible eviction

The hunger strike began at the university’s designated protest site near Gate No. 18 before moving to Gulistan-i-Ghalib Garden, near Gate No. 7. By the time the agitation intensified, five students had joined the indefinite strike, demanding the restoration of the union and a formal mechanism for collective student representation.

The confrontation escalated in the early hours of October 17, when protesting students alleged that university security personnel and Delhi Police officers forcibly removed them from the site. Students described being dragged, pushed and physically manhandled. The Times of India reported that some students also alleged that women protesters were prevented from entering the campus and were assaulted when they attempted to join the demonstration.

According to Outlook India, students described security personnel dismantling their temporary shelter and alleged physical mistreatment during the October 17 incident. The university’s subsequent public statement announcing the committee did not address these specific allegations.

Rustication and campus bans deepen the dispute

The alleged eviction was followed by disciplinary action against students participating in the agitation. On October 16, the university issued orders rusticating Ebin Basil, a BA LLB student, for one year and imposing six-month campus bans on Mohammad Jasim Khan and another student, according to report by Hindustan Times.

The disciplinary orders reportedly accused the students of participating in unauthorised gatherings, obstructing university personnel and violating campus rules. The university also cited allegations concerning interference with CCTV installation. The students have challenged the disciplinary measures and demanded their withdrawal, alongside an inquiry into the alleged use of force.

What happened to the students’ right to representation?

Jamia discontinued university-wide students’ union elections in 2006. The administration has cited recurring incidents of violence, clashes involving students and teachers, and disruptions to academic activities as reasons for the decision. It has also argued that elected departmental subject associations provide students with alternative channels of representation.

In its October 19 announcement, the university reiterated its intention to seek an amicable resolution to the long-standing impasse. It also referred to the Delhi High Court proceedings that concluded in 2022 without a direction requiring the university to hold union elections. The absence of such a body has become especially contentious amid allegations concerning admissions, hostel facilities, access to libraries and sports infrastructure, and restrictions on student gatherings. As The Indian Express reported on October 17, the protesting students argue that, without an elected university-wide body, they lack a formal platform to raise concerns ranging from basic campus amenities to larger academic and administrative decisions.

Admissions, hostel food and the everyday costs of having no collective voice

The demand for a union is also rooted in the everyday realities of campus life. Students have raised concerns about the admission process, hostel conditions, drinking water, washrooms, access to sports facilities and the use of university spaces for academic and student activities.

In August, students protested over alleged irregularities in spot admissions for the 2026–27 academic session. They questioned the decision to conduct the process offline, following online admissions in previous years, and alleged that some candidates lower on the merit list had secured places while higher-ranked candidates remained on waiting lists. The university rejected the allegations as baseless and maintained that its admission process was transparent.

In September, residents of the Jammu and Kashmir Girls’ Hostel protested over alleged contamination and poor quality of mess food. Students reported finding insects and other foreign objects in meals, including allegations of worms in food and glass shards in vegetables. The university subsequently assured residents that the mess contractor would be removed and that food quality and hygiene would be improved.

A committee is a beginning, not a resolution

In its October 18 report, Hindustan Times reported that the university shut the Dr Zakir Husain Library and the Old Library, citing security concerns amid the escalating protests. The closure added another dimension to an already tense situation, particularly for students who depend on university facilities for their studies.

Students have also alleged restrictions on access to sports facilities and university venues, as well as difficulties obtaining permission for group activities and academic discussions. Some have questioned the location of the designated protest site, arguing that its distance from the administration’s offices makes it harder for their grievances to receive attention.

The seven-member committee announced on October 19 comprises senior faculty members and deans, including the deans of Humanities and Languages, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Students’ Welfare and Academic Affairs, alongside two other faculty members. The university has said the committee will engage with protesters, examine their demands and report to the Vice-Chancellor.

 

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

The post Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved https://sabrangindia.in/after-lehra-do-tiranga-protests-neha-bora-moves-delhi-hc-against-police-notice-cjp-leaders-release-remains-unresolved/ Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:07:55 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49687 More than 100 protesters were detained in Delhi as police blocked the planned flag march, while demonstrations in Mumbai and Bengaluru took different courses

The post After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ mobilisation called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on October 16 has left behind a widening legal and political dispute over the right to protest, the use of preventive police powers and the restrictions imposed on demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Three days after the planned rally, the consequences extend well beyond the detention of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke. All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora, who was detained while marching with students in Delhi, has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a police notice requiring Neha to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety. Meanwhile, CJP convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka remain in judicial custody as their release proceedings face further delays.

 

The demonstrations were organised in solidarity with Das and Ranka, who were remanded to five days of judicial custody after they entered Jantar Mantar on October 13, a day after the Union government withdrew the site’s designated protest status. The party has also been demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and calling for the restoration of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue.

The police have cited the absence of permission, violations of previous undertakings and apprehensions of a breach of public peace to justify their actions. Protest organisers, however, have questioned why the exercise of political dissent and the unfurling of the national flag have been met with preventive detention and restrictions.

Neha Bora challenges police notice before Delhi High Court

Bora’s case has emerged as a significant part of the aftermath of the rally. According to LiveLaw in its October 19 report, the AISA president has approached the Delhi High Court seeking an urgent hearing, a stay on the police notices and its withdrawal.

Bora was detained on October 16 while marching from Mandi House with AISA members towards the planned gathering at Connaught Place. Bora was released early the following morning, after nearly 12 hours in detention. The police told LiveLaw that her release followed the completion of formalities under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

Her subsequent legal challenge concerns a separate notice issued on October 18. Issued under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the notice directed Bora to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), New Delhi District, on October 19 and execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.

In its statement, AISA said the notice was prima facie ambiguous, factually incorrect and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which respectively protect freedoms including speech and peaceful assembly, and the right to life and personal liberty. Bora’s legal team, led by Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol and Moksha, among others, said it would seek an urgent hearing before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and respond to the notice before the SEM.

AISA has also alleged that plainclothes police personnel have been following Bora since their release on October 17. The association has questioned whether this is routine police procedure or an attempt to intimidate Bora.

The legal challenge raises questions about the grounds on which a person who has already been released from detention can subsequently be required to furnish a peace bond, the factual basis for the notice and the constitutional safeguards applicable to preventive proceedings. These questions are now before the High Court; the allegations in the petition are not yet judicial findings.

Bora’s detention took place alongside that of Dipke, but the legal routes subsequently taken by the two differ. Dipke was held under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS and released on October 17 after proceedings before an SEM, subject to a peace bond requiring him to maintain peace for a year. Bora, by contrast, was released after action under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and has now challenged the separate notice requiring her to furnish a bond.

Delhi’s planned rally was stopped, but protests continued

The events in Delhi on October 16 unfolded amid extensive security arrangements and restrictions on gatherings in Connaught Place. Hours before the scheduled 5 pm rally at Central Park, Delhi Police visited Dipke’s residence in Jhandewalan and served him a notice prohibiting the march. The police cited his public statements, and social media calls for people to assemble without the required permission. The New Delhi Municipal Council also announced that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17. Despite these measures, the demonstration did not simply disappear when its organisers were detained.

According to The Indian Express, Dipke was detained while on his way to Connaught Place, while Bora was detained at Mandi House. More than 100 protesters were detained, with several reports putting the total at around 150. Hundreds of supporters and student activists nevertheless gathered at different points in central Delhi, carrying the national flag and raising slogans.

ThePrint reported that, within minutes of the organisers’ detention, people gathered at Connaught Place, unfurled a large national flag and marched around the inner circle. Protesters regrouped at different locations even as police attempted to disperse the gatherings. 

AISA members also held a separate demonstration near Mandi House, demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, a rollback of the SIR exercise and the withdrawal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Minor scuffles were reported as police attempted to disperse crowds.

The Aam Aadmi Party also held a Tiranga march near Rashtrapati Bhavan and its central Delhi headquarters, according to The New Indian Express. Party workers carrying national flags raised slogans including “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram”.

The police response extended beyond the detentions. In its October 18 report, The Indian Express reported that Delhi Police had registered multiple FIRs following the demonstrations, including cases concerning alleged violations of prohibitory orders. Police were also investigating social media posts and taking action against at least 17 handles over content they alleged included misleading or fabricated videos and abusive material.

What happened in Mumbai and Bengaluru?

The October 16 call was not confined to Delhi. CJP supporters and allied groups also mobilised in Mumbai and Bengaluru, although the demonstrations proceeded under different local conditions. In Mumbai, police granted permission for a one-day protest at Azad Maidan from 10 am to 5 pm. The gathering was organised in solidarity with Das and Ranka and called for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

According to PTI, on October 16, social activist Anjali Damania addressed the gathering and sought accountability for what she described as police brutality against protesters in Delhi. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena leader Sandip Deshpande also attended, while CJP supporters and members of student organisations carried the national flag and raised slogans.

The Free Press Journal reported that the Mumbai demonstration drew an estimated 50 to 100 participants at different times during the day. The protesters called for the scrapping of the SIR exercise, an impartial investigation into alleged voter deletions and the replacement of electronic voting machines with ballot papers. The demonstration concluded peacefully with the national anthem.

In Bengaluru, a peaceful Tiranga march was permitted, subject to conditions and security arrangements. The Indian Express reported that the Bengaluru mobilisation began at 5 pm on October 16 and formed part of CJP’s nationwide campaign against alleged irregularities in the SIR and its demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

Reporting by Reuters on October 16 also recorded smaller demonstrations in Patna, alongside the protests in Mumbai and Bengaluru. In Delhi, the flag-waving gatherings continued despite the detention of the principal organisers.

Dipke released, but Das and Ranka remain in custody

The dispute over the protest has continued through the proceedings concerning the two CJP convenors. Das and Ranka were detained on October 13 after allegedly scaling the locked gates of Jantar Mantar and entering the premises to unfurl the national flag and raise slogans. Police said the two had violated peace bonds executed after earlier detentions and argued that their release could lead to further breaches of public order.

In an order dated October 14, the SEM remanded them to five days of judicial custody, stating that adequate surety had not been furnished at that stage. Both were sent to Tihar Jail. Dipke, who was detained separately on October 16, was released the following day after executing a peace bond. The release proceedings for Das and Ranka, however, have remained contentious.

According to Hindustan Times, CJP representatives spent nearly five hours at Mandir Marg police station on October 18 awaiting proceedings before the SEM. The hearing reportedly lasted only eight to ten minutes before being deferred. The party alleged that officials had repeatedly rejected surety documents on different grounds, including objections to fixed deposit receipts and the addresses of people standing surety.

CJP legal head Ratna Singh questioned why the proceedings shifted towards a reported threat received by the SEM instead of addressing the merits of the release request. The police said the magistrate had reported receiving threatening messages, following which a report was registered against unidentified persons. The authorities have denied deliberately delaying the release process and maintained that the surety documents submitted by the party were faulty.

The Indian Express reported on October 19 that the police were expected to seek an extension of the duo’s custody, citing apprehensions that their release could disturb public peace. 

 

Detailed reports on protests against ECI may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany https://sabrangindia.in/books-under-siege-bengals-left-bookstalls-the-calcutta-high-courts-intervention-and-the-warning-from-hitlers-germany/ Mon, 19 Oct 2026 10:20:32 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49682 The bulldozer retreated, and the court offered temporary relief. But who gets to decide which ideas can occupy Bengal’s public spaces?

The post Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> West Bengal’s Durga Puja season has become the site of an escalating confrontation over who gets to occupy public spaces, whose ideas can circulate and who has the authority to define the state’s cultural identity. For decades, bookstalls run by Left parties have been a familiar feature of the festivities, offering political literature alongside the books, art and cultural activities that animate the festival. This year, however, stalls associated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation and other Left organisations have faced reported attacks, vandalism, threats and attempts at removal across West Bengal. The controversy has unfolded amid Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari’s reported warning that Durga Puja committees should deny space to Left bookstalls that use the term Sharodotsav instead of explicitly referring to Durga Puja.

The confrontation reached a flashpoint in Jadavpur on Saturday night, October 17, when a team from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, accompanied by police and central forces, arrived to demolish a CPM bookstall that the party says had the requisite permissions. Left supporters resisted the operation through the night, forcing the demolition team to retreat after hours of confrontation. The CPM subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court, which agreed to hear its petition on October 20, offering temporary relief to the stall.

 

The immediate relief is welcome. But it also raises a more disturbing question: why did a dispute over a bookstall have to escalate into an overnight confrontation involving police, municipal authorities and political protesters before judicial intervention could offer a reprieve?

 

 

The episode must be viewed against the backdrop of an earlier judicial order in the separate dispute over a CPM bookstall in Bongaon. The allegations raised in the petition was that the CPI(M) had been prevented from setting up its traditional bookstall while a stall belonging to the Hindu Jagran Manch was allowed to occupy the area. The Left party told the Court that it had been setting up bookstalls near Durga Puja pandals for decades, with its petition referring to a tradition extending over approximately 50 to 60 years. A single-judge bench had permitted the party to set up its stall within 100 metres of its intended location and had directed the authorities to examine whether a stall associated with the Hindu Jagran Manch had the necessary permission. On Friday, October 16, a division bench stayed that order after the state government challenged it, preventing the CPM stall from operating for the remaining days of Durga Puja, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The Bongaon proceedings and the Jadavpur confrontation are legally distinct. The division bench’s stay in Bongaon cannot simply be treated as an order authorising the demolition of the Jadavpur stall. Nor does the latest decision to hear the Jadavpur petition automatically establish that the court has issued a blanket injunction against every possible administrative action. Yet the distinction makes the question of legal authority more, not less, important. Any attempt to remove the Jadavpur stall must stand on its own lawful basis, rather than on an assumption that the separate Bongaon order settles the matter.

CPM state committee member Sudip Sengupta told The Telegraph that the Jadavpur stall had the requisite permissions from Kolkata Police, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the authorities concerned with its electricity supply. He alleged that officials arrived to remove it after the court had gone on vacation. These claims raise a straightforward question: if permissions had been granted, on what legal grounds were officials seeking to demolish the stall, and what procedure had been followed before attempting to do so?

The attempt to remove the stall was resisted on Saturday night, and police and central forces returned in greater numbers. Left supporters, including CPM leaders Sudip Sengupta and Srijan Bhattacharya, continued their resistance until the early hours of Sunday. Police reportedly attempted to demolish the structure several times, while the supporters responded with slogans and refused to disperse. The operation eventually ended without the Jadavpur stall being demolished, although stalls associated with the Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) (SUCI) and the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) were reportedly dismantled.

What is unfolding is not simply a dispute over temporary structures during a religious festival. It is a confrontation over the right to disseminate political ideas without intimidation, the obligation of public authorities to act impartially and the danger of allowing cultural participation to become a test of ideological conformity.

When a bookstall becomes a political target

Jadavpur is not an isolated incident. Across West Bengal, Left parties have reported attacks, threats, vandalism and obstruction directed at their seasonal bookstalls during the weeks preceding Durga Puja. The Indian Express, reporting on the attacks on Left bookstalls, documented allegations by the CPM that its stalls had been targeted by BJP supporters. BJP state president Samik Bhattacharya denied his party’s involvement and called for complaints to be made to the authorities. The allegations must be investigated individually, and responsibility cannot be presumed merely from political affiliation. But the number and geographical spread of the reported incidents demand a serious response.

The Times of India has also reported that the CPM lodged at least 10 police complaints in Kolkata over alleged attacks, threats and attempts to prevent party-linked bookstalls from opening. The complaints reportedly included allegations of vandalism at stalls associated with the SUCI(C), the tearing of banners, the destruction of books and an assault in which a senior party member was injured. At Barasat, five CPM supporters were reported injured in an attack allegedly involving BJP supporters on Sunday. The police response and the outcome of investigations are crucial to establishing what occurred.

In Malda’s Chanchal, the CPM alleged that Bajrang Dal activists threatened its workers and forced the closure of a stall selling Marxist literature. Animesh Sinha, a CPM district secretariat member, said the party had submitted written intimation to the local police station and received an acknowledgement. A Bajrang Dal activist, by contrast, alleged that the party’s refusal to display an image of Goddess Durga amounted to disrespect towards Hinduism. That accusation exposes the troubling premise beneath the confrontation: that a political organisation selling books during a religious festival must demonstrate religious conformity to be permitted to participate.

A bookstall is not required to display a religious image to justify its existence. Nor should a political organisation have to affirm a particular religious identity before it can disseminate literature in a public setting. Unless a specific, lawful requirement applies, the demand that Marxist literature be accompanied by an image of a deity is not a neutral administrative condition. It is an ideological demand.

The controversy has also been fuelled by Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari’s reported September 10 warning that Durga Puja committees should not permit Left bookstalls that used the term Sharodotsav, or autumn festival, instead of explicitly referring to Durga Puja. As reported by The Telegraph, the warning called on committees to deny space to such stalls. The significance of the statement lies in the attempt to make access to a public cultural space conditional on the terminology used by a political organisation.

Durga Puja is a Hindu religious festival. Recognising that fact does not require reducing every public activity associated with it to a test of religious allegiance. Bengal’s Puja season has also become a major social and cultural occasion, with neighbourhoods hosting art, literature, performances, public gatherings and political discussion alongside religious observances. The presence of bookstalls selling Marxist, socialist, liberal and other literature is part of this wider cultural life.

The right to disseminate ideas cannot depend on whether those ideas are congenial to the political establishment or to the most vocal section of a crowd. Left parties have maintained a longstanding presence at Puja venues, with bookstalls selling political writing, literary works and other publications. As the Indian Express has reported, the present season has seen disputes over these stalls across the state. The CPM and other Left parties say they have traditionally informed the police and paid applicable civic fees; the authorities have disputed whether certain stalls possessed the necessary permissions, according to Alt News.

The administrative power to remove a stall is not the power to suppress an idea

The controversy brings the constitutional principles of freedom of expression, equality before the law and the rule of law into sharp focus. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, subject to the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). Article 19(1)(g), subject to Article 19(6), is also relevant to lawful commercial activity. The precise rights engaged will depend on the circumstances, including the nature of the site, the permissions required and the conduct of the authorities.

A political bookstall does not possess an unconditional right to occupy any public space. Municipal bodies can regulate public land, pedestrian access, electricity connections, safety and licensing. But the authority to regulate a public space is not an unrestricted authority to decide which political ideas may circulate within it.

Where a dispute concerns permissions, the authorities should identify the specific rule allegedly violated and provide a consistent, reviewable basis for their decision. Where a stall has valid permission, officials must explain the lawful grounds for any action that interferes with it. Where there is a threat of violence, the police must protect those exercising their lawful rights and investigate credible allegations of intimidation.

The earlier Bongaon proceedings underscore the importance of that standard. On Thursday, October 15, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the Superintendent of Police of Bongaon Police District and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon police station to ensure public order and deploy adequate security so that the CPI(M) could erect its bookstall and sell books during the Durga Puja festivities. The permission extends to a location within a 100-metre radius of the party office, which is situated near the pandal. The police have also been directed to prevent others from disrupting the party’s activities and to submit a compliance report at the next hearing on November 23. According to the report of LiveLaw, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies was welcome in a democracy, making it “fruitful, deep-rooted and mature”. The subsequent division-bench stay changed the position in that litigation.

The reported attacks expose the danger of allowing private political groups to police cultural participation. A demand that a bookstall close because its literature is Marxist, or because it does not display a particular religious image, is not a substitute for lawful regulation.

The historical warning

The history of Hitler’s Germany offers a sobering warning about the consequences of allowing political repression to become normalised. The comparison should not be used to claim that every contemporary confrontation is equivalent to Nazism, nor to suggest that West Bengal is already living under a Nazi dictatorship. The historical circumstances are different. What merits attention is a specific and documented feature of the Nazi seizure of power: the systematic targeting of political opponents, particularly communists, followed by the dismantling of constitutional protections and the destruction of political pluralism.

 

On February 27, 1933, the German parliament, the Reichstag, was set on fire. The Nazi leadership exploited the incident by portraying it as evidence of a communist conspiracy, although the claim that the fire represented a planned communist uprising was false. The following day, President Paul von Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended important constitutional protections, including safeguards for freedom of speech, the press and assembly. It enabled the arrest and detention of political opponents, the suppression of publications and the removal of restraints on police powers. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum documents the decree as a decisive step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. The assault on communists was not an incidental consequence of this process. It was central to it.

Following the decree, communist deputies were arrested or prevented from participating freely in political life. On March 23, 1933, the Nazi government secured passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler’s cabinet to legislate without parliamentary consent, including in ways that violated the existing constitutional order. The Nazi leadership used intimidation and persecution to secure the measure, preventing all 81 Communist deputies and 26 Social Democratic deputies from taking their seats. The Act became the cornerstone of Hitler’s dictatorship, as documented by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The destruction of German democracy did not begin with the persecution of every group that would subsequently be targeted by the Nazi state at the same time or in the same way. It involved a progressive dismantling of opposition, civil liberties and institutional restraints. Communists were among the first and most prominent political targets. Their suppression helped create the conditions in which the Nazis could move against other political opponents, independent organisations and, ultimately, entire communities.

There is a difference between a government disagreeing with communists and a political environment in which communist literature is treated as something that should not be allowed to circulate. There is a difference between enforcing a neutral municipal rule and using administrative machinery in circumstances that raise credible questions about selective treatment. There is a difference between a religious community celebrating its traditions and insisting that participation in the surrounding public culture requires ideological or religious conformity. Those differences must be preserved precisely because history demonstrates what can happen when they are erased.

Bengal’s intellectual history has been shaped by competing and sometimes conflicting traditions: religious reform, anti-colonial movements, rationalism, humanism, Marxism, social criticism and a wide range of literary and political currents. A society does not demonstrate confidence in its religious or cultural traditions by suppressing literature that challenges them. A festival does not become more meaningful by excluding citizens whose political beliefs differ from those of its organisers. And a democracy does not become stronger by allowing the loudest group to determine which voices can be heard.

 

Related:

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Bombay High Court orders Maharashtra DGP to review arrest forms, flags failure to communicate grounds of arrest

‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune

 

The post Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> After 772 Days in Detention, Ajabha Khatun Returns Home: CJP helps secure her release https://sabrangindia.in/after-772-days-in-detention-ajabha-khatun-returns-home-cjp-helps-secure-her-release/ Mon, 19 Oct 2026 05:38:34 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49678 Ajabha Khatun’s conditional release brings relief to her family, while her pending legal case and her plea for another detainee underline the fight that remains

The post After 772 Days in Detention, Ajabha Khatun Returns Home: CJP helps secure her release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> After 772 days in detention, Ajabha Khatun is finally home. A resident of Koetkuchi village in Assam’s Barpeta district, Ajabha is an ailing, marginalised woman who had been confined at the Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara since September 2, 2024, after being declared a foreigner. On October 13, 2026, following months of legal intervention, persistent follow-up with the authorities and extensive coordination by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), she walked out of the camp on conditional bail.

For Ajabha and her family, her release marked the end of an agonising wait. For CJP’s Assam team, it was a deeply significant milestone in 2026. But the relief was accompanied by a painful reminder of the many people who remain trapped in detention, separated from their families, their health deteriorating and their futures uncertain. Her freedom is also a reminder of what timely legal assistance can mean to someone who has been left without the resources to fight alone.

From a forgotten case to a sustained legal fight

On September 2, 2024, twenty-eight Bengali-speaking Muslims from Barpeta district were taken into custody and placed in a detention camp. When the CJP team met their families, it learnt that Ajabha’s family had not approached the Gauhati High Court on her behalf. The family was extremely marginalised and lacked the means to pursue the legal remedies available to her. At the family’s request, CJP took up Ajabha’s case, providing legal and paralegal assistance and helping bring her plight before the Gauhati High Court.

Detailed story may be read here.

On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation and sought the Foreigners Tribunal records to review the order declaring her a foreigner. The legal challenge, however, remained pending, and Ajabha continued to be held at Matia.

Detailed piece may be read here.

The High Court proceedings were crucial, but the immediate reality remained stark: an unwell woman was still confined in a detention camp, separated from her family, with no certainty about when she would return home. Without timely legal intervention, Ajabha could have remained without effective recourse to challenge her situation, while the threat of deportation continued to hang over her.

CJP’s work did not end with bringing her case before the Court. The team continued to stand by Ajabha and her family, pursuing every available avenue to secure her release while her substantive legal battle remained unresolved.

Two years in detention. A new effort to bring her home.

On September 1, 2026, Ajabha completed two years in the Matia Transit Camp. Her illness and prolonged confinement made the urgency of securing her release all the more pressing. Although her case was still pending before the Gauhati High Court, CJP’s Assam team began exploring additional avenues for her release on the grounds of her two years in detention and her deteriorating health. The effort drew upon the Supreme Court’s and Gauhati High Court’s suo-motu proceedings concerning detention during and around the COVID-19 period.

From August onwards, the team intensified its efforts. Alongside its continuing legal work, it counselled family members, visited the detention camp, documented her circumstances and initiated the administrative process required to secure her release. CJP Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury contacted the relevant authorities and submitted an application through Ajabha’s son. The work that followed was painstaking and often bureaucratic: identifying suitable bailors, verifying their documents and preparing the necessary applications, affidavits and supporting papers for submission to the District Border Police Office.

By October, Ajabha had spent more than two years and one month in detention. After the documents were submitted to the District Border Branch, officials informed the team that they would be forwarded to Guwahati and that the remaining process would depend on a favourable response. A few days later, the team received word that the processing in Guwahati had been completed and that the next steps could begin.

The team continued to follow up with the authorities through the following week. On October 11, the process was finalised for Ajabha’s release on conditional bail. On October 12, the Border Branch informally indicated that transportation difficulties could delay her release, but that an alternative arrangement might make it possible for her to leave the following day. CJP immediately coordinated with the Border Police and Ajabha’s family to ensure that the arrangements could be made. After more than two years of waiting, October 13 would finally bring her home.

October 13: The long journey back to freedom


CJP Team Assam with Ajabha Khatun after being released

The day began before dawn. At 3:40 a.m., Nanda Ghosh, on behalf of CJP’s Assam team, and office driver Ashikul Hussain set out for Barpeta. The journey involved multiple stops: the Border Branch police quarters, the local police station and Ajabha’s home, where family members had to be brought together with the police for the journey to the Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. They reached Matia at around 9:30 a.m. After completing the required formalities, the team accompanied Ajabha out of the camp and began the return journey to Barpeta.

By around 1:30 p.m., after hours on the road without food, Ajabha, the CJP team and the three police personnel accompanying them stopped to eat. It was a small, ordinary moment, but one that underscored how much had gone into making this day possible. The journey continued to the Barpeta District Border Branch at the Superintendent of Police’s office, where Abhijeet Choudhury had already begun the necessary work. CJP’s Barpeta District DVM, Jafar Ali, and the two bailors were also present.

Once the team arrived, the remaining formalities involving Ajabha and the bailors were completed, and the Border Police handed her over to the bailors. There was one more official requirement. The team accompanied Ajabha, the two bailors and a family member to Barpeta Sadar Police Station, where she is required to report once a week under the conditions of her release. Only after all these formalities were completed could the team finally take Ajabha home.

“The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain.”

As soon as Ajabha got into the car, the weight of her long ordeal began to surface. Overcome with emotion, she struggled to find words to express her gratitude to the CJP team. “Baba, may God bless you all!” she said.

Then, speaking about her time in detention, she described the suffering she had endured. “What can I say about the suffering in that detention camp? It is a hell. The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain!”

But even in that moment of relief, Ajabha was thinking of someone she had left behind. She told the team about Sehera, a visually impaired woman from Barpeta district who remains in the detention camp. Ajabha had cared for her during their time together, bringing her food, washing her clothes and plate, and making her bed.

“Baba, there is a blind woman there who cannot see. She suffers a lot. I used to bring her food, wash her clothes, wash her plate and make her bed. Her name is Sehera. She is from Barpeta district itself, but I don’t know exactly where. I only know her name. Can you please get her released, Baba?”

Ajabha recalled that as she was leaving, Sehera had hugged her and wept. She had asked Ajabha to appeal to the people who had helped secure her release to do the same for her. When I was leaving, she hugged me and cried a lot. She told me to request those who got me released to get her released too. Please get her out of that detention camp just like me. Allah will surely bless you,” Ajabha pleaded.

The request was heartbreaking. After 772 days of confinement, after enduring illness, separation and the uncertainty of her own future, Ajabha’s first concern was for another woman still inside. The CJP team knew Sehera only by name. They assured Ajabha that they would make every effort to trace her and explore the legal avenues available to help secure her release, while acknowledging that they could not guarantee the outcome. Ajabha had finally found her way out. Yet, even as she returned to freedom, she carried with her the anguish of someone who had not.

A village waits. A family welcomes her home.

As the sun began to set, the CJP team reached Koetkuchi village with Ajabha. Word of her return had drawn almost the entire village to her home. The moment the car arrived, people rushed forward. Tears, cries and overwhelming emotion filled the scene. After such a long separation, the sight of Ajabha returning home proved almost too much to bear. She fainted several times amid the emotional upheaval.

The team finally handed her over to her family, urging them to take particular care of her physical and mental well-being over the coming days after her prolonged confinement and the strain of the journey. Ajabha’s son, Buddu, works as a migrant labourer in the coal mines of Meghalaya. Unable to be present throughout the release process, he called the team by telephone and expressed his heartfelt gratitude to CJP for helping bring his mother home.

For a family that had spent months grappling with uncertainty and helplessness, her return offered a moment of immense relief. Yet Ajabha knows that her release is conditional and that her case before the Gauhati High Court remains unresolved. Before the team departed, she folded her hands and made one final plea. “I pray that my case ends permanently, Baba, as soon as possible, so that I never have to go to the camp again!”She prayed to Allah for the CJP team.

It was around 9 p.m. when the team finally began its journey home. The day had been long, physically exhausting and emotionally overwhelming. For months, the distress of Ajabha’s family had weighed heavily on the team as it worked to find a way to bring her home. That night, there was finally some relief.

It was not the end of the legal battle. It was not yet the permanent resolution Ajabha desperately wants. But it was a moment when sustained legal work, careful documentation, administrative follow-up and the determination to stand by a marginalised family had helped make a tangible difference.

The fight is not over

Ajabha Khatun’s release is an important milestone for CJP’s Assam team in 2026. It demonstrates the importance of legal assistance that does not stop at filing a petition, but continues through the practical, often exhausting work required to secure relief for a person who may otherwise struggle to navigate the system alone.

Her case also brings into focus the human consequences of prolonged detention for people declared foreigners, particularly those who are ill, economically marginalised and separated from their families while legal proceedings remain pending.

For Ajabha, freedom has meant returning to her village, embracing her family and sleeping once again under the open sky. But her relief remains shadowed by the knowledge that Sehera and others continue to endure detention.

As CJP’s team celebrates Ajabha’s return, it also carries forward the responsibility her plea has placed before it: to try to trace Sehera, explore the available legal remedies and continue working towards relief for those still confined.

After 772 days, Ajabha is home. Her legal case must still reach its conclusion, and the conditions of her release must be respected. For now, a family has its mother back, a village has welcomed one of its own, and a woman who endured the suffering of detention has found the strength to speak for someone still inside. Her freedom is a milestone. Her plea for Sehera is a reminder of the work that remains.

Related:

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

The post After 772 Days in Detention, Ajabha Khatun Returns Home: CJP helps secure her release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> My First Roza was in a Durga Pooja Pandal: Amir Rizvi https://sabrangindia.in/myfirst-roza-was-durga-pooja-pandal-amirrizvi/ Mon, 19 Oct 2026 04:17:31 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2016/06/05/my-first-roza-was-durga-pooja-pandal-amir-rizvi/ First Published on: June 5, 2016 I don’t remember when I started praying and keeping my Rozas ( the fast during Ramzan). Every child starts aping their parents and I guess I used to do the same. During Ramzan as kids we had the half ticket concept, either fast for half a day “aadhe din […]

The post My First Roza was in a Durga Pooja Pandal: Amir Rizvi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> First Published on: June 5, 2016

I don’t remember when I started praying and keeping my Rozas ( the fast during Ramzan). Every child starts aping their parents and I guess I used to do the same. During Ramzan as kids we had the half ticket concept, either fast for half a day “aadhe din ka roza” or the more popular was “aadhe mooh ka roza”: we were allowed to eat using one side of the mouth. The right side of the mouth was the favorite side to chew among us, kids.

We lived in a joint family and there were siblings and cousins of similar ages.

Even our pet parrot Mitthu used to ape the rituals of the home, he was taught to say “Nabiji Rozi bhejo” (Prophet Ji send us bounty). Often, we got confused on whether it was “Dada Abba” (Grandfather) praying or our Mitthu, he used to make gibberish-like sounds which resembled, in sound, the tilawat (Quran recital). Many a time we got up in the night wondering what was wrong with Dada Abba, why is he praying so loud at this hour, and found Mitthu happily busy with his tilawat.

We lived in the Rourkela Steel City. In Odisha, it was very cosmopolitan with neighbours from all over India. Many of my non-Muslim neighbors used to join us during Iftar (breaking the fast during Ramzan) and similarly we used join in the feasts after their Pooja(s) and Havan(s) (Hindu prayers).

I remember my first Roza, a serious Roza of not eating the entire day, it was one of the biggest achievements of my life; I wanted to prove that even I was grown up, I could achieve this; I was about 6 years old.

My mom dissuaded me initially saying it is not a compulsory ritual for children, but I did not think I was a child and insisted on keeping the Roza. Getting up during Sehri was an adventure, the most exciting part of keeping Roza, (Sehri was at about 4am in the morning) and the excitement lay in eating the last meal before fasting.

There was a Durga Pooja Pandal near our house, and those days the artisans used to make large installations of the Durga goddess on the site itself. Their work used to begin 2-3 months in advance. I was completely fascinated by the making of those elaborate Durga Pooja installations. Sometimes I used to spend entire day admiring the process and Amma (Mom) used send someone to call me for lunch.

When I insisted on keeping my first Roza, Amma knew I would not feel hungry if I was at the Pandal; so she asked my elder brother to drop me off at the Pandal in the morning. There I spent the entire day, at the Durga Pooja Pandal, chatting with the artisans, playing with their clay. Amma was right, I did not feel thirsty or hungry, did not even realize it was my first Roza, it was almost evening when my brother came to call me home, for Iftar.

After 40 years of my first Roza, when I look around at our mohallas and cities, society at large, I see a huge difference. Practising the faith was easy and relaxed, there was little conflict, parents had no problem sending Muslim children to play at the Pooja Pandal, non-Muslims never had any issue with Muslim festivals. There was no television and no religious preachers entered our lives. Our faiths and religious sentiments were not so fragile that we needed religious fatwas.

With the increasing influence of Arabian practices on Indian Islam, (an Arabisation, a sort of purification of Islam started taking place) and many Indian practices have started changing. “Khuda Hafiz” has become “Allah Hafiz” because Khuda is a Persian word. Ramzan is becoming Ramadan, because in Arabic it is pronounced with a “d”, not a “z”. And visiting Durga Pooja Pandal has become Shirk (the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism).

I see similar changes in Hindu society, where people are going back to the so called “Vedic Era” and becoming more intolerant towards each other.

Ramzan Mubarak,
Khuda Hafiz.

The post My First Roza was in a Durga Pooja Pandal: Amir Rizvi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> “Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad https://sabrangindia.in/pradhan-helped-bjp-win-odisha-gyanesh-is-helping-it-win-india-aishe-ghosh-teesta-setalvad/ Sat, 17 Oct 2026 04:12:00 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49668 Aishe Ghosh speaks with Teesta Setalvad about student protests, political crackdowns and the fight for democracy in India. From the 2020 crackdown on student activists to today’s protests, they discuss generational resistance, the role of ordinary citizens and the hope for a better India.

The post “Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Aishe Ghosh speaks with Teesta Setalvad about student protests, political crackdowns and the fight for democracy in India.

From the 2020 crackdown on student activists to today’s protests, they discuss generational resistance, the role of ordinary citizens and the hope for a better India.

The post “Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>