Protest, conspiracy, and the mechanics of delay

In February 2020, as nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) intensified (see detailed ground report by Sabrang India), Delhi found itself engulfed not merely in political dissent, but in targeted violent communal conflagration. What began as vibrant rights’ based protests to assert constitutional rights and freedoms through parallel sit-ins and road blockades soon deteriorated –with the active election-driven hate campaigns of the right-wing – into three days of bloodshed across North-East Delhi, leaving 53 people dead, hundreds injured, and entire neighbourhoods reduced to ashes. The human toll was staggering—but what followed, in parallel, in the courts, was, in many ways, just as consequential. Two and a half years after the violence, a Citizens Inquiry Committee Consisting of Retired Judges severely indicted right-wing driven hate speeches and their amplification by an uncritical electronic media for the escalation.[1]

On March 6, 2020, (18 days before the NDA regime declared a nationwide lockdown on March 24) the Delhi Police’s Special Cell registered FIR 59/2020, alleging a “larger conspiracy” behind the riots. The charge sheet, filed on September 16, 2020, stretched over 17,000 pages, and wove together disparate acts of protest, civil disobedience, WhatsApp conversations, speeches, and financial transactions as the basis of an expansive narrative of terror conspiracy. Key provisions invoked included Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), and 153A (promoting enmity) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as several sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The UAPA designation was not incidental. It allowed the prosecution to sidestep conventional bail safeguards and extend pre-trial detention far beyond the thresholds permissible under the ordinary Criminal Law and Procedure. Over time, the 18 accused (mostly student leaders and activists), including Dr Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, and Sharjeel Imam were arrested under the FIR. While some were already in custody in related cases, FIR 59/2020 became the prosecution’s keystone, binding together the politics of protest with the law’s harshest instruments. Khalid had been granted bail by ASJ Yadav on April 15, 2021, the order noting that he cannot be incarcerated on the basis of sketchy material. However, he remains in jail –after being arrested on September 14, 2020 under stringent UAPA charges for ‘being part of a larger conspiracy in the north east Delhi violence case of 2020.’

For rights activists, advocates and academics too, it is crucial to note that that the initial FIR (which speaks of the conspiracy by Umar Khalid and his ‘speeches’) did not even contain non-bailable offences let alone offences under the draconian UAPA. It is only after the initial set of arrested accused were released by the Magistrate on bail –were a set of non bailable offences were added.  At that point of time there already existed 750 FIRs for the different instances of violence and destruction of property and this FIR 59 was in addition to the same.  Safoora Zargar was arrested in one of the 751 FIRs and was granted bail within a day of two in the earlier offences. Before she could actually be even released from jail –the Delhi Police –in what a clear case of over reach and malice—arrested Safoora (who as mentioned above did not even find mention in FIR 59) by adding offences under the stringent UAPA.  This demonstrates that the purpose of the executive (prosecution) was to simply keep the student activists in jail, no matter what. Given that these were initial developments that had been called out by the defence in Court, the judiciary itself ought to have called this substantive and procedural injustice out.

As of mid-2025, not a single charge has been framed. The trial has remained frozen in its pre-charge phase for nearly five years. This extended inertia cannot be explained solely by the complexity of evidence. A significant part of the delay stems from what can only be described as judicial instability. The case has passed through multiple benches, with judges being reassigned, transferred, or rotated mid-way through critical proceedings. This institutional churn, as much as the statute books themselves, has shaped the case’s glacial pace and rendered a timely trial ever more elusive.

The calumny of calling out ‘delays’ by the defence

While at every bail hearing, virtually, accused rights defenders and their counsel have called out how the prosecution has (in a bid to bias the court and public opinion) sought to blame the defence for “delay”, even this tactic has been called out in court. Student activist, Khalid Safi has presented a detailed analysis of the delay in which he has demonstrated to the court that the delay is and has been only on account of a) the Prosecution; b)Judicial officers being unable to devote time and, c) the prosecution itself having sought and obtained a stay on the proceedings in order to contend that they would not make available the physical copy of the Final Reports / Charge sheets to the incarcerated accused, a contention which flies in the face of basic principles of natural justice.  How are incarcerated accused supposed to read 17000 pages in a charge sheet, without reasonable time to study these once they are provided, is the question asked?  Even if some time (and adjournments) by defence counsel are sought in the course of five long years, how can the plea for bail be ever resisted on that ground? Especially when the incarcerated accused have not in any manner gained from such delay. The delay has only prolonged their jail custody!

High cost of exercising fundamental freedoms

Of the total accused in the case, one, Tahir Hussain, is a politician and a former corporator. The rest, student activists and leaders protesting the anti-constitutional CAA 2019-NRC: Dr. Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal. Of the 18 named in the FIR, only six have been released on bail. Those are: Ishrat Jahan, Mohammad Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. Even qua their (alleged) role in protests, a study of the charges reveals that there is no distinction that can be made between the roles of those human rights defenders (accused) who are in custody and those (already) granted bail.  What is more important is, that not a single act of violence, recovery of weapons, speech resulting in incitement, or call for violence can be attributed to them. This obvious lacunae is sought to be inserted or peppered in by belated third party statements which do not lead to recoveries (of such weapons) or connection to the rest of the 751 FIRS. Significantly, by the time the violence erupted in Delhi, Sharjeel Imam was in custody already (having been arrested on January 28, 2020 and Umar Khalid was not even present in Delhi when the violence took place.

Hence, ten Muslim student activists/human rights defenders—one woman and eight men, many of them bright youth leaders–are facing “charges of terrorism” in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case are enduring serious and questionable systemic failures in their judicial quest for bail. Judgements have been reserved while and after Judges have been transferred and hearings inexplicably delayed. Several of the petitions have been pending for several months in the Delhi high court.

One woman, Gulfisha Fatima and nine men– Dr Umar Khalid, Saleem, Sharjeel Imam, Abdul Khali Saifi, Meeran Haider, Salim Malik, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Athar Khan – are those so unjustly incarcerated. Although a special bench consisting of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar listed the nine bail petitions for hearing between 34 and 60 times since April 2022 and even concluded hearings and reserved judgements in six between January and March 2023 – petitions of Saifi, Fatima, Haider, Malik, Rehman, and Saleem – it failed to deliver a final judgement.

Gulfisha Fatima who was arrested in April 2020 – two months after the Delhi riots has had an excruciatingly gruelling challenge to get bail. The bench comprising Justices Mridul and Bhatnagar had reserved its order on her bail application on February 13, 2023—a good nine months after she filed an appeal against a Delhi court’s refusal to grant her bail in March 2022! As if this were not enough, then came the double whammy when, on July 5, 2023, the Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Mridul’s transfer to the Manipur high court as its chief justice – which the Union government cleared three months later on October 16 – and a little more than a month later, Justice Bhatnagar’s transfer to the Rajasthan high court. A new bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur was then scheduled to hear the nine cases afresh, further prolonging incarceration. On November 1, 2023, Justices Kait and Kaur fixed dates for re-hearings thereafter in January and February the next year, 2024. Barely had this happened was the announcement of the judicial elevation of one of the judges, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait as Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with effect from September 2024!! Now, the matters lie before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur.

The Amitabh Rawat phase: bail, paperwork, but no charge hearings

In the initial years of the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat became closely associated with the 2020 riot-related UAPA matters. Sitting at the Karkardooma District Court, ASJ Rawat presided over several procedural applications and bail hearings, including the rejection of Umar Khalid’s bail under the Delhi Riots Conspiracy FIR in March 2022, in an order running over 40 pages that leaned heavily and only on the prosecution’s narrative. Khalid had put up a rigorous and detailed defence through advocate Trideep Pais arguing that  there were 750 FIRs registered before February 28, 2020 and the FIR 59/2020 (UAPA conspiracy case), that implicates Umar was registered on March 6, 2020. He argued that there was no occasion or event to register FIR 59/2020 and nobody should have been arrested under it. “The charge sheet filed before conclusively shows that there was no crime disclosed when the complaint was made”, he said. Secondly, Adv Pais had pointed out that the police relied on the speech from a YouTube clip used by news agencies (News 18 and Republic TV), and not the entire speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra. He added that when the news channels were asked by the police to provide the source of the speech, they said that they relied on a tweet made by Amit Malaviya. More details of the previous hearings may be read in this SabrangIndia report. (Amit Malviya heads the Bharatiya Janata Party’s notorious IT cell and dubs himself National In-charge of BJP’s Information & technology division).

What is crucial to iterate –is how arguments on charge—i.e., whether there exists sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial in FIR 59/2020– had not even begun during the period that ASJ Rawat was hearing the case. Between 2020 and 2023, the case lingered in a kind of procedural purgatory. Defence counsel frequently complained of non-supply of documents, prosecution delays, and the overwhelming volume of evidence. In reality, much of the delay was structural.

In 2023, ASJ Rawat was transferred. That transfer, like many others in the Delhi judiciary, was part of an administrative reshuffle ordered by the Delhi High Court—routine, unremarkable, and yet, in this case, consequential.

The Bajpai phase: a brief flicker of momentum

Judge Rawat’s successor, ASJ Sameer Bajpai, took over and finally initiated arguments on charge in FIR 59/2020 in September 2023. It was the first real procedural movement in over three years. The prosecution, led by the Special Public Prosecutor, opened with oral arguments on the alleged chain of events, the documentary and electronic evidence, and the roles ascribed to each accused. These arguments spanned several months and were concluded by early 2024.

Between October 2023 and March 2024, five defence teams also completed their arguments on charge, contesting the admissibility, interpretation, and weight of the evidence. Some submissions focused on the unreliability of protected witness statements, while others attacked the temporal inconsistencies in the police narrative. At last, it seemed that the case was approaching the critical moment when the court would decide whether to frame charges and commit the accused to trial.In the period when the matter was before Bajpai, on May 28, 2024, he had declined bail to Dr Umar Khalid on the ground noting that “no ‘deep analysis’ of the facts of the case can be undertaken at this stage.[2] Then, just as the matter appeared to turn a procedural corner, it slipped back.

May 2025: Bajpai’s transfer

On May 30, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued a routine transfer order affecting 135 judicial officers, including ASJ Bajpai. He was posted out of Shahdara, where the UAPA-designated court was situated, and reassigned to a fast-track court in Saket. In his place came ASJ Lalit Kumar.

ASJ Kumar, upon assuming charge, directed on June 2 that arguments on charge must begin afresh. The logic, presumably, was that he had not heard the earlier submissions, and a judge cannot rely on oral arguments presented to another. That may be legally sound, but it placed defence lawyers, many of whose clients had already spent four to five years in pre-trial detention, back at square one. Their submissions, objections, and detailed rebuttals would now need to be repeated. While the prosecution, too, would have to reargue a 17,000-page brief.

This reset triggered public outrage. A few lawyers remarked, off the record, that the process resembled “litigating in a loop.” The wheel was being reinvented, they said, just as it had begun to move.

A rare act of introspection: The High Court reverses course

In an unusual gesture that revealed both institutional awareness and tacit acknowledgment of error, the Delhi High Court revoked Bajpai’s transfer on June 19, directing that he return to the UAPA-designated court from July 1. The order stated that in view of the advanced stage of arguments, and the complexity of the material involved, judicial continuity was paramount.

This reversal was not merely administrative, but a quiet admission that the justice system had come perilously close to collapsing under its own bureaucracy. While defence and prosecution lawyers alike welcomed ASJ Bajpai’s return, they also knew that the damage could not be entirely undone.

At any rate, the institutional volatility on display in FIR 59/2020 has not been unique to this case, but its consequences here are particularly acute. The accused are not free on bail, as many remain in custody under a preventive detention regime that forecloses easy release. The charges involve allegations of terrorism, which, under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, make bail nearly impossible unless the court can prima facie reject the prosecution’s theory—a standard that demands more than mere reasonable doubt. In such a context, delays are not procedural inconveniences, but become carceral sentences in and of themselves. However, despite these stringent legal hurdles, it needs recall, that the same Delhi high court that has refused bail in ten cases (11 including Tahir Hussain) did grant bail to three student activists, Asif Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in June 2021, a year after their incarceration, looking at the same evidence under UAPA charges and making conclusive and creative interpretations on definitions of how legitimate protest cannot be interpreted, under a stringent anti-terror law as ‘act/acts of terrorism’.

Disruptions, duration, and separate interventions

Nearly 1,825 days have elapsed since FIR 59/2020 was lodged. The charge sheet was filed within six months (Sept 2020), but the trial court did not begin substantive charge‑arguments until September 2023, a gap of three years. Between then and the May 2024 transfer, roughly 40 sessions saw prosecution and defence arguments but those efforts were effectively nullified by judicial transfers and reshuffle.

Alongside trial delays, bail hearings have languished in similar fashion. A subset of eight accused — Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa‑ur‑Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, and Mohammad Saleem Khan have their bail pleas pending before the Delhi High Court since mid‑2022. Analysis and reporting by Scroll and CourtPractice shows:

These pleas have been listed, on average, 60–70 times each. Despite multiple benches finishing oral arguments, no orders have been delivered in most cases. Many listings were cancelled because:

• The special benches failed to assemble (44 occasions for Imam alone).
• Judges were unavailable due to workload or roster conflicts.
• Local administrative notes commonly record “bench did not assemble”.

Haider’s plea was listed 60 times, but heard only 9 times; similar lags affected others.

Justice Mridul & Bhatnagar bench’s involvement in several cases (Haider, Fatima, Saifi, Meeran, Ahmed, Athar) with orders reserved only to be derailed when Justice Mridul was transferred (Nov 2023); the pleas were withdrawn and re‑heard from scratch by a new bench.

The net effect: accused who had been in custody for over four years found themselves awaiting bail hearings under the same substantive arguments reargued all over again.

Several accused have sought higher‑court recourse. For instance:

• Sharjeel Imam filed a writ plea under Article 32 in the Supreme Court (Oct 2024), asking for expedited hearing of his Delhi High Court bail petition pending since April 2022. The SC directed the HC to act expeditiously. Clearly however, the matters have still stagnated.
• Gulfisha Fatima similarly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in Nov 2024 to expedite her HC bail plea; the SC politely declined interim relief but instructed the HC to decide swiftly. Here again, the matter languishes while Gulsfisha remains in jail.
• In May 2023, the SC dismissed the state’s appeal against bail granted to Kalita, Narwal, and Tanha, declaring that other accused could seek bail on parity grounds.

Several petitions request speedy trial direction or time-bound adherence to statutory limits. Yet to date, no constitutional court has set firm timelines, and the trial remains in procedural deep freeze.

Bail under UAPA: the framework

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by design, constructs a space where bail is not the rule but the exception. This inversion of the ‘bail, not jail’ standard presumption in criminal law is orchestrated through Section 43D(5). The provision stipulates that:

“…no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall be released on bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the CrPC, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.”

In practice, this replaces judicial discretion with a form of prosecutorial veto. It empowers the State to, effectively, keep an accused in jail until the court is prepared to rule (not on their innocence, but) on whether the State’s accusations might be believable on their face.

This presumption becomes crucial in cases such as FIR 59/2020, where the “offence” is not an overt act but a constructed chain of intent, coordination, and alleged incitement, which is, in essence, an interpretive and inferential exercise. UAPA thus raises the evidentiary burden at the bail stage and lowers the threshold for incarceration.

Key Supreme Court decisions: The shifting ground

1. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)

The Watali judgment remains the doctrinal cornerstone for bail under UAPA. The Court held that:

• At the bail stage, courts must not engage in a “detailed analysis of evidence.”
• If the materials prima facie support the allegations, bail should be refused.

This judgment placed extraordinary weight on the accusatory narrative of the police and practically barred trial courts from engaging in critical evaluation of the evidence. Bail became contingent not on the likelihood of conviction, but on the superficial cogency of the State’s documents.

In the years since Watali, multiple High Courts have invoked its ratio to deny bail in UAPA cases involving students, journalists, and civil society members. It became a script, prosecution affidavits were rarely interrogated; the court would peruse the material and affirm its prima facie acceptability.

2. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

This case marked a modest pushback. The Court granted bail despite the UAPA bar, on the grounds that the accused had spent five years in custody without trial commencing. The court held that the five and half years Najeeb spent as an undertrial prisoner became a crucial factor. The Court invoked Shaheen Welfare Association v Union of India to hold that ‘gross delay’ in trial violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. A fundamental right violation could be used as a ground for granting bail. Even if the case is under stringent criminal legislation including anti-terror laws, prolonged delay in a trial necessitates granting of bail. Citizens for Justice and Peace has undertaken a comparative analysis of both judgements that may be read here

However, the judgement remains sparse and highly case-specific. In FIR 59/2020, for example, most High Court benches have not invoked Najeeb, despite similar facts.

3. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency: The Bombay High Court, on November 18, 2022, granted bail to Prof. Anand Teltumbde, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, making it the first judgement, among 16 accused, to be granted on merits. The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav held that no prima facie case was made out against Teltumbde to establish that he was involved in any terrorist acts. Charges had been invoked against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him. The 72-year-old scholar had been in custody since April 14, 2020 when he was arrested by the NIA. While the NIA challenged this in appeal, the Supreme Court of India upheld the bail given by the Bombay High Court.

4.Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

In legal and academic circles, Vernon Gonsalves is seen as a vital course correction. The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and subtly recalibrated the UAPA bail standard set in Watali. While not explicitly overruling Watali, the Court held that a “surface-level analysis of the probative value of evidence” is essential when assessing whether the case is prima facie true under Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

This marked a departure from the mechanical, deferential reading of Watali that discouraged scrutiny of prosecution material. By requiring courts to assess some believability in the evidence and not merely its existence, the Vernon ruling offered a doctrinal opening for more meaningful judicial engagement at the bail stage. Yet, because both rulings came from benches of equal strength, the ambiguity remains to persist, leaving lower courts and prosecutors free to selectively rely on either approach unless the Supreme Court resolves the interpretive conflict explicitly.

The Delhi High Court’s continued deferral of bail orders in FIR 59/2020, despite the arguments being complete and the accused having spent 4+ years in custody, suggests that the inertia from Watali remains dominant.

High Court jurisprudence: Delhi’s reluctance and reticence

The Delhi High Court has had multiple opportunities to apply Vernon Gonsalves and Najeeb, especially in the context of FIR 59/2020. But the pattern reveals caution verging on abstention.

In Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi) and related cases involving Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the court (bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Mridul) in 2021 granted bail on the ground that protest cannot be conflated with terrorism. The judgment examined the contours of what amounts to a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of UAPA and found that the State had overstretched the charge.  They also in almost a prophetic manner stated that though at that point of time, the accused had spent a year in custody, the principle of a constitutional court taking into consideration the right to speedy trial as an aspect of the right to life should apply.  This was irrespective of the stringent and restrictive bail provisions following the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.A Najeeb.  The court held so because, there was no movement whatsoever (in the trial) for a year. Given the volumes of witnesses and documents, further delay was inevitable, making the accused’s right to life through speedy trial otiose (obsolete) if bail was not granted. This prophecy –and the principles enunciated in those judgements—have come true because five years later, the case has not moved forward at all!

These judgments were subsequently challenged by the State in the Supreme Court, which stayed their precedential value, though not the actual bail orders. As a result, other UAPA accused, despite similar charges and material, could not invoke those bail precedents as binding except for seeking to invite the Courts’ attention to factual parity. It is however quite clear after the Judgments in Ranjitsing Brahmajeet Sing Sharma, Vernon Gonsalves, Shoma Kanti Sen and Sudesh Kedia, that the prosecution’s ipse dixit in the chargesheet is just not sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case be it simpliciter reading of statements, documents produced along with or the report itself for the courts are (i) required to go through all material and (ii) do a surface analysis of the material to see if the charge of terror is even made out.  The Judgment in Watali had been read and interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India to mean that the allegations in the Final Report and the statements had to be read as they are.  That interpretation is completely flawed for the reason that if that were so, where is the need for the Judiciary?  In fact Watali itself says, the material should ‘good and sufficient on the face of it’ such a finding would require some analysis of the material on record.    Despite these  Judgments in Ranjitsing, Shoma, Vernon and Kedia, Umar Khalid’s bail at every stage has simply been rejected only on the basis of the prosecution’s say so with absolutely no application of mind.  It is interesting that Justice Mridul has granted bail to Devangana, Natasha and Asif and in the same chargesheet with lesser allegations and lack of even presence has denied bail to Umar Khalid

In the case of Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, the Delhi High Court has heard arguments multiple times since mid-2022 but has withheld orders. The reasoning is neither public nor transparent. At times, it has appeared that judicial reassignment, rather than doctrinal difficulty, is to blame.

Even when Justice Siddharth Mridul’s bench heard and reserved judgment on some of these bail applications, his transfer derailed the outcome. Despite re-hearings, no decisions have been delivered. Judges who completed hearings have either been reassigned or replaced, returning the pleas to procedural limbo.

UAPA, delay and the punishment of process

Perhaps the most profound tension between bail jurisprudence and the structure of UAPA is the conceptual separation between trial delay and the statutory bar on bail. The prosecution consistently argues that the material is complex, the conspiracy vast, and the trial long. Yet, they simultaneously resist bail even when the accused have been in custody for four to five years.

In Siddique Kappan v. State (2022 Supreme Court), the courts reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial may violate Article 21, and bail cannot be refused merely on the ground that the UAPA bar exists. Still, the use of these cases remains sporadic.

In theory, Section 436A CrPC allows bail for undertrial prisoners who have undergone half of the maximum sentence (in non-capital offences). But UAPA offences often carry life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, making the threshold meaningless in practice.

The absence of time-bound charge framing, combined with the absence of mandatory periodic bail reviews, transforms UAPA into a tool of preventive detention without having to declare it as such.

Some other judgements in which the Supreme Court has, under UAPA, granted bail, may be read here. On April 6, 2024, the court reversed an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to grant academic Shoma Sen bail. Sen had argued that her prolonged detention since 2018 (six years) lacked prima facie evidence under UAPA and had also highlighted her advanced age and health issues. Though the bail conditions were stringent, the apex court, emphasised the necessity of prima facie evidence under Section 43D (5) of UAPA and underscored the importance of constitutional safeguards against prolonged pre-trial detention. Several judgements have been cited by the Supreme Court in support of its reasoning.

The path forward

What emerges from this study is a judiciary that is simultaneously constrained by precedent and unwilling to revise it. Despite Supreme Court signals in Vernon Gonsalves, Najeeb, and Kalita, many courts persist with the Watali-era conservatism.

To break the impasse:

1. Trial courts must critically evaluate “prima facie truth.” If the material is tenuous or contradictory, Watali must not apply. A “surface-level assessment” should become a routine part of bail hearings.
2. High Courts should expedite decisions in long-pending bail pleas. That some pleas are heard for 70 sessions without an order erodes public confidence in judicial efficacy.
3. Legislative reform may be necessary. A statutory amendment mandating bail review after two years in UAPA cases (much like TADA’s sunset clause) should be considered.
4. Judicial continuity should be prioritised. If a bench hears a bail application in full, it should be obligated to deliver an order, or the matter must be reassigned immediately with transcripts provided.

The evolution of UAPA bail jurisprudence is not merely a matter of law, it is a record of how fear, caution, and institutional deference have increasingly replaced scrutiny and principle. When a court does not rule for two years on a bail plea already argued in full, it is not the law that is failing, but the infrastructure around it.

In cases like FIR 59/2020, the punishment is the process. With trials yet to start, charges unframed, and pleas unheard, the UAPA becomes a penal sentence administered without conviction.

The law may say prima facie, but the effect is indefinite detention dressed in the robes of legality. A system that is so allergic to finality may well ask whether it is in the business of justice, or of deferral.

Image Courtesy: Burned shops in North East Delhi. Photo: Banswalhemant / Wikimedia Commons

Related:

UAPA: Delhi HC denies bail, Umar Khalid’s Incarceration to Continue

4 years onward, activist Gulfisha Fatima remains behind bars

[1] The Citizens Commission of Inquiry commented upon the unbalanced (read biased) non-application of provisions of the Indian penal Code (IPC) against powerful hate offenders on the one hand (these include the notorious Kapil Mishra, Ragini Tiwari and Yati Narsinghanand among others) and failure to prosecute was matched by the unfair and selective application of the dreaded UA(P)A against young protesters, concludes the report. The absence of setting up of an independent Commission of Inquiry has also been commented upon. The report that may be read here was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court (chairperson); Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts and former Chairman, Law Commission; Justice R.S. Sodhi, former Judge of the Delhi High Court; Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge of the Patna High Court; and G.K. Pillai, IAS (Retd.), former Home Secretary, Government of India.

[2] The judge had also observed that Khalid’s bail plea had been earlier rejected by the Sessions Court and his appeal against the order was further dismissed by the Delhi High Court as the latter found the case against the accused prima facie true. Notably, Umar Khalid had filed second bail plea with the Sessions Court after he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court citing “change in circumstances” to try  his “luck” in trial court. Pertinent, before Khalid withdrew his bail petition from the SC, the case had already witnessed 14 adjournments. Earlier, the Session Court had rejected his first bail application on March 24, 2022, following which he moved to the Delhi High Court, which again rejected his appeal on October 18, 2022. As the Sessions Court rejects his latest bail petition on 28 May, Khalid continues to remain in jail for more than three and half years (this period is now close to five years!) even as some of the co-accused in the case have secured bail, including Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal. Khalid’s counsel pointed out this fact and argued that his client should be granted bail on parity, but the court rejected his arguments.

The post How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The struggle reached a new inflection point on July 4, 2025, when representatives of the Anti-Land Acquisition Struggle Committee and allied platforms met with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who sought 10 more days to find a “legal pathway” to undo the final land acquisition notification issued in April 2025. 

The next meeting, slated for July 15, is widely viewed as a deadline for the state government to keep its word or brace for a massive escalation of protests across Karnataka.

The land at the heart of the storm

The land in question is not barren. The Deccan Herald report provides that the said land is fertile, multi-cropped, and irrigated, producing grains, vegetables, fruits, flowers, silk, and milk for nearby Bengaluru’s food markets. According to the report of The Hindu, for farmers like Jagadish of Polanahalli, who lost 2 acres in an earlier phase, this land is not just property—it is memory, meaning, and sustenance. Today, he works as a farm labourer on what used to be his own farm. “Now they want to take the remaining 1.5 acres. I would rather die than lose this again,” he said while speaking to The Hindu.

This sentiment is echoed throughout the 13 villages. Over 95% of families have rejected the acquisition, citing not only the emotional and economic cost but also the legal violations involved in their open letter to CM, sent on June 24, 2025). According to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, consent from 70–80% of landowners is mandatory for such acquisitions. Surveys indicate that more than 80% of affected farmers have not consented, as per Deccan Herald.

According to the report of New Indian Express, farmers also allege that of the 1,282 acres acquired in an earlier phase, much of the land has either remained unused or been diverted to private builders and educational institutions like Brigade Builders (73 acres), Chanakya University (116 acres), and IFFCO Nano Urea (13 acres).

Broken promises and state betrayals

In September 2022, then-Leader of Opposition Siddaramaiah stood with these very farmers at Freedom Park, beside a symbolic peepal sapling, and promised to cancel the land acquisition if the Congress came to power. As per the report of Deccan Herald, that plant was brought back to Channarayapatna and rooted in village soil—a living reminder of that assurance.

But in April 2025, the Congress-led government issued the final notification, effectively greenlighting the acquisition. The backlash was swift. On June 25, thousands marched in a ‘Devanahalli Chalo’ rally. The police responded with brutality—beating, detaining, and harassing protesters. Shockingly, the crackdown occurred on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency.

The Indian Express’ report highlighted the plight of 1omen like Yangtamma, who spent ₹8–9 lakh to plant pomegranates on her 5.5-acre farm, now fear their life’s work will be bulldozed. “The government calls this development. I call it destruction,” she said, while speaking to media. 

“This Land is Our Life”: The protesters speak

At the heart of the movement is a moral and existential cry: “This land is our life. Without it, we are nothing.”

Raghu M, who grows sandalwood on 10 acres, says his parents’ samadhi lies on that land. “If it is taken, I will die by suicide next to it,” he told Indian Express. Gopinath A.S., another protester, explained how he was denied a borewell NOC because of the acquisition plan. “If we lose this land, we’ll end up as gatekeepers and gardeners in those factories. We know nothing else,” he added, as per the IE report.

Jagadish, who lost land in 2018, received ₹80 lakh, two years late, after paying 25% in bribes. Now he cannot afford a plot in his own village, the report of The Hindu highlights. 

Despite being offered exclusion from acquisition, farmers from three spared villages continue to protest in solidarity. “Until all 13 villages are dropped, we fight together,” said Lakshmamma from Nallapanahalli told Indian Express.

Legal violations and socio-economic threats

Experts and activists have pointed that the acquisition violates the Karnataka SC/ST Land Transfer Prohibition Act, 1978, since over 160 SC/ST families, many of them land grantees, stand to be rendered landless as per the Deccan Herald. Of 800 affected families, 387 will lose their only landholding.

Food security is also at stake. Farmers warn that Devanahalli supplies vegetables, dairy, and flowers to Bengaluru. Already, milk output in Mattabaralu has halved following earlier land losses, as reported by The Hindu.

Solidarity: A growing people’s alliance

This movement now receives a wide web of solidarity. On July 1, the Karnataka Muslim Muttahida Mahaz (KMMM) marched to Freedom Park. Convenor Masood Abdul Qadir declared the struggle “legitimate and morally binding,” reminding the Congress to uphold its promises to farmers, Dalits, and minorities, as per Clarion India.

Top Muslim clerics and scholars joined hands with farmer leaders from across Karnataka, forming an unprecedented inter-community front for land justice. “This is not just about soil. It’s about dignity,” said Muhammad Yusuf Kani of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind to Clarion India.

Meanwhile, over 30 public intellectuals, including Ramachandra Guha, Madhura Swaminathan, and T.N. Prakash Kammarad, issued an open letter to Bengaluru’s corporate and tech leaders, demanding they speak out, according to The Hindu report. The letter also cited CAG Audit Report No. 8 of 2017, which had flagged irregularities in KIADB land dealings.

Countdown to July 15: Decision or conflagration?

The Struggle Committee, following the July 4 meeting, agreed to wait until July 15 for a final response. But the warning is clear: if the government fails to cancel the notification, the agitation will intensify across the state, possibly with Samyukta Kisan Morcha’s national support, their Joint Statement provided.

On July 9, the farmers’ demand will be included in the nationwide workers’ strike, linking agrarian justice with labour rights.

In the meantime, awareness campaigns, village meetings, and signboards reading “Our Land, Our Right” will be installed across Channarayapatna hobli, according to the said join statement released by them.

Beyond Devanahalli: A national reckoning

The Devanahalli struggle forces us to ask: Who benefits from development? And who pays its price?

“This movement is different,” said activist Mallige, while speaking with Deccan Herald, adding that “It speaks not of land prices but of land preservation, one that holds farming as dignity and future”.

In its endurance, its unity, and its moral clarity, the Devanahalli movement has become a mirror to India’s growth model- one that too often replaces food security with concrete and memory with profit.

The farmers are clear: “We are not giving up. This land is not for sale. This land is life.”

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

Right-wing outfits and NCP MLA’s protest led to dismissal of 114 Muslim workers at Shani Shingnapur temple in Maharashtra

TN: Sugarcane Farmers Protest, Demand Better FRP, Reintroduction of SAP

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

The post Development or dispossession? 1,188 days of defiance against forced land acquisition in Devanahalli, Karnataka appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, four years after he physically left this earth, what does Stan Swamy mean to the legion of his admirers, his followers, those who were inspired by him and particularly, those for whom he gave his life for…He meant and continues to mean different things, to different sections of society. Stan epitomised human values at their best and radiated them in his non-negotiable commitment for a more just, equitable, fraternal and humane world!

One needs to take a cue from Stan Swamy’s words just before his arrest on October 8, 2020. In a video-message which went viral he said, “over the last two decades, I have identified myself with the Adivasi people and their struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect… In this process, I have clearly expressed my dissent over several policies and laws enacted by the government in the light of the Indian Constitution. I have questioned the validity, legality and justness of several steps taken by the government and the ruling class. If this makes me a ‘deshdrohi’, then so be it. We are part of the process. In a way I am happy to be part of this process. I am not a silent spectator, but part of the game and ready to pay the price whatever be it…. I/we must be ready to face the consequences. I would just add that what is happening to me is not unique. Many activists, lawyers, writers, journalists, student leaders, poets, intellectuals and others who stand for the rights of Adivasis, Dalits and the marginalised and express their dissent to the ruling powers of the country, are being targeted. Grateful to all who have stood in solidarity with me all these years.”

These words give us a very powerful insight into Stan Swamy – the Person, the Pilgrim, the Prophet

Stan, the Person:

One would need to write volumes on Stan the person. He was a human par excellence! All through his life he radiated compassion and concern for the other! He was selfless to the core! His focus was always ‘his people’; an approach which was people-centric: a much-needed value in today’s world! He lived among the people – the poor, the Adivasis. He ate their food, sang their songs and danced with them. His life was extremely simple, to the point of frugality! He lived his vow of poverty to the fullest and in a most edifying manner; his material needs were few; his actual possessions were even less. The media had a field day, when the ‘authorities’ came to ‘seize’ his possessions from his room in Bagaicha where he lived till his arrest! They got almost nothing- which of course, made them a pathetic laughing stock! In his early days, Stan was a trainer, mentor, guide – inspiring hundreds of youth and others through social awareness programmes and to critically analyse what was happening in society; there are many today, from across the board, who are and will always be grateful for the profound impact he left on their lives. Several of them today have a social concern only because they were inspired by him. For Stan, his heroes and motivators were the likes of Paolo Freire, Dom Helder Camara and Fr Pedro Arrupe. He read profusely and also wrote a lot.  Vatican II and the faith -justice mandate which emerged from the 32^nd General Congregation of the Jesuits, greatly shaped Stan’s way of proceeding: his thinking and his actions. Like Jesus his Master, he questioned and taught others to question, to be visible and vocal, to challenge all that is wrong and unjust in society and to respond constructively and positively to these issues. When he was imprisoned in Taloja jail, he wrote, “on the other hand, we sixteen co-accused (in the Bhima-Koregaon conspiracy case) have not been able to meet each other, as we are lodged in different jails or different ‘circles’ within the same jail but we will still sing in chorus, a caged bird can still sing.” Yes, Fr Stan Swamy was convinced that a caged bird could sing because he was a complete person who epitomised and radiated the best of human values! One rarely, sees such a person today!

Stan, the Pilgrim:

Pilgrims are those who walk, who walk with others, who walk the talk- they have a clear focus on their destination. They know where they are going and for what. Like St. Ignatius (the Founder of the Society of Jesus, Stan was a Jesuit)), he was a pilgrim in the true sense of the word. He believed in movements: people on the move, just like in the Biblical ‘Exodus’: the struggles of the ‘people of God’ for a more just, equitable, dignified and humane life.  He identified himself with and participated in peoples’ movements. Stan left no stone unturned to ensure the Kingdom of God on earth belonged to all (particularly the sub-alterns) and that all would be together around the table of fellowship. For him that ‘kingdom’ was ‘kinship’- the readiness (attitude and action) to serve others with love! ‘Fratelli Tutti’ (Brothers and Sisters All) as Pope Francis reminds us in his Encyclical. Like a true pilgrim, he lived a frugal life, unencumbered with baggage. His room in Bagaicha (now made into a Stan Memorial Museum), had the barest necessities; it bore witness to the life of a man on the move – a real pilgrim. Stan did all he could to empower the Adivasis. He accompanied them in their struggles and showed them the way to a better future! Stan’s life as a pilgrim should be a motivating factor today for all to get out of one’s comfort zones, institutionalised lifestyles and cosmetic band-aid approaches, which reek of tokenism and opportunism, and to be attune to the grim realities which the ordinary, poor people face today! In a world which is divided and fragmented Stan is a beacon: a pilgrim of hope! 

Stan, the Prophet:

A prophet whilst announcing the good news, must denounce all that is wrong, unjust and evil in society. One needs to take an unequivocal stand; to be visible and vocal. Stan, as an authentic disciple of Jesus, truly feared no one! He also shunned the hypocrites! He joined the Adivasis, the Dalits, other sub-alterns and civil society members, in the struggles against the violation of laws in acquiring land for mega projects for mining (coal mining is rampant in Jharkhand and in other tribal areas today) and infrastructural development which flout the rights of the downtrodden and tribals. He took a stand against the wanton destruction of the ‘jal, jungle, jameen’ of the Adivasis. He consistently raised his voice in democratic, legitimate ways against the state-sponsored violations of laws and the assault on the democratic rights of people, aimed at paving way for unrestricted exploitation of land and natural resources. He questioned the non-implementation of the 5th Schedule of the Constitution why the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act [PESA], was being ignored. He strongly expressed his disappointment at the silence of the Government on the landmark 1997 Samantha Judgment of the Supreme Court; he spoke out strongly against the half-hearted action of the Government on the ‘Forest Rights Act, 2006’. He expressed his apprehensions at the Amendment to ‘Land Acquisition Act 2013’ by the Jharkhand government which was a death-knell for the Adivasi Community. He strongly disagreed with the setting up of ‘Land Banks’ which he saw as a calculated plot to annihilate the Adivasis. Through the ‘Persecuted Prisoners’ Solidarity Committee’ he challenged the indiscriminate arrest of three thousand young Adivasis under the label of ‘naxals’ just because they questioned and resisted unjust land-alienation and displacement. Because of all this and more he made enemies- from among the powerful and vested interests; those who felt that he was a thorn in their flesh. He minced no words when he challenged his own, to stop over-institutionalisation, to stop catering to the privileged and elite sections of society (who have plenty of other possibilities and opportunities) and above all, to get out of the safety and security of one’s comfort zone! He was a visionary who took prophetic stands! He once said, “the Government calls me a ‘deshdrohi’ for defending the rights of the Adivasis. So be it!” Stan was a prophet of and for our times. He radiated an unparalleled prophetic courage and ultimately, like all genuine prophets, he too paid the ultimate, supreme price of being one!

There is a bust of Fr Stan Swamy in the garden of the Bagaicha, the Centre which he started in Ranchi. Etched on a marble stone just below this bust, are his incisive and immortal words, “why truth has become so bitter, dissent so intolerable, justice so out of reach… Yet truth must be spoken, right to dissent must be upheld and justice much reach the doorsteps of the poor. I am not a silent spectator!”  Stan Swamy was indeed a martyr for justice, a pilgrim of hope and a prophet for our times. As we pay tribute to and try to emulate Stan Swamy; the person, the pilgrim and prophet – the only way we can genuinely do so, is by not being silent spectators to the terrible realities, the crimes against humanity, which have engulfed our people and many of us, today!

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer; cedricprakash@gmail.com )

Related:

Fr. Stan Swamy’s legacy lives forever!

Jailed Father Stan Swamy dies ahead of his bail hearing

Fr Stan Swamy’s institutional murder

The post Fr. Stan Swamy SJ: Person, Pilgrim, Prophet appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On this occasion the Union Cabinet passed a resolution condemning that period and praising those who sacrificed opposing this event. It was resolved to “commemorate and honour the sacrifices of countless individuals who valiantly resisted the Emergency and its attempt at subversion of the spirit of Indian Constitution, a subversion which began in 1974 with a heavy-handed attempt at crushing the Navnirman Andolan and Sampoorna Kranti Abhiyan.” The BJP is putting heavy emphasis on its great role during the 21 months of that period. This matches with the claims of RSS that it was they who were the major force opposing the emergency. Like most of the outfit’s other claims this one is also devoid of any element of truth.

Some work in independent media tells a different tale. Prabhash Joshi, one of the doyens of journalism wrote, “Balasaheb Deoras, then RSS chief, wrote a letter to Indira Gandhi pledging to help implement the notorious 20-point program of Sanjay Gandhi. This is the real character of the RSS…You can decipher a line of action, a pattern. Even during the Emergency, many among the RSS and Jana Sangh who came out of the jails gave mafinamas (mercy petition). They were the first to apologise… Atal Bihari Vajpayee was [most of the time in hospital]… But the RSS did not fight the Emergency. So why is the BJP trying to appropriate that memory?” He concludes that “they are not a fighting force, and they are never keen to fight. They are basically a compromising lot. They are never genuinely against the government”.

TV Rajeswar, who served as Governor of Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim penned a book, ‘India: The Crucial Years” [Harper Collins] corroborated the fact that “Not only they (RSS) were supportive of this [Emergency], they wanted to establish contact apart from Mrs. Gandhi, with Sanjay Gandhi also”.

While many socialists and communists were undergoing the prison sentence, the RSS cadres were restless to get released from jail. Subramanian Swami of BJP in an article in The Hindu narrated the emergency story. (June 13, 2000) he claimed that RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras and former Prime Minister AB Vajpayee betrayed the anti-Emergency movement by writing letters of apology to India Gandhi. “It is on the record in the Maharashtra Assembly proceedings that the then RSS chief, Balasaheb Deoras, wrote several apology letters to Indira Gandhi from inside the Yerawada jail in Pune disassociating the RSS from the JP-led movement and offering to work for the infamous 20-point program. She did not reply to any of his letters.” (The 20-point program and Sanjay Gandhi’s five-point are cited by the Congress regime to justify the imposition of the Emergency, in its endeavour to Regenerate India).

One of my friends, Dr. Suresh Khairnar, ex-President of the Rashtriya Seva Dal was also in jail during this time. When he saw the RSS cadres signing the mafinama (mercy petition), he was furious at this act of betrayal and confronted them. As per their style they said what they are doing is as per the path which was taken by Tatyarao (V D Savarkar). So true of the strategies of the Hindu nationalists!

One also remembers that when A.B.Vajpayee was arrested in Bateshwar near Agra while overlooking the procession participating in Jungle Satyagraha, which pulled down the Union Jack from the government building and hoisted tricolor. Vajpayee immediately wrote a letter and disassociated from the 1942 Quit India Movement. He got his release immediately. The followers of this ideology have been well characterized by Prabhash Joshi above.

While the verbal aggressive language of theirs is so loud, their practice is different. When Vajpayee led the NDA Government in 1998, human rights activists did feel the difference. Until then, several committed human rights workers had regarded Congress and BJP as two sides of the same coin. The Vajpayee’s period, however, opened the eyes of many to the fact that BJP is a party with a difference. That was despite the fact that BJP on its own did not have the full majority that time.

Now Modi has been in the saddle for nearly eleven years. In 2014 and 2019 he got full majority. And with this full majority; the true colours of their credentials are loudly apparent. While the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi followed a laid down procedure in the Constitution, however manipulated, what we are now witnessing an ‘undeclared emergency’. In 2015, in an interview with Shekhar Gupta of Indian Express, none other than Lal Krishna Advani said, “Today it has been 40 years since the declaration of Emergency at that time. But for the last one year, an undeclared Emergency has been going on in India. (‘Indian Express’ dated 26-27 June 2015.)

Freedom of expression has been totally muzzled. Many have been imprisoned for daring to speak the truth.  Freedom of religion is going for a freefall. Justice is being overtaken by bulldozer justice. The intimidation and torture of minorities on the pretext of love jihad, cow-beef is abominable. Many eminent social activists have been put behind the bars in the Bhima Koregaon case. Muslim activists like Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima are incarcerated even though their cases are not coming up for hearing. Corporate controlled media is ever ready to plead for the government’s policies and suppress the dissenting voices.

While the Union Cabinet and RSS and other linked organisations are taking all the credit for resisting the emergency of 1975, the present regime has been imposing the same by other means. The index of democracy on the global scale is constantly on the decline. There is a need to introspect and overcome the undeclared emergency which India is undergoing at present.

Related:

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

How RSS betrayed the struggle against the Emergency, from its archives

RSS as worshippers of brute power did not oppose 1975 Emergency

The post Emergency regime and the role of RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Historical Frame: Contesting sacred space

Sambhal is a Muslim-majority town (approx. 77.6%) in western Uttar Pradesh with historical and architectural significance. Sambhal is home to the Shahi Jama Masjid, one of only two surviving mosques built during Babur’s reign, with the other being in Panipat. The mosque stands as a rare surviving monument from the early Mughal era.  The town also holds significance in Hindu belief as the prophesied birthplace of Lord Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu. While the mosque is a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), right-wing groups claim it was built on the ruins of the “Hari Har Mandir”, allegedly demolished during the Mughal era. These claims rely on discredited 19th-century colonial accounts, particularly by ACL Carlleyle, whose report was rejected by the then ASI Director General, Sir Alexander Cunningham.

This confluence of history and myth set the stage for conflict, especially in a town that was once a stronghold of anti-CAA protests and continues to elect Muslim representatives like MP Zia Ur Rahman Barq, whose family has long resisted the majoritarian politics of the ruling party. Over the past few years, this mythical narrative has been aggressively revived. Mahant Rishiraj Giri, a petitioner in the present dispute, has said he wanted to file a case even before the Babri suit. The town has already been declared a potential “Kalki Dham” by BJP leaders, and PM Modi laid the foundation of a Kalki temple in 2024.

November 2024: A timeline of escalation

• November 19: A civil suit by eight petitioners is filed alleging the mosque was once a temple. Within hours, by 3:30 pm, the Sambhal civil court grants permission for a survey, waives the notice requirement, and appoints an advocate commissioner. By 7:00 pm, the survey was underway. The mosque committee was neither notified nor given a chance to be heard.
• November 22: Friday prayers occur under heavy police presence.
• November 23: Authorities begin preventive detention under Section 107/116 of the CrPC; 34 persons, including the father of MP Zia Ur Rahman Barq, are bound by peace bonds up to ₹10 lakh.
• November 24: A second survey is conducted without fresh court orders. Police are accompanied by PAC, RAF, and officials from multiple districts. This time, a video went viral showing members of the survey team chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, and a rumour spread that the mosque was being excavated. The ablution tank was drained, and water was seen seeping from the structure, fueling panic. A protest breaks out. Police respond with tear gas, lathis, and gunfire. Five Muslim men are killed.

Police Firing: Lethal force, denials, and eyewitnesses

According to Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, the protest on November 24 was peaceful until CO Anuj Chaudhary responded to concerns with verbal abuse and an unprovoked lathi charge. he police, led by CO Anuj Chaudhary, responded with verbal abuse, a lathi charge, and then tear gas. As people began to flee, the police escalated, firing live ammunition.Tear gas followed, and then live rounds were fired. The crowd began to disperse, but police pursued them into lanes and homes. Eyewitnesses reported police using slurs, destroying property, and shooting indiscriminately.

Five Muslim men were killed, including a minor:

• Kamran (17), shot in the chest.
• Nasir, Abbas, Basim, and Nabeel—each with fatal injuries, many allegedly from police bullets.

Videos circulated showing police shouting “Goli chalao” (fire the gun), pelting stones, and dragging minors. Authorities denied using firearms but later admitted to firing “warning shots”. Zafar Ali, who openly accused the police, was detained and later arrested under serious charges.

Authorities claimed the protesters were armed and that police only fired in retaliation. Yet, no police injuries or gunshot wounds from “desi kattas” were documented. The families dispute the claim of crossfire and assert that their relatives were unarmed and shot from the front. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Suppression of victim families and testimonies

The families of the deceased report:

• Denial of postmortem reports.
• Being forced to sign blank papers or coerced to remove references to police in their complaints.
• Rapid burials under police pressure.
• Heavy surveillance at their homes, making it difficult to speak to outsiders or pursue legal recourse.

For example, Kamran’s family was called to identify his body, made to give thumbprints on documents, and forced to bury him amid a police convoy. Nasir’s mother said she saw two bullet wounds but received no documentation. Basim, before dying, told his family he was shot by police. The police allegedly forced them to rewrite their complaint, removing the word “police”.

The Legal Offences: Violating due process and the law

As per the report, the lower court’s order violated:

• Section 80(2) CPC: No genuine urgency justified bypassing notice to the mosque committee.
• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: This law bars alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947.
• Article 26 of the Constitution: Grants religious denominations autonomy over their places of worship.

Despite these clear violations, the Allahabad High Court later upheld the survey, and referred to the mosque as an “alleged masjid” even in a whitewashing plea. The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings but failed to undo the communal spectacle that the survey facilitated. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Myth-Making: Temple discoveries and state rituals

Shortly after the violence, local officials claimed to “discover” a hidden temple near the Shahi Jama Masjid. The structure was cleaned and declared sacred. District officials performed worship ceremonies, and a priest claimed the idol “smiled”. This triggered a wave of temple “discoveries”, 24 sites were surveyed by the ASI within weeks. Carbon dating was announced, and claims emerged that 56 temples and 19 sacred wells had been hidden by Muslims.

The government launched a spiritual tourism project titled “Kalki Nagri.” Plans were made to develop 87 religious sites and a 24-Kosi Parikrama Marg. Authorities, priests, and right-wing figures declared temple idols had been “discovered” at sites like wells and drains. In some cases, idols were immediately installed and worshipped. The state began institutionalising the narrative that Sambhal is a Hindu holy site under siege.

Muslim residents refuted these claims, saying these were existing sites in disrepair. As per the report, a local lawyer remarked: “They are digging up new temples every day. We fear they will come into our homes and dig one up there too.”

A new police chowki named “Satyavrat Chowki” was built outside the Shahi Jama Masjid using stones from the protest site. The chowki was inaugurated with Hindu rituals, including a havan and shlokas etched on its walls

Administrative Reprisals: Raids, Demolitions, and Surveillance

In the weeks after the firing:

• Mass detentions occurred. 83 people, including minors and Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, were jailed. Over 160 bail pleas have been rejected. (Detailed report may be read here.)
• Zafar Ali, who publicly stated he saw police firing, was arrested on March 23, just before he was scheduled to testify before a judicial commission. He had not been named in any FIR prior. His arrest included disproportionate BNS charges, including those carrying life imprisonment or death penalty. Dormant cases from 2018 and 2021 were suddenly revived against him.
• Police launched electricity theft drives: 1440 cases were registered, mostly against Muslims, including 16 mosques and two madrasas. A total fine of ₹11 crores was imposed. MP Barq alone was fined ₹1.91 crores (Detailed report may be read here.)
• Encroachment demolitions began in Muslim areas. Some residents pre-emptively dismantled their own homes.
• The Janeta Sharif Dargah, previously a site of interfaith worship, was marked for probe, its clinic shut down, and its fair cancelled.
• Loudspeakers were removed from mosques.
• Police built a new outpost, engraved with Hindu shlokas, using stones allegedly “thrown by Muslims” on November 24.
• The administration questioned the Dargah’s Waqf status, and its land was bulldozed. This marked the first major Waqf land crackdown since the 2024 Amendment Act. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Surveillance and silencing of victims

Families of victims report constant police surveillance. The report recorded one mother stating that “They sit outside our house 24×7. You are lucky you met us while they were away.”

Many families, like those of Nasir, Abbas, and Nadia, reported being beaten, having property vandalised, and facing threats if they spoke to media or filed complaints. The DVRs of CCTV footage were seized. Police broke into homes and slapped women, dragged children, and refused to register complaints.

Constructing a new narrative: From victims to villains

The state and media spun a narrative portraying Muslims as aggressors:

• UP CM Adityanath claimed Muslims had turned mosques into “mini power stations”.
• He invoked a fabricated figure of 168 Hindu deaths in the 1978 Sambhal riots to justify crackdowns.
• Posters branding Muslims as “pathharbaaz” (stone pelters) were plastered across the town.
• The Kalki Dev Tirth Samiti was instituted to develop “religious tourism”, with 87 sites being prepared for Hindu pilgrimage.

The result is a manufactured transformation of Sambhal from a Muslim-majority town to a contested Hindu religious centre, without public debate, evidence, or consent.

Legal recommendations and civil society appeals

The report calls for:

• Independent investigation into police killings and torture.
• Immediate release of detainees without proper FIRs.
• Enforcement of the Places of Worship Act in both letter and spirit.
• Rebuilding trust through compensation and an end to bulldozer demolitions.
• Holding judicial commissions accountable for bias.
• A nationwide civil society campaign to reject communal myth-making and support Sambhal’s residents.

Conclusion: Sambhal as a “Template”

The report ends on a haunting note:

“Ultimately, the situation in Sambhal is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of narrative construction that seeks to redefine the Muslim community as a problem to be managed rather than a population deserving of rights and protection. As such, it calls for a reevaluation of how narratives are formed, disseminated, and challenged in the pursuit of justice and communal harmony, alongside a robust resistance to the forces that seek to communalize and polarize Indian society.”

Sambhal, the authors of the report warn, is not an aberration, rather it is a preview. If unchallenged, the Sambhal model will become the blueprint for future communal engineering. The report is a call to document, resist, and refuse—to protect the republic from turning against its own.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

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

Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

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

The post “Sambhal: Anatomy of an Engineered Crisis”- How a peaceful Muslim-majority town was turned into a site of manufactured communal conflict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In their detailed communication, they raise five crucial points:

1. Statements made by the Minister of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change himself which hold the implementation, such as it is, of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 responsible for degradation and loss of prime forest areas.
2. ⁠Continued submission of legally untenable data on encroachment of forest areas to Parliamentary forums as well to the National Green Tribunal.
3. ⁠Orders issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority in June 2024 for the eviction of almost 65,000 families from tiger reserves across the country.
4. ⁠The mis-attribution by the Forest Survey of India for the loss of forest cover over the last decade to the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
5. ⁠The 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 that were bulldozed through Parliament and the subsequent Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Rules, 2023 that adversely impact both the quantity and quality of forests.

All these issues are of critical significance especially to tribal and other communities residing and earning their livelihoods in forest areas. They are also of fundamental importance to ecological security. The track record of the present Modi Govt –now in its third term–does not inspire the confidence that these issues will even get discussed and debated with those who have been compelled to bring the PM’s attention to them.

Elaborating these, the letter states that the statement of the Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav dated June 5.2025, “is part of a consistent series of subversions by the MoEFCC. As a result, FRA implementation has been dragging on stiffly resisted and disrupted by the forest bureaucracy as well as the environment ministry, for the last 16 years.”

On June 5.2025, the Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav answering a question on loss of forest and its degradation in a recent media interview reportedly stated, “Although there is a net increase in dense forests in the country, there are areas where the dense prime forests have been affected with degradation. This may be due to encroachment, illicit felling and in northeast region, due to shifting cultivation. And to a lesser degree, due to unregulated grazing, natural causes like storms and landslides, and also titles given under Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. This may be addressed by taking up stringent protection measures added with effective community involvement, and also by regulating shifting cultivation in case of north-eastern region.”

The Minster’s response attributing the loss of forest to FRA titles given to Adivasi and forest dwellers has no legal basis and evidence, says the joint communication, and is “highly irresponsible and misleading.” Further the writers state that, tThe statement is contrary to the fact that the MoEFCC in 2009 itself, in its own country report to the FAO stated that FRA ‘assigned rights to protect around 40 million hectares of community forest resources to village level democratic institutions. The fine tuning of other forest-related legislations is needed with respect to the said Act.’ While blaming FRA, the Adivasi and other forest rights holders, the Minister conveniently overlooks the fact that the MoEFCC itself allowed the illegal diversion of more than 3 lakh hectares of forest since 2008 for non-forest activities denuding forests, without complying with FRA. This contradicts both the minister’s statement and the MoEFCC’s approach.

The rest of the communication is extracted here:

2.  MOEFCC continues to submit legally untenable data on encroachment in Parliamentary forums and the NGT

On March 28, 2025, the environment ministry submitted on affidavit to National Green Tribunal (NGT) that 1.3 million hectares (13,05,688.387 ha or 13,056 sq. km) of forest land is ‘under encroachment’ as of March 2024. This affidavit was filed in compliance to the NGT order of April 19, 2024, in OA No.129/2024, and covers data from 20 states and 5 Union Territories (UTs); data from remaining states and UTs was awaited. Of this, at least 50,977.99 ha of “encroachments” have been allegedly removed. The aforementioned case registered suo moto by NGT in reference to a Deccan Herald news item of 05.01.2024, titled Forest land five times Delhi’s geographical area under encroachment govt data shows referred to 0.75 million hectares (7,50,633 ha) forest area under ‘encroachment’.

The MoEFCC has been repeatedly reporting such false data on ‘encroachment’ in both the houses of the Parliament too. In May 2002, the figure stood at 1.4 million hectares (14,95,746.732 ha). A decade later in 2021, the figure was 1.3 million (13,29,450.2 ha).

The Ministry makes no reference to the Forest rights Act or its statutory body the Gram Sabhas. On 03.02.2025, responding to a question on the forest encroachment, the Minister of State of MoEFCC said that, “The Protection and management of forests is primarily the responsibility of the concerned State Government/UT Administration and this Ministry issues advisories to State Governments/UT Administrations to remove encroachments on forest lands as per the provisions of the law.” Again, on 1.08.2022, the Environment Minister responding to the Lok Sabha Question No. 218 on forest encroachment stated that “the Ministry has written to State Governments/UT Administrations to remove encroachment as per the existing Acts/Rules and to ensure that no further encroachment takes place. In order to prevent and control encroachments, the States and UTs also take various measures such as demarcation and digitization of forest boundaries, strengthening infrastructure for forest protection, involving fringe area forest communities through Joint Forest Management Committees, Eco Development Committees etc.” Besides placing legally untenable statistics on encroachments, the Ministry also ordered for the removal of these ‘alleged encroachments’ without any reference to the drastic changes in applicable laws.

As per extant law, the rights of forest dwellers that are recognised and vested by FRA are to be determined, demarcated, recognized and recorded, and only after this can the area and extent of area under actual encroachment can even be determined. Only thereafter can the process of eviction be initiated under the State laws. FRA prohibits eviction under Sec.4(5) without the satisfactory completion of FRA process. Further, the Supreme Court order of 28 Feb 2019, in Wildlife First and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors_, WP(C) 109/2008, etc. has kept on hold the eviction and requires a review of all rejected claims. Thus, any eviction of “encroachers” after 28 February 2019 is a violation of the Supreme Court order and amounts to contempt of court. This reveals the duplicity of the ruling government, who in 2019 informs the Supreme Court that the process of recognizing and determining rights in forests is incomplete and plagued by illegalities, and then later states to NGT legally untenable figures for “encroachment” and undertakes eviction of forest dwellers.

The MOEFCC should have apprised the Parliamentary forums and courts on all these legalities. Instead of doing so, it is deliberately misleading the NGT, the Court and deceiving the forest dwellers and Adivasis of the country.

3.  NTCA order dated June 19, 2024 directing eviction of 64,801 families from tiger reserves of India.

National Tiger Conservation Authority, a wing of the Environment Ministry, chaired by the Union Environment Minister, on June 19, 2024, ordered the expeditious relocation of 64,801 families from tiger reserves, in complete violation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 and Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and other existing legal frameworks. Several submissions have been made to the NTCA asking for the withdrawal of this legally untenable order. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes have both apprised the NTCA about the concerns pertaining to non- recognition of forest rights in the tiger reserves, forced evictions, non-compliance of the statutory framework – yet the NTCA has not withdrawn its June 19 2024 order till date. This has aggravated the risk of displacement, forced evictions, curtailment of rights, criminalization of forest dwellers and forced them into a state of economic and social insecurity in different parts of the country. The details of the same can be referred in the rejoinder submitted to NTCA.

4.   India State of Forest Report 2023 blames FRA for forest loss with no evidence.

The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) published by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), a scientific institute under the MOEFCC is a biennial assessment of the state and status of India’s forests. The ISFR 2023 has already been called out by civil servants, conservationists and scientists for its flawed scientific methodology, inconsistent data, fluctuation in statistical reporting, promotion of ecologically damaging schemes such as the Green Credits Programme, and interventions such as replacing of natural ecosystems with plantations. (Access here) The ISFR 2023 report while citing the reasons for negative changes in forest and tree cover attributes ‘titles given to beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act 2006’ as one of the reasons (Annexure 3).

FSI, a scientific institution, cannot make such claims without substantiating their allegations with evidence or data. The statements in the FSI report are even more concerning since in 2019 it has been impleaded as a party respondent in the Wildlife First vs. Union of India case (supra) before the Supreme Court, raising apprehensions that it will raise these unscientific and absurd submissions before the court using inapplicable scientific tools as satellite imagery. The MoEFCC, its Ministers and affiliated institutions, are promoting false, malicious, legally untenable and politically sabotaging claims against FRA.

5.      Amendments in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and subverting the legitimacy of institutional authorities opposing forest diversion.

The environment ministry in 2023 amended the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 (now Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, 1980) despite vehement opposition and concerns raised by constitutional bodies such as National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and from conservationists and scientists, forest rights groups and forest dwellers’ communities. This amendment aims to facilitate ‘ease of doing business’ that adversely impacts the forest and ecological security of the country. Among other things, the amendments:

a. Nullify the definition and extent of forest that the Supreme Court established in

b. Provide exemptions to different categories of projects even within this restricted definition of

c. Does away with Central government’s role, through the Forest Advisory Committee and MoEFCC, to ensure FRA compliance as a pre-requisite for forest diversion, regarding both prior forest rights recognition and prior Gram Sabha Instead, this responsibility has been shifted to the State governments after Stage-II clearance.

d. The Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Rules, 2023 and a series of Guidelines issued by the MoEFCC in purported furtherance of these amendments have further diluted the integral role of the FRA and of forest dwelling communities in the conservation and preservation of forests in India.

In conclusion, the collective letter states that “it evidently clear that the environment ministry is least concerned with forest conservation but more inclined towards facilitating faster and easier forest diversion with scant regard for the Forest Conservation Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, in addition to the Forest Rights Act, all of which require the recognition of forest rights under FRA. FRA was enacted to undo the historical injustice committed upon the forest dwelling communities due to non-recognition of their tenure over their ancestral lands and their habitat in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India.”

“The environment ministry is duty bound to uphold the laws enacted by the Parliament, but its continued hostility towards the laws and forest dwellers in their untrammelled quest to serve commercial private interests is widely perceived as open encouragement and support to the explosion in forest degradation by the Government of India itself. The Environment Ministry’s aforementioned actions on behalf of the Government of India are in blatant disregard for all laws (IFA, FCA, WLPA, CAMPA, LARR and FRA) relegating MoTA to not exercising its institutional powers and role with regard to forest rights. This portends increased unrest that threatens forests and all its forest dwellers if not urgently contained.”

The demands articulated in the communication are:

1. Immediate halting of the MoEFCC’s attempts to subvert the Forest Rights
2. Union Environment Minster must issue a public clarification of his media statement, and immediately withdraw his legally untenable claim that Forest Rights Act results in forest degradation.
3. MoEFCC to stop spewing false, malicious, legally untenable claims against Forest Rights Act; to issue clarification on the same and to stop undue interference and overreach in the functions of MoTA and Forest Rights Act.
4. MoEFCC to immediately appraise the Supreme Court of India and NGT about the legalities pertaining to forests, forest “encroachment” and Forest Rights Act, unambiguously clarifying that encroachment and any subsequent action on it cannot be taken up till the process of implementation of FRA is completed. Necessary orders to the state Forest Departments be issued to suspend evictions until after the Gram Sabhas declare the completion of FRA implementation and after obtaining their consent.
5. MoEFCC and FSI to stop misleading government institutions, Parliament, the Judiciary by filing affidavits with legally untenable data and figures on No such data can be deduced till FRA has been implemented completely and lawfully.
6. Immediate withdrawal of the NTCA letter dated June 19, 2024 without any further delay and order complete halt on relocations from tiger reserves till NTCA has provided data on rights recognized under FRA in tiger reserves and to provide all records of due compliance with all the statutory provisions under Section 38 V of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Among the signatories are the Mahila Kisan Adivasi Manch (MAKAAM), the Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch, CPI(M), India, Akhil Bhartiya Adivasi Mahasabha (CPI), India, Gondwana Ganatantra Party, (Tuleswar Markaam- National President), Akhil Bharatiya Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti Udaipur, Rajasthan, Buffalo Back Consumers Federation, Bangalore, Bundelkhand Majdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan, Tendukheda, MP and Campaign for Survival and Dignity, Food Security Forum, Jammu and Kashmir among many others.

The communication to Prime Minister Modi has also been sent to Principal Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Prime Minister, PMO’s office, Shri Jual Oram, Union Minister of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA), Principal Secretary, Joint Secretary and Director- FRA Division of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA),  Antar Singh Arya, Chairman- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), Bhupendra Yadav, Union Minister of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and Dr. Virendra Kumar, Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment.

The entire text may be read here

The post MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to sources in The Indian Express, the operation began following a nationwide verification exercise and has seen immigrants rounded up from states as far apart as Gujarat, Delhi, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Goa. Most of them are then flown by Indian Air Force aircraft to border states such as Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam — where they are held in makeshift camps, handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF), and “pushed back” across the border into Bangladesh, often within hours.

A senior government official confirmed to The Indian Express that Gujarat initiated the first round of detentions and currently accounts for nearly half of all deportations. “All states with major economic hubs are identifying such illegal immigrants after document verification. The instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs are clear — the states are complying,” the official said, noting that the crackdown accelerated after the April Pahalgam attacks.

But the scale and method of these deportations suggest clear departures from legal norms. Under Indian law and international obligations, deportation must follow due process — including formal orders, access to legal aid, and verification by Foreigners Tribunals or equivalent mechanisms. None of this appears to be happening in these pushbacks.

The BSF, according to reports in The Hindu, has pushed back over 1,200 people from just one sector of the West Bengal-Bangladesh border. Delhi Police alone has deported at least 120 people since January, followed by Maharashtra (110), Haryana (80), Rajasthan (70), Uttar Pradesh (65), Gujarat (65), and Goa (10). Many of these individuals were transported in secrecy and denied access to legal representation.

Several were reportedly handed some Bangladeshi currency and food before being left at the border, a practice that not only flouts legal protections for non-citizens but also risks statelessness and chain deportations. Alarmingly, a significant number of people, fearing arrest, are voluntarily approaching border regions in panic, indicating the deep fear triggered by the nationwide campaign.

These coordinated actions across states, in the absence of transparent procedures, point to a disturbing trend: a pan-India, informal deportation regime operating outside the bounds of the law, with little accountability or oversight.

1. Uttar Pradesh: 90 alleged Bangladeshi Nationals detained from Mathura kilns amid state-wide deportation drive

On May 17, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura district detained 90 individuals—suspected Bangladeshi nationals—including 35 men, 27 women, and 28 children, from Khajpur village under the Nauhjheel police station. The detentions were part of an identity verification drive targeting migrant labourers working in the area’s brick kilns.

According to Mathura SSP Shlok Kumar, the detainees claimed they had been living in Mathura for the past 3–4 months and had migrated there from a neighbouring state. “All of them are being interrogated, and other investigative agencies have also been roped in,” he told ANI, suggesting that legal proceedings may follow. However, no clarity has been provided on whether these individuals were produced before a magistrate or allowed access to legal aid, raising due process concerns.

The detentions align with a larger, intensified campaign launched by the Uttar Pradesh government to identify and deport what it calls “infiltrators” — targeting primarily Bangladeshi and Rohingya communities residing in the state. Officials have also indicated that action had earlier been taken against Pakistani nationals, and similar efforts are now directed at undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya residents.

According to the report of Indian Express, state-wide directive from the Chief Minister’s Office has instructed all District Magistrates, SSPs, and Police Commissioners to accelerate the identification and removal of undocumented migrants, particularly in areas where many are believed to be living under changed or forged identities. Simultaneously, authorities have begun operations against so-called illegal settlements and unauthorised structures, especially in districts bordering Nepal.

The Uttar Pradesh government has publicly claimed to be the first in the country to achieve the deportation of all undocumented Pakistani nationals. “The Chief Minister himself oversees the process,” said a CMO statement, as per the ANI report.

While the state presents this as a national security achievement, rights advocates warn that such sweeping actions, especially those involving families with children, may sidestep critical legal safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing, protections under the Foreigners Act, and India’s obligations under international human rights law.

Uttar Pradesh’s operation is just one piece in a growing national trend that appears to be functioning as a shadow deportation regime, with opaque procedures, little to no judicial oversight, and significant risk of wrongful or arbitrary expulsions.

2. Delhi: 700 alleged undocumented migrants deported under ‘pushback’ drive

In the last six months, nearly 700 undocumented migrants have been deported from Delhi to Bangladesh as part of the Union government’s intensified “pushback” strategy, according to a report by The Indian Express. The pace of deportations notably accelerated in the wake of the April Pahalgam terror attack, triggering a capital-wide verification and detention campaign.

Following the attack, the Delhi Police launched a coordinated drive and identified around 470 individuals as undocumented Bangladeshi nationals, along with 50 foreigners who had overstayed their visas, The Indian Express reported. These individuals were then flown from the Hindon Air Base in Ghaziabad to Agartala in Tripura, from where they were deported via land routes across the Bangladesh border.

Police sources revealed that 3–4 special flights were used over the past month for transporting the detainees. According to The Indian Express, Delhi Police also set up around five makeshift detention centres, coordinated with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and arranged the transfers with the Border Security Force (BSF).

On May 16, thirteen Bangladeshi nationals, including five minors, were detained in Auchandi village in outer Delhi for allegedly living without valid documents, according to an ANI report. They were apprehended during a targeted operation following intelligence inputs, said Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aditya Gautam. On interrogation, the detainees reportedly admitted to being Bangladeshi citizens without any legal documentation permitting them to stay in India.

A week later, on May 23, the Delhi Police detained 121 Bangladeshi nationals suspected of unlawful residence in the capital and initiated deportation proceedings through the FRRO, according to The Hindu. In the same operation, five Indian nationals were questioned for allegedly facilitating the illegal entry and stay of these foreign nationals. A case was registered at Narela Industrial Area police station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 14 and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been formed to probe a suspected syndicate that is believed to have assisted in providing accommodation, jobs, and forged Indian identity documents to the immigrants. Authorities are now examining suspected fabrication of Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, and electricity meter connections, and have issued notices to relevant departments. Legal action has been promised against any official found complicit.

These developments mark a sharp escalation in Delhi’s deportation efforts and reflect the broader national push under Operation Sindoor to track, detain, and remove undocumented migrants, often through processes lacking judicial oversight.

3. Delhi-Ghaziabad: Mass deportations continue as government allegedly sidesteps due process

On Sunday, May 25, around 160 undocumented Bangladeshi migrants, including women and children detained from outer Delhi, were airlifted from Ghaziabad’s Hindon Air Base to Agartala in Tripura to be deported to Bangladesh, according to a report by The Hindu.

Officials told the newspaper that the transfer was in line with the Indian government’s directive to expedite deportations without waiting for formal processes, which are often “lengthy.” This reflects a growing trend of informal and accelerated removals, especially following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

Since the attack, more than 500 individuals have reportedly been sent back through India’s eastern border. Across the country, police forces have been conducting verification drives to identify alleged undocumented immigrants. Once detained, the migrants’ biometrics are recorded, and any Indian identity documents, such as Aadhaar cards, are cancelled. These biometrics are reportedly used to prevent re-entry and re-enrolment in Indian systems.

After biometric capture, the migrants are handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and pushed back across the border. The Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a letter sent on May 8, raised concerns over these forced entries and called on India to respect formal repatriation mechanisms.

Earlier, on May 4, two Air India planes transported around 300 undocumented migrants, including 200 women and children who had been detained in Gujarat, to Agartala. They were subsequently sent across the border to Bangladesh.

At a press conference on May 26 in Dhaka, Brigadier General Md. Nazim-ud-Daula of the Bangladesh Army condemned these deportations as unacceptable “push-ins.”

In just one month since the Pahalgam incident, Delhi Police identified and deported 470 undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and 50 foreign overstayers, flying them from Hindon to Tripura before pushing them across the land border.

An officer from Delhi Police told The Hindu that the Ministry of Home Affairs had instructed city police as early as late 2024 to begin verification drives targeting Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. Between November 15, 2024, and April 20, 2025, about 220 undocumented migrants and 30 overstayers were identified, taken by train and road to eastern states, and deported via land borders through the FRRO.

However, after the Pahalgam attack, the process intensified. “Over the last one month, around 3–4 special flights went from Hindon air base to Agartala,” a senior officer said. In total, about 700 individuals have been deported from Delhi over the past six months, he added.

Initially, Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) from all 15 districts were tasked with identifying undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. A first battalion of Delhi Police, along with FRRO officials, would accompany detainees via rail and road to West Bengal, from where the BSF completed the deportation process, according to a government source cited by The Hindu.

4. Gujarat: Over 1,000 detained in state’s largest crackdown, hundreds airlifted and pushed back across border

On April 26, Gujarat Police executed what officials described as the state’s largest-ever operation targeting undocumented migrants, detaining 1,024 suspected Bangladeshi nationals, 890 in Ahmedabad and 134 in Surat, amid allegations of fake documents and criminal activity, as per Deccan Herald. The state Home Minister hailed the operation as a “historic victory,” warning that those harbouring such individuals would face strict action, and confirming plans to swiftly deport the detainees, as per the report of Hindustan Times.

Just over a week later, on May 4, two Air India flights carried some 300 of the detained migrants, including around 200 women and children, to Agartala in Tripura. From there, they were “pushed back” across the land border into Bangladesh, bypassing lengthy legal deportation procedures, as per the HT report.

These actions followed a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs after the Pahalgam terror attack, streamlining mass deportations with rapid airlifts and border pushbacks, according to Times of India report. Authorities have flagged concerns about detainees’ alleged links to drug and human trafficking ring, and even extremist sleeper cells, as justification for the sweeping operation, as per the New Indian Express.

The Gujarat operation, which involved specialized units from Ahmedabad Crime Branch, SOG, EOW, and local police divisions, also uncovered widespread use of forged IDs sourced from West Bengal, a network that is now under investigation as per the Indian Express report.

These developments underscore a troubling trend: a coordinated and expedient deportation campaign that circumvents due process, with authorities opting for air-bridge removals and cross-border pushbacks in lieu of formal court procedures.

5. Rajasthan: 1,000 marked for deportation as Indian migrant workers from Bengal detained for “Speaking Bengali”

On May 14, 2025, Rajasthan’s Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel announced that around 1,000 suspected Bangladeshi nationals had been identified across the state. Speaking in Jaipur, he confirmed that the first group of 148 detainees had been moved to Jodhpur and then flown to Kolkata, from where they would be deported to Bangladesh. According to The Hindu, most of these individuals were originally detained in Sikar district, and the Village Development Officers’ Training Centre in Jodhpur had been temporarily converted into a holding facility for the deportation process.

As per the report, Patel further stated that the state would continue similar operations in the coming days to facilitate further removals.

However, the state’s aggressive crackdown also resulted in wrongful detentions. On May 13, Rajasthan Police released 13 migrant workers, including children and two families from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, who had been held for nine days on suspicion of being Bangladeshi infiltrators, solely because they spoke Bengali. The group had been picked up by personnel from the Patan Police Station in Sikar district, and were detained in a guest house under police watch, despite being Indian citizens.

According to The Telegraph, their release came only after sustained communication from West Bengal government officials, who intervened when alerted by concerned families and local leaders. Samirul Islam, a TMC Rajya Sabha MP and head of the Bengal government’s migrant worker welfare board, confirmed that state officials had been in touch with their counterparts in Rajasthan to secure the workers’ release. A senior Cooch Behar official reportedly called Rajasthan Police directly, following which the detainees were let go.

Obaydul Khandakar, a resident of Purba Jaigir Balabari village in Cooch Behar’s Dinhata-II block, who had been detained along with his wife Beauty Bibi, told the newspaper: “Despite being Indian citizens, we were detained for nine days just because we spoke Bengali.” The families had been working at a brick kiln near Sikar and returned there after their release. Khandakar said he planned to settle his dues and was now uncertain about returning to Rajasthan for work, shaken by the experience.

6. Tripura: Over 2,800 arrested for illegal entry since 2022 amid ongoing crackdown

On June 9, the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Tripura arrested one Bangladeshi national and one Indian tout during separate operations at Agartala railway station, according to a report by EastMojo. In the first incident, Pranajit Ray (35), a resident of Sylhet district in Bangladesh, was intercepted during a joint operation conducted by the GRP, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and other agencies. Police said he had illegally crossed the border and was planning to travel to Kolkata. “We seized some documents and Indian currency. We are examining these,” an officer told the outlet.

In a separate case, an Indian trafficker from Chanipur in West Tripura district was also arrested as part of a similar joint operation.

The arrests come amid a growing number of detentions in the state. Between January 1 and February 28, 2024, a total of 816 Bangladeshi nationals, 79 Rohingya, and two Nigerians were arrested in Tripura, according to the Tripura Police’s own data cited by EastMojo.

Additionally, Chief Minister Dr. Manik Saha, who also holds the Home portfolio, recently informed the Assembly that 2,815 Bangladeshi nationals were arrested for illegally entering Tripura between 2022 and October 31, 2024. Out of these, 1,746 were “pushed back” across the border, while 1,069 remained either in jail, temporary detention centres, shelter homes, or out on bail, as per a report by The Indian Express.

7. Maharashtra: Four alleged Bangladeshi nationals held in Pune following military intelligence tip-off

In Maharashtra, four suspected Bangladeshi nationals were detained from a labour camp in Pune’s Khondwa area on June 13 in a joint operation conducted by the police and Military Intelligence, according to a report by The Hindu. The arrests were made following a tip-off from the Southern Command of Military Intelligence, which led authorities to intercept the individuals as they were allegedly attempting to flee the area.

Upon preliminary verification, the four men were identified as Swapan Mandal, Mithun Kumar, Ranodhir Mandal, and Dilip Mondal, and were found to be citizens of Bangladesh. Defence sources cited in the report confirmed that the individuals will undergo joint interrogation by multiple agencies.

8. West Bengal: Seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals caught trying to return home after years in India

On Saturday, seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, were apprehended by police in Nadia district of West Bengal while attempting to cross back into Bangladesh after reportedly spending four years working in various Indian cities, according to a report by Hindustan Times.

“These individuals had entered India illegally through the North 24 Parganas border around four years ago and have since worked in Mumbai, Delhi, and several cities in Gujarat,” said Somnath Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Ranaghat Divisionm as per the HT report. They were caught in the Hanskhali police station area, the same location where another Bangladeshi woman was arrested earlier last week. She had reportedly entered India in 2024 and also worked in Mumbai.

The arrested individuals are said to be from Khulna, Jessore, Cox’s Bazar, and Kushtia districts in Bangladesh. According to officials, the group was attempting to return to Bangladesh with the help of an agent who is currently absconding.

With these arrests, the total number of alleged Bangladeshi nationals detained in various districts of West Bengal since December 2023 has reached approximately 100, as per police estimates. The Border Security Force (BSF) and other agencies have stepped up surveillance along the Indo-Bangladesh border since 2024 in response to the ongoing political unrest in Bangladesh.

State Pushback: When governments step in to stop unlawful deportations

While the Union government’s crackdown on undocumented migrants has unfolded across states with unprecedented coordination and speed, a few state governments have pushed back, not against migrants, but against what they allege are unlawful deportations of Indian citizens. In rare but telling instances, state authorities have intervened to halt or reverse deportations, particularly where those detained turned out to be bona fide Indian nationals. Most notably, the West Bengal government has led efforts to trace, verify, and bring back its residents who were mistakenly or illegally pushed into Bangladesh, raising urgent questions about due process, documentation, and the risks of communal or linguistic profiling in the ongoing campaign.

1. West Bengal Government brings back seven men wrongly deported to Bangladesh

In a striking instance of state-level intervention against what is being called unlawful deportation, the West Bengal government has successfully facilitated the return of at least seven Indian citizens who were allegedly picked up by Maharashtra Police during anti-immigration drives and pushed across the Bangladesh border, despite holding valid Indian documents.

The men, most of whom are residents of Murshidabad district, were working as daily wage labourers or masons in Mumbai and Thane. They were detained between June 9 and 11, and within days, without due legal process, transported across the border and abandoned in Bangladesh, according to The Indian Express.

One of the deportees, 36-year-old Mehbub Sheikh, who worked as a mason in Thane, was detained on June 11 and pushed into Bangladesh from a BSF camp in Siliguri by the early hours of June 14, despite his family and local police submitting documentation, including Aadhaar, voter ID, and land records, to prove his Indian citizenship. Another youth, Shamim Khan, also from Murshidabad, was picked up around the same time and met the same fate.

Following urgent appeals from families and local authorities, the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, under instructions from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, intervened. The Board’s chairman and TMC Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam told The Indian Express that the state government had taken the matter up directly with the Union government and the BSF. “Our government coordinated with central agencies and ensured five individuals were brought back by Sunday, and two more by Monday. We are continuing efforts to identify if others from Bengal have also been wrongfully deported,” he said.

According to a statement by Murshidabad SP Kumar Sunny Raj, upon receiving alerts from families, district police initiated local verification and coordinated with the BSF. Once the individuals’ Indian nationality was confirmed through supporting documents, the BSF held a flag meeting with Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and repatriated the youths. “They were handed over to Raiganj police station by the BSF and will be taken back to their respective villages,” added SP Md Sana Akhtar of Uttar Dinajpur as per the report.

The deported men include Mehbub Sheikh (Bhagwangola), Shamim Khan (Hariharpara), Minarul Sheikh (Beldanga), Nazimuddin Mondal (Hariharpara), and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh (Monteswar, Purba Bardhaman). Additionally, Fazer Sheikh and his wife Taslima from Bagda in North 24 Parganas were also returned. All were among the over 130 people transported by BSF aircraft from Pune to Agartala, and then dropped off at the border with minimal belongings, a packet of food, and 300 Bangladeshi Taka, according to multiple returnees.

Speaking to The Hindu, Nazimuddin Mondal, 34, recalled: “We were herded like cattle. At 3 am, the BSF jawans drove us toward the border, told us not to return. We walked into complete darkness.” After being chased away by Bangladeshi locals and beaten by BGB personnel, the group wandered for hours in paddy fields with mud up to their knees, before the BSF called them back the following evening and took them to Kokrajhar.

Nazimuddin’s brother Musarraf Mondal said the family had frantically submitted documentation to both local police in Murshidabad and the authorities in Mumbai, but were ignored. “Only after my brother managed to call from Bangladesh did, we know what had happened,” he said.

According to Samirul Islam, this is not an isolated event. “There is growing concern that Bengali-speaking Indian citizens, especially migrant workers, are being wrongly profiled and deported in BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra,” he told The Telegraph. “This is illegal, and our Chief Minister has written to the Centre about this.”

The return of these individuals was made possible through urgent coordination between state police, BSF, and BGB, as confirmed by Mekhliganj Police Station OC Mani Bhusan Sarkar, who received prior alerts from Murshidabad and Bardhaman police about missing residents. After verifying identities, a flag meeting at the Mekhliganj border enabled their return on Sunday afternoon.

As The Hindu reports, these cases come amid a wider trend of the Indian government “pushing back” undocumented migrants across the Bangladesh border, especially following Operation Sindoor, launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack in April. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has officially raised objections, stating such pushbacks violate diplomatic protocols.

For the seven men from Bengal, the ordeal has left lasting scars. “We were taken from one police station to another in Mumbai. We had no phones, no belongings. No one listened to us,” said Nazimuddin, still shaken after returning to his village in Taratipur, Murshidabad. “Only the state government listened.”

Here is a detailed and paraphrased version of the UP detention and Bengal police intervention story, rewritten with improved flow and source attribution:

2. West Bengal police intervene to secure release of six detainees from UP, wrongly suspected as Bangladeshis

In yet another instance that underscores growing concerns around the profiling of Bengali-speaking migrant workers, six residents of West Bengal, including two drivers, were detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police on May 5 in Deoria district, allegedly on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. The detainees, five from Beldanga in Murshidabad and one from Krishnaganj in Nadia, were travelling by bus when they were stopped and taken to Lar police station, according to a report in The Telegraph.

The situation was resolved only after swift intervention by Murshidabad Superintendent of Police Kumar Sunny Raj, who contacted senior UP officials and facilitated the release of the group. A police officer in Bengal, speaking to the media, confirmed that local authorities had been alerted to the detentions around noon. “As soon as we were informed, our SP reached out to his counterparts in Uttar Pradesh. The issue was resolved the same day,” the officer stated.

Family members of the detainees said they were advised to keep their local police stations informed while travelling outside the state, especially in light of recent incidents of wrongful detention. “We had notified the Beldanga Inspector-in-Charge as a precaution. The prompt response of our local police ensured the group was not subjected to further harassment,” said Din Muhammad, a relative of one of the men, while speaking to The Telegraph.

Samirul Islam, Trinamool MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, condemned the incident, calling it part of a worrying trend of systemic suspicion and profiling of Bengali-speaking Indians in BJP-ruled states. “This has to stop. Speaking Bengali does not make someone a Bangladeshi,” Islam said. He further noted that despite the six men producing valid photo ID cards, they were still detained, an act he described as “deeply discriminatory.” He added that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had already written to the Centre raising concern about the growing frequency of such incidents.

Police confirmed that the group was released by the evening of May 5 and arrangements were made for them to return to their homes in Bengal the following day. (Detailed report may be read here.)

When the Courts Intervene: Stays and interim protection

Amid a wave of detentions and swift deportations, many allegedly carried out without due process, constitutional courts across India have intervened to halt or question such actions. In several instances, the Supreme Court and High Courts have granted interim protection or stay orders, preventing the deportation of individuals flagged as “illegal migrants” or declared foreigners under the Foreigners Act. These judicial interventions have not only delayed state action but have, in some cases, forced authorities to re-examine the legality and fairness of their deportation processes.

1. Supreme Court grants interim protection to woman declared ‘foreigner’ amid concerns over opaque deportation processes in Assam

Amid growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary deportation practices in Assam, the Supreme Court on June 24, 2025, granted interim protection from deportation to Jaynab Bibi, a woman declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal’s two-page 2017 order had summarily dismissed her extensive documentary evidence, including the 1951 NRC, multiple electoral rolls, land records, and local certificates, on grounds of minor inconsistencies in names and testimonies. The Gauhati High Court upheld this finding in February 2025 and revoked her interim protection, but the Supreme Court has now stayed all coercive steps against her, including deportation, while issuing notice in her special leave petition. The case is next listed for August 25.

Represented by Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai, Jaynab’s petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s own observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (July 2024), where the Court cautioned against opaque and suspicion-based declarations under the Foreigners Act. Jaynab, who claims Indian citizenship by birth and residence in Nagaon district, contends that her identity was rejected without due process. The Court’s intervention, though interim, sends a strong signal against mechanical adjudications and underscores the central role of constitutional safeguards in proceedings that could result in loss of nationality and expulsion. (Detailed report may be read here.)

2. Bombay High Court grants bail over custodial rights violation

In a significant judicial intervention affirming procedural safeguards even in cases involving alleged undocumented immigrants, the Bombay High Court on May 7, 2025, granted bail to 34-year-old Sabnam Suleman Ansari, accused of entering India illegally, after finding that she was produced before a magistrate well beyond the constitutionally permitted 24-hour window following her arrest. Justice Milind Jadhav, while granting her bail on a surety of ₹5,000, observed that Ansari was arrested on January 28 at 12:30 PM and produced only on January 29 at 4:30 PM. The delay, the judge ruled, constituted a prima facie breach of her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. According to the order, “It is the duty of the Bail Court to step in,” when such violations are apparent.

The prosecution alleged Ansari had entered India through an unauthorised route from Bangladesh and lacked valid travel documents. However, Justice Jadhav rejected the State’s reliance on an earlier division bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing the facts and affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to grant bail in cases of illegal detention. The Court also noted the indifference of police authorities toward elementary but statutory safeguards under Section 50 of the CrPC and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, underscoring that constitutional protections remain non-negotiable, even in immigration-related prosecutions.

3. Bombay High Court intervenes in detention of Indian teen following father’s deportation

In another crucial instance of judicial scrutiny over policing under the Foreigners Act, the Bombay High Court on June 3, 2025, ordered the immediate release of 18-year-old Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, who had been detained by Mumbai’s Mankhurd police following her father’s deportation to Bangladesh on allegations of illegal migration. Despite being born in India and possessing valid Indian documents, Ruksar was held in custody without any independent proceedings initiated against her. A vacation bench comprising Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking protection from coercive state action and possible deportation.

According to the petition, while the younger siblings were released to their mother soon after it was filed, Ruksar remained confined at the Nirbhaya Cell in Mankhurd, prompting the Court’s urgent intervention. The bench observed that her continued detention was unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, especially when she was not the subject of any conclusive or independent inquiry under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness cannot be dispensed with, particularly in cases involving minors or Indian-born individuals whose rights risk being subsumed by broad and indiscriminate enforcement drives.

4. Gauhati High Court orders immediate release of bail-compliant man detained as ‘Foreigner’

In a forceful assertion of constitutional liberty, the Gauhati High Court on June 16, 2025, ordered the immediate release of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Goalpara, who had been unlawfully detained by the Assam Border Police despite being out on High Court–granted bail since 2021. The Court declared his detention “expressly illegal,” noting that no bail cancellation had been obtained and the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration against him remained sub judice. Rejecting the State’s plea for adjournment due to lack of instructions, the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stated, “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and reminded the State that liberty cannot wait for bureaucratic coordination. The order came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee’s mother, Mozida Begum, which documented the detainee’s weekly police reporting and absence of any new judicial order justifying re-arrest.

The Court had earlier stayed any deportation and verified that Hachinur was held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. His arrest on May 25, 2025, triggered widespread concern, especially as he had regularly reported to Goalpara Police Station per the conditions of his 2021 bail, granted under the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 guidelines. During the hearing, Advocate A.R. Sikdar emphasised that no fresh legal proceedings had been initiated, and the arrest was both unconstitutional and unjustified. The Court agreed, holding that the State should have sought a judicial order if it believed fresh grounds existed. “Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout,” Justice Surana said. With that, the Court directed immediate release, reinforcing that executive action cannot override existing judicial protections or suspend liberty at will. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Deported in Silence: India’s mass expulsions of alleged Bangladeshis without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case involved K. Umadevi, an English teacher in a government school in Tamil Nadu, whose personal circumstances brought a crucial service rule under judicial scrutiny. The judgment is a detailed exploration of how personal life changes, such as divorce and remarriage, intersect with employment rights, and how courts must adopt a purposive and humane approach rather than a rigid, technical one.

The facts of the Case

The story of the legal battle began with the petitioner marrying her first husband in 2006 and had two children, born in 2007 and 2011. In December 2012, she joined the Tamil Nadu state government as a teacher. Her first marriage was legally dissolved in 2017, and the custody of her two children remained with her former husband.

A year later, in 2018, Ms. Umadevi remarried. When she conceived a child from this second marriage, she applied for maternity leave for a period of nine months, from August 2021 to May 2022.

Her request was turned down. On August 28, 2021, the Chief Educational Officer of Dharmapuri District rejected her application. The reason cited was Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which governs the service conditions of state employees. The rule stipulates that maternity leave can only be granted to a woman government servant with “less than two surviving children.” The authorities concluded that since Ms. Umadevi already had two children from her first marriage, she was ineligible for maternity leave for her third child. The rejection order flatly stated that there was “no provision” for granting such leave for a third child born through remarriage.

The Journey through the Courts

Aggrieved by this decision, Ms. Umadevi approached the Madras High Court. A single-judge bench heard her plea and, in a judgment dated March 25, 2022, ruled in her favour. The judge adopted a liberal interpretation, holding that the central Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, should prevail over the state rule. The court reasoned that the phrase “having surviving children” should imply that the children are in the mother’s custody. Since Ms. Umadevi’s children from her first marriage were not living with her, the child from her second marriage was, for all practical purposes, her first child in her new family unit. The single judge set aside the rejection order and directed the state to sanction her leave.

However, the relief was short-lived. The Government of Tamil Nadu filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the same court. On September 14, 2022, the Division Bench overturned the single judge’s order. It took a stricter view, stating that the government’s policy was clear and restricted the benefit to two children. It held that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a right flowing from service rules. The bench found the single judge’s decision unsustainable and allowed the government’s appeal, leaving Ms. Umadevi without the benefit.

This set the stage for the final appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court’s analysis

The Supreme Court, in a detailed and empathetic judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delved deep into the constitutional and international legal frameworks surrounding maternity rights.

The state government argued that its policy was tied to fiscal responsibility and the national objective of population control. Granting leave to Ms. Umadevi, it contended, would set a precedent that could strain the exchequer and undermine the “small family norm.”

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Division Bench had erred by not following the spirit of a previous Supreme Court decision in Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dealt with a similar situation. It was also emphasized that the right to maternity leave is a facet of a woman’s reproductive right, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was multi-layered:

1. Constitutional Foundation: The Court grounded its decision firmly in the Constitution. It described Article 21 as a “potent provision” that includes the right to live with dignity, the right to health, and the right to make reproductive choices. It also invoked Article 42, a Directive Principle of State Policy, which mandates the state to make provisions for “just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.”
2. Harmonising Conflicting Goals: The Court acknowledged the state’s objective of population control as “laudable.” However, it stated that this goal is not “mutually exclusive” with the objective of providing maternity benefits. The two, the Court said, “must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner to achieve the social objective.” A rigid rule that forces a woman to choose between her employment and her desire to start a family in a new marriage was seen as counterproductive.
3. Purposive Interpretation: The Court stressed that beneficial legislations like maternity leave rules must be given a “purpose-oriented approach.” The purpose is to protect the dignity of motherhood and enable a woman to care for her child without fear of losing her job. The fact that Ms. Umadevi’s children from her first marriage were not in her custody and that the child in question was the first from her subsisting marriage were crucial factors. The Court implicitly suggested that the term “surviving children” in the rule should not be read in a purely statistical or biological sense, but in the context of the employee’s current family and dependents.
4. International Obligations: The judgment extensively referenced international conventions that India has ratified, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance,” and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which obligates states to provide maternity leave with pay. The Court used these to underscore that maternity benefits are a globally recognized human right.
5. Guidance from the Maternity Benefit Act: The Court drew guidance from the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It noted that the Act, after the 2017 amendment, does not completely bar maternity leave for a third child; it only reduces the duration of the leave. This, the Court observed, shows a legislative intent to provide support, not to create a hard stop after two children.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court concluded that the view taken by the Madras High Court’s Division Bench was incorrect. It stated, “In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

The Court declared that Ms. Umadevi was entitled to maternity leave as per the rules. It set aside the Division Bench’s order and directed the Tamil Nadu government to release all admissible maternity benefits to her within two months.

The judgment is a significant step forward in the jurisprudence of service law and human rights. It sends a clear message that administrative rules, especially those concerning fundamental aspects of life like childbirth, reproductive rights cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. They must be viewed through the prism of the Constitution and with a sense of compassion that acknowledges the complex realities of human lives. The Court has affirmed that the state, as a model employer, must not only create policies but also apply them in a manner that is just, humane, and respects the dignity of its employees.

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

Related:

Maternity leave no ground for dismissal: SC

Woman Employee Entitled To Claim Maternity Leave For Period Of 6 Months: Allahabad HC

Policy on paid menstrual leave not on the horizons of the union government?

The post A Question of Rights: Supreme Court backs teacher in maternity leave dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., involved a complaint by Pokala Sabhana, a 24-year-old trans woman. She alleged that her husband, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy, and his family had subjected her to cruelty and harassment. She filed her complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a law designed to protect wives from abuse by their husbands and in-laws.

This led the court to consider two key questions: first, whether a Trans woman could be considered a ‘woman’ under this law, and second, whether the allegations were sufficient to warrant a criminal trial. The court’s answer to the first was a clear “yes,” but its answer to the second was a firm “no”.

A Trans Woman is a ‘Woman’ Under the Law

The husband and his family argued that Sabhana could not be considered a ‘woman’ under Section 498-A, because she cannot bear children and therefore was not a woman in the “complete sense”.

Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa rejected this argument, calling it “deeply flawed and legally impermissible”. The court’s reasoning was built on established legal principles:

• Womanhood is not defined by reproductive ability: The court stated that linking womanhood to the capacity to have children “undermines the very spirit of the Constitution, which upholds dignity, identity, and equality for all individuals”.
• Right to Self-Identify Gender: The judgment relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India The NALSA case established that every individual has the fundamental right to self-identify their gender, and the state must legally recognize it.
• Right to Marry: The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 marriage equality case, Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India. While that case did not legalize same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that “transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing law”.
• Constitutional Protections: Since Sabhana and Murthy’s marriage was legally valid, denying her the protections of Section 498-A would violate her fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and life with dignity (Article 21).

Based on this, the court concluded that a Trans woman in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to protection under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Why the Case Was Dismissed

Despite this landmark finding, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against Murthy and his family. The reason was purely procedural: Sabhana’s complaint lacked the specific details required to sustain a charge of cruelty under Section 498-A.

The court found the allegations to be “bald and omnibus,” meaning that they are too vague and general to be the basis for a criminal case. The specific deficiencies noted were:

• Against the husband: The complaint stated that he left her less than two months after they started living together and that she later received a threatening message from his phone. However, it did not describe any specific acts of physical or mental cruelty that occurred while they were together.
• Against the in-laws: Sabhana stated in her complaint that her in-laws maintained “cordial relations” with her. The only negative claim was that they were trying to send their son abroad, which is not a criminal offense.
• Against another relative: A fourth person was accused with a single sentence claiming he was directing the others, with no supporting details.

The court pointed to a long line of Supreme Court rulings that caution against the misuse of Section 498-A. To prevent the law from being used to settle personal scores, courts require complaints to contain clear and specific allegations against each accused person. Because Sabhana’s complaint did not meet this standard, the court ruled that allowing the case to continue would be an “abuse of process of law”.

The judgment in Viswanathan Krishna Murthy is a significant step forward for the legal recognition of transgender rights in India. It establishes a clear precedent that the protections against domestic cruelty apply to Trans women in heterosexual marriages.

Jurisdictions like the UK and the US are seeing radical Trans exclusionary policies and establishments with figures like JK Rowling and Donald Trump respectively. For example, in a recent case, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that legal definition of woman is based on biological sex.[1] Therefore, judgements like these highlight the nuanced discourse that is emerging India with contributions from a powerful judiciary. However, it is important to note that judicial pronouncements cannot and will not satisfy the need for a comprehensive law that recognises queer marriage. Only a democratic and transparent legislative process will cover that gap.

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

[1] For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16

Related:

Kerala High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order Directing PSC To Provisionally Accept Trans-Woman’s Application For Post Confined To Women Candidates

Indian women, transgender and non-binary persons in science: A 21st Century calendar by TLoS

Transgender rights in India: stalled progress and a frustrated community

The post Andhra Pradesh High Court rules Trans woman is a ‘woman’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Once again, the Election Commission of India (ECI) made the headlines, when on June 29, 2025 it announced that Bihar became the “first state to implement mobile phone-based e-voting during local body elections.” State Election Commissioner Deepak Prasad said while 70.20 per cent of the eligible voters used the e-voting system, 54.63 per cent exercised their franchise by visiting polling booths reported The Hindustan Times. The ECI has termed this move as “a symbol of convenience, security, and empowered participation,” claiming that, “the system was specifically designed for voters who face challenges in reaching polling booths, such as the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, and migrants. Only pre-registered users were allowed to vote via the e-voting platform, he added.

Meanwhile, Madhav Deshpande, with 40 plus years of experience in the field of Computer Science and its Applications and Architecture of Unique Software apart from being an Consultant with the Obama administration, has meanwhile offered his independent critique of this switch by the ECI to the “mobile phone-based e-voting” system implemented without consultation by the election body.

Issues raised by the expert:

• As soon as a voter’s identity is verified and linked to the voter’s thumbprint, FaceID, or PIN, are all identifying documents(photo ID, video ‘selfie’) completely expunged from the system?
• Is the user identity tokenised?
• Is the token table destroyed? If not, how is it ensured ephemeral?
• From item 2 in the Google Play disclosure which says “Some of the data that you submit may be classified as “Personally Identifiable Information” (PII), meaning information that can be used to uniquely identify or contact you, such as your Voter ID number, mobile phone number, or other identifiers (“Personal Information”/”Personally Identifiable Information”)”, it is clear that voter details are actively sought, stored and may even be intended to be used even after vote is cast. It is clear from this that the voter identity is neither tokenised nor is the token table destroyed. This is in complete contradiction to the principle of secret ballot and as such this app must be immediately withdrawn forthwith.
• Item 3 in the same disclosure on Google Play portal says “Please also note that data collected by us from a particular device may be used in conjunction with data from other devices that are linked to the browser”meaning that the personal data is not only stored for the purpose of voter identification, it may be used to identify and monitor the voter’s electronic activity, amounting to electronic surveillance. As such this is infringement of individual freedom and must be banned immediately.
• Operationally, how does the app ensure that the person (voter) identified is the same as the person casting the vote on the phone?
• How does the app ensure that the person is casting their vote with free will and secretly; as against being forced to cast it under threat? If the app cannot guarantee expression of free will of the voter, it is in contradiction to the first principle of democratic voting and must be immediately banned.
• And lastly, the app declares that it cannot guarantee complete security of the data being transmitted over network, meaning that the ballot cannot be guaranteed to be secret and as such its use must be banned forthwith. The disclosure says “…you acknowledge and agree that no transmission of data over the internet or mobile networks can be guaranteed to be completely secure. Accordingly, any transmission of information is done at your sole risk.”
• Technically, the network operators have enough and more tools to siphon data and alter it, insert / delete new data etc. if the data is not adequately secured (as is obvious from 8 above).
• There is no mention of where the distributed journal of data blocks is stored. If the blocks are stored on foreign servers or if the block chain technology implemented is from foreign vendors, it compromises Indian sovereignty and use of such app must be banned immediately.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a body that has come increasingly under public scrutiny for not just its opaqueness and reluctance for transparency, but worse, been patently guilty of violations of both the Constitution (Articles 324-326) and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 is now using yet another method, e-voting on the mobile phone—the Voting App—that is vulnerable of several counts. The violations of the fundamental rights to privacy could be violated with the method of storing data collected. The constitutional right of asserting free will in an election and the principle of a secret ballot also stand threatened.

Related:

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

The post Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert appeared first on SabrangIndia.