It is to be noted that while the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill was being introduced avowedly to tackle “urban naxals”, the term has been in usage from the Indian ultra-right as politically stigmatising and defiling term used by proto-fascist forces to criminalise protest and dissent, jail writers, academicians, activists and opposition Leaders especially. The said weapon has been, even prior to the year 2014, has been weaponised against Adivasis and Dalits, who protest against the unjust anti-minority policies of the state.

As the bill became public, experts and lawyers referred to the same as draconian and a dangerous piece of legislation that is being brought in to further supress dissent and cause alarm amongst the citizenry. Notably, the justification being offered for bringing in the bill is that similar versions of the Public Security Act currently are currently in force in Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. However, the state of Maharashtra already has the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA, 1999) under which several abusive prosecutions have been launched. Now, as this suppressive bill looms like a sword over the people of Maharashtra, the insistence of introducing more such that curb the rights of freedom of expression, movement, association (Article 19) and right to life (Article 21) and equality before the law (Article 14) in other states is no justification for Maharashtra, a rather progressive state, for enacting such a law.

Another reasoning that is being offered to bring in the MSPS Bill is that it will provide more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organisations. However, with the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 bringing in offenses such as “terrorist activities” (Section 113), “organised crimes” (Section 111) and “petty organised crimes” (Section 112) into the criminal laws governing the country, a separate MSPS bill was not required at all. Through the BNS, provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and MCOCA have already been centralised, ensuring multiple tools in the land of a State and Police to use against its own citizens, raising questions over the necessity of bringing in the said bill.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai, in consultation with experts and advocates, has dissected the said bill and its impact on the citizens.

Problematic Provisions of MSPS 2024

The draft MSPS Bill of 2024 has extremely vague, broad and therefore problematic definitions of “an unlawful activity” ((Section (2) (f) (i) to (vii)).  This loose definition is liable to malicious misuse. For instance, the interpretation of the ((Section (2) (f) (i)) phrase …” which constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity” has been left open for interpretation, with potential for misuse. The usage of the word “menace” in the definition in itself problematic as the term “menace” is not defined anywhere in the law. It is crucial to highlight that the dictionary meaning of the word means, dangerous act of person, and leaves it open to the authorities to bring anything under the Act according to their discretion and penalise the ones being targeted. (They can say cooking on streets is a menace to public and arrest people).

This vagueness of definitions to make and include undefined “acts” as criminal acts is extremely problematic. In any law, any criminal act should be well defined and should not be left to be interpreted loosely by the police. Unfortunately, or rather consciously, this practice has been done away with in order to get away with accountability.

In addition to this, the definition of criminal act under Section 2(f) describes unlawful activity as:

As can be seen in the above provided definition, no concrete ambit is provided, and only vague words are used to define the nature of the acts that can be deemed as unlawful activities by the authorities. The law tends to give arbitrary powers to the police and it is an open secret that the political party in power is many times misusing police authority.

In lines with certain special legislations as well as state legislations, Section 5(1) (2) of the MSPS Bill provides for the setting up of the “Advisory Board” set up under the Act to adjudicate on the Actions of the State Government, police and Administration. Curiously, as per the said provision, the Advisory Board is required to be consisting of “three persons are, have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judge of the High Court”, which means that existing retired or “non appointed officials or lawyers” also qualify to be a part of the Advisory Board. Since the Advisory Board is to be formed by the state government itself, one need not use their imagination to think of the ways in which the said provision can be used (or misused).

Section 9, through sub-section 1, provides draconian and arbitrary powers to the administration and the Police (DM or Police Commissioner) to take possession of or seize any notified area an evict persons from that premise (if women and children live there “reasonable time” is the only protection given to them!). Moreover, Section 10 (1) extends this arbitrary power to seize moveable properties, monies etc within this seized property making this one more power given to arbitrary use.

As per Section 12 of the draft MSPS Bill also denied those arrested any recourse of law at district level, and declares the High Court and Supreme Court as proper forums to file any petition to challenge action against this law. This militates against the four-tier system of Justice Redressal as laid down in the Indian Constitution. The reasoning behind the same remains to be clarified.

Under Sections 14 and 15 of the MSPS Bill, protection has been granted to every Police Officer and District Magistrate (bureaucrat) to be penalised or held accountable for any strictures are passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on misuse of prosecution, as the said two sections state that no actions can be initiated against them.

Dangers of New Bill (MSPS Act) in the face of existing BNS, 2023, UAPA, 1967 & PMLA, 2002

Various sections in the BNS, 2023 including Section 152, which reintroduces ‘Sedition’ under IPC 124-A and has been described by experts as ‘Sedition Plus’, Section 113, which criminalises terrorist acts, and Section 111, which brings in organised crimes, give arbitrary powers to the authorities to take action against those individuals who commit actions deemed to be against national integrity and national security.

CJP would specifically like to highlight Section 152 of the BNS, which states that  “acts that are endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, purposefully or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by science, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial means or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite cessation or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feeling of separatist activities, or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India’ or indulges in or commits any such acts shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” While being vague and broad by itself, the MSPS Bill also bears an uncanny resemblance to the said provision.

Additionally, Section 113 (1) of the BNS, 2023, which covers under its ambit anyone who does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India or with the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, mirrors Section 15 of the UAPA. The only difference is that it deals with acts committed in a foreign country as well.

Similarly, Section 113 (2) that deals with committing of such a terrorist act that results in death or otherwise, mirrors Section 16 of the UAPA verbatim. Section 113 (3), which covers those who conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, mirrors Section 18 of the UAPA verbatim. Section 113 (4), which deals with those who organise or cause to be organised any camp or camps for imparting training in terrorist act mirrors Section 18A of the UAPA verbatim. Section 113 (5) states that any person who is a member of an organisation which is involved in terrorist act mirrors Section 20 of the UAPA verbatim.

Section 113 (6), which covers the offense of voluntarily harbours or concealing those such person that commits a terrorist, has been taken from Section 19 of the UAPA verbatim.

Section 113 (7), which criminalises the offense of knowingly possessing any property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act, has been taken from Section 21 of the UAPA, present in BNS with a wider ambit.

The whole section has been picked from UAPA almost verbatim, without the relevant safeguards being present in BNSS (sanction). The question that arises is on what was the need to inculcate these draconian and stringent laws into the criminal laws of India and now, in Maharashtra to table one more such.

In the overall background that the nation is in today with a government that has jailed critics through a rampant misuse of the PMLA Act 2002 and the UAPA, 1967 –and the political revengeful manner in which investigation arm like ED is acting, the newly table MSPS Bill, is addition of another draconian face to the laws in the state and in the country.

Persecution by Multiplicity of Statute Charges

Another dangerous implication that will accompany this attempt to enact one more draconian state law is its impact on the provision for undertrials seeking statutory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 479 of the BNSS contains very stringent bail provisions for statutory bail. The said section limits the conditions for granting statutory bail to under trials—is a section in the new law which corresponds to section 436 A of the Carps, provides for the procedure to be adopted in case the under trial is to be given statutory bail after spending a particular period under detention. In the older CrPC, if an under trial has spent half of the maximum period of imprisonment for an offence in detention, they must be released on a personal bond (not to be applied to offences which are punishable by death) BNSS, 2023 retains the said provision, and makes it further stringent.

However now, under Section 479, the provision of granting bail to under trial prisoners will now be limited to those under trials who are first-time offenders if they have completed one-third of the maximum sentence. Since charge sheets often mention multiple offences, this may make many under trials ineligible for mandatory bail. Furthermore, through the said provision, the prohibition of getting bail under the said section had also been expanded to those offences that are punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, the following under trials are barred from applying for statutory bail under the said section if: offences punishable by life imprisonment, and persons who have pending proceedings in more than one offence.

Nothing but a move to muzzle protests?

Former Chief Minister and Congress MLA Prithviraj Chavan spoke to the media, calling the bill to be “nothing but a move to muzzle protests”. Media reports have quoted Chavan as saying. “The government wanted to present and pass this bill today itself. We opposed it and requested the Speaker not to push it through. We will oppose the bill vehemently.”

Furthermore, the Maharashtra State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has even called for the withdrawal of the bill, stating that it will have a deep impact on the democratic processes of governance. Therefore, the state of Maharashtra, like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, should set about the task of amending the more draconian provisions of the BNS, 2023 and repeal earlier passed laws that have been abused and misused, rather than introducing more authoritarian legislations.

The complete bill can be accessed here:

Related:

Supreme Court: “Authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners, initiate investigation without material basis”

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

Amend Sec 187(3) BNSS in line with Sec 167(2) CrPC: PUCL to HM and Law Minister

Modi’s government bypasses SC & Law Commission, no nuanced, strong penal sections on Hate Speech: BNS, 2023

The post Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill tabled in assembly, using the myth of “urban naxals” to supress dissent? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Holding the same, the bench overturned the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, through which the present appellant had been declared foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and failed to prove that he is not a foreigner.

Brief facts of the case:

The case against the present appellant, Md. Rahim Ali , had begun in the year 2004. The charges against Ali were regarding his alleged “illegal migration from Bangladesh post March 25, 1971.” The said date of March 25 of the year 1971 is significant as it is the cutoff date as per section 6A (Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord) of the Citizenship Act.

The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bipin Dutta, sending the “notice” under the dreaded Foreigners Act, 1946, reported that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of entry into India before January 1, 1966. As a matter of course, as the experience of Citizens for Justice and Peace (www.cjp.org.in) in Assam reveals, the very basis of such notices are without basis or material facts.

In this case too, as provided by the order of the Supreme Court, the appellant stated that his parents’ names appeared in the voter lists of 1965 and 1970 for Village Dolur Pather, under Bhabanipur Legislative Assembly Constituency in Assam. Ali had also stated that he was born in the same village, and his name, along with his family members, appeared in the 1985 voter list. After marrying in 1997, he moved to Village Kashimpur, Nalbari district, where his name appeared in the 1997 voter list.

On the receipt of notice by the Tribunal, the appellant appeared on July 18, 2011, and has sought time to file the written statement as he was suffering some serious health ailments. It is to be noted that despite obtaining a medical certificate indicating his illness, the tribunal had passed an ex-parte order on March 19, 2012. Passing such ex-parte orders is also often routine in Assam.As per the order of the Tribunal, appellant Md. Rahim Ali had been declared a foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari on March 19, 2012. The said declaration had been made by the Tribunal on the ground that Ali had failed to prove his Indian nationality.

After the order of the Tribunal was delivered, Ali moved the High Court on May 30, 2012, to challenge the order of the High Court. On June 6, 2012, the High Court stayed the tribunal’s order by passing an interim order, directing the authority not to deport the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. However, on November 23, 2015, the High Court dismissed the writ petition moved by Ali, affirming the tribunal’s order declaring Ali a foreigner and clearing the path for his deportation. Challenging the said order of dismissal of the High Court, Ali moved the Supreme Court.

Submissions made before the Supreme Court:

By the appellant- 

The counsel for the appellant had submitted to the Court that Ali had been subjected to unfair treatment by the Tribunal as not even one fair opportunity was given to him to defend himself, even when Ali was facing serious penal consequences like detention and/or deportation from the country.

Referring to the impugned judgment of the High Court, the counsel claimed that the High Court had focussed on technicalities by accepting the issue of minor discrepancies in the documents, even as the same discrepancies were not of the nature to lead to a presumption in law that the documents were not correct. Additionally, the appellant also shed light on the medical certificate that was never examined by the High Court as well as the Tribunal.

“It was submitted that such declaration is totally perverse in the face of overwhelming evidence to show that the appellant besides being born in India and being a resident in India for his entire life and his blood relatives i.e., siblings and parents having been Indian citizens much prior to the cut-off date, the appellant has still been singled out to be declared a foreigner which does not stand to reason.” (Para 12)

By the respondent (state)-

As per the order, the counsel for the state of Assam provided that the present case was of illegal migration of a Bangladeshi national to India (Assam) after the cut-off date, and thus, has to be dealt with utmost caution, considering the adverse consequence of illegal migration on the whole country in general and the respondent-State in particular. With this, the state had taken action against Ali under Section 9 by providing that the onus is on the person proceeded against/alleged foreigner to prove that he is not a foreigner.

Withregards to the medical certificate, the respondent stated that the High Court, after verification, had found the authenticity of the said certificate to be fake and held that the appellant had taken recourse to falsehood with production of fake medical certificate. As per the submission, it was on the above count alone that the writ petition moved by Ali was dismissed, and the same cannot be said to be unreasonable warranting interference.

“It was submitted that this Court may also consider the fact that the proceedings against the appellant had already taken two decades to reach this stage and any further delay would defeat the very object and purpose of the Act which is speedy detection and deportation of illegal migrants/foreigners staying in India.” (Para 18)

Observation of the Court:

The Court began its analysis by stating that “Having considered the matter, the Court finds that grave miscarriage of justice has occasioned in the instant case.”

Notably, the bench had declared that it had kept Articles 14 (Right to equality) and 21 (Right to life and liberty) of the Constitution, which is available to both citizens and non-citizens, in mind while penning down the said judgment.

Lack of any basis for initiation of case against the Appellant-

The bench expressed dismay at the casual manner in which the authorities initiated proceedings on mere suspicion without any material.

“The question is that does Section 9 of the Act empower the Executive to pick a person at random, knock at his/her/their door, tell him/her/they/them ‘We suspect you of being a foreigner.’, and then rest easy basis Section 9? Let us contextualise this to the facts at hand.” (Para 34)

The Court noted that the originating point of the inquiry was SP (B) Nalbari’s direction to the Sub Inspector on May 12, 2004, but the same did not provide the basis upon which S.P. (B) Nalbari had issued the direction for inquiry.

“The pleadings and the record are silent as to what was the basis of the S.P. (B) Nalbari’s direction? What materials or information had come to his knowledge or possession that warranted his direction? Obviously, the State cannot proceed in such manner. Neither can we as a Court countenance such approach” (Para 34)

Based on the above-stated points, the bench proceeded to emphasise upon the requirement for the authorities to have material or information for suspecting a person to be a foreigner. Connecting the same to the present case, the Court stated that there is nothing on record to indicate even an iota of evidence against Ali except for the bald allegation that he had illegally migrated to India post the cut-off date.

“First, it is for the authorities concerned to have in their knowledge or possession, some material basis or information to suspect that a person is a foreigner and not an Indian. In the present case, though it is mentioned that from inquiry it was revealed that the appellant had migrated illegally to the State of Assam from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971 but nothing has come on record to indicate even an iota of evidence against him, except for the bald allegation that he had illegally migrated to India post 25.03.1971.” (Para 35)

On the allegation that the appellant was unable to provide evidence that he is a citizen of India when the inquiry was being made, the Court observed that to prove evidence to be negative, the accused will be needed to be aware of the evidence/material against him/her.

“It needs no reiteration that a person charged or accused would generally not be able to prove to the negative, if he/she is not aware of the evidence/material against him/her which leads to the person being labelled suspect. Ipso facto just an allegation/accusation cannot lead to shifting of the burden to the accused, unless he/she is confronted with the allegation as also the material backing such allegation.” (Para 35)

While refusing to go into the evidentiary value of the material at this stage, the bench stated that vague allegations, which simply reproduce the words of the provisions present in the act, cannot be permitted to be the basis of the charges against the accused. Furthermore, levying such vague charges and without supplying the accused with the necessary information and material cannot justify the burden on the accused to defend themselves.

“However, mere allegation, that too, being as vague as to mechanically reproduce simply the words which mirror the text of provisions in the Act cannot be permitted under law. Even for the person to discharge the burden statutorily imposed on him by virtue of Section 9 of the Act, the person has to be intimated of the information and material available against him, such that he/she can contest and defend the proceedings against him.” (Para 35)

In the present case, the bench held that it was specifically alleged that the appellant had come to Assam from Village Dorijahangirpur, district Mymansingh in Bangladesh. However, while the said imputation made it to be incumbent on the authority making the reference to the Tribunal to provide details as to how it had received such information of illegal migration and also the bona fide belief of such fact being true. Yet, the bench held that no such proof was submitted to the Tribunal by the authorities.

“In other words, the authority had been, as claimed, able to trace the appellant’s place of origin. Surely then, the authority had some material to back its assertion. The record does not show such material was given either to the appellant or the Tribunal by the authority.” (Para 36)

“In neither round of the proceedings before the Tribunal, whether it be the initial ex-parte one, or even after the matter was referred by this Court to the Tribunal to hear the appellant and pass an order, has it been revealed as to how and from where such specific allegation, down to the alleged village of origin of the appellant in Bangladesh was brought to or came to the knowledge of the authorities. Nor do we locate any supporting material.” (Para 37)

Based on the above provided analysis and reasoning, the Supreme Court bench held that in the absence of the such basic and primary material, it cannot be left to the untrammelled or arbitrary discretion of the authorities to initiate proceedings against individuals, especially when the same have life-altering and very serious consequences for the person. Thus, the basis of initiating such inquiries cannot be hearsay or bald and vague allegation(s).

The fact that the Gauhati High Court, before whom the matter has been since 2012, upheld such an unreasoned order of the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) is however disturbing as this means that in every such egregious case, justice can only be accepted from the apex court.

Go-by to the settled principles of natural justice-

The SC bench held that the authorities have gravely faulted at the inception stage itself by construing term ‘main grounds’ to be synonymous or interchangeable with the term ‘allegation(s)’.

“This error at the very inception stage is enough to render a fatal blow to the entire exercise undertaken. The term ‘main grounds’ is not synonymous or interchangeable with the term ‘allegation(s)’. There is no, and there cannot be any, ambiguity that ‘main grounds’ is totally distinct and different from the ‘allegation’ of being ‘a foreigner’.” (Para 38)

Highlighting the distinction between main grounds and allegations, the bench held that the material on which such allegation is founded has to be shared with the person. Clarifying that that strict proof of such allegation has to be given to the accused person at the initial stage, the Court stated that the said responsibility of the authorities as well as the principle of natural justice cannot be ignored by the authorities no matter the circumstances. The opportunity to be heard is a right of accused.

“However, under the garb of and by taking recourse to Section 9 of the Act, the authority, or for that matter, the Tribunal, cannot give a go-by to the settled principles of natural justice. Audi alteram partem does not merely envisage a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our opinion, it would encompass within itself the obligation to share material collected with the person/accused concerned. It is no longer res integra that principles of natural justice need to be observed.” (Para 39)

Burden to prove citizenship and the documents produced-

While dealing with the point of documents and certificates that were obtained by various officers and presented by the accused, the bench also referred to aspect of those who are uninformed/illiterate or persons who are not well-informed, who do not understand the requirement to obtain and hold an official document or remain without possessing property in their own names.

“Another relevant aspect is the prevalent situation on the ground where uninformed/illiterate persons or persons not being well-informed, in the absence of any requirement to obtain and hold an official document and without possessing property in their own names, would not have any official document issued by the government, State or Central. It is neither difficult nor inconceivable to fathom such scenario amongst the rural populace, including within Assam.” (Para 40)

Coming to the present case, the bench noted that the document provided by the appellant were disbelieved only on the ground of mismatch of actual English spelling of the names and discrepancy in dates. As per the bench, minor discrepancies cannot form the basis of pronouncing such as judgments that will subject the appellant to dire consequences.

“As far as the discrepancy (ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this.” (Para 41)

“The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages.” (Para 42)

The court also noted that the appellant provided documents indicating his and his parents’ presence in India before March 25, 1971. After examining the documents presented by the appellant, the bench observed that from an overall discussion on the Report/opinion of the Tribunal, it is clear that there are minor discrepancy (ies) in the appellant’s documents, however their authenticity is not in doubt.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual.” (Para 43)

Decision of the Court:

Based on the aforementioned observations and reasonings, the Supreme Court bench set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment and the Foreigners Tribunal’s order that declared Ali as a foreigner. The Supreme Cour bench found the order of the Tribunal to be “wholly unsustainable”.

The court further held that the inferences drawn by the Tribunal on the charges levied against the appellant do not falsify the appellant’s claim and defense. Furthermore, the bench found that in view of detailed analysis, the discrepancy(ies) in the material produced by the appellant can be termed minor and not be deemed sufficient to lead the Tribunal to doubt and disbelieve the appellant and the version put forth by him.

“This Court has found that the inferences drawn by the Tribunal do not falsify the appellant’s claim. In view of detailed analysis, the discrepancy(ies) in the material produced by the appellant can be termed minor. The same were not sufficient to lead the Tribunal to doubt and disbelieve the appellant and the version put forth by him. Thus, we are not inclined to remand the matter to the Tribunal for another round of consideration. Putting an authoritative quietus to the issue, the appellant is declared an Indian citizen and not a foreigner.” (Para 55)

The complete judgment can be read below.

Related:

CJP moves Maharashtra Police against the Hateful and Provocative Speech delivered by Kajal Hindustani in Mudkhed, Nanded

CJP flags 8 incidents of hate crime including lynchings to National Commission for Minorities

First week of July saw 3 major telecom companies increase tariff by 10-25% across plans, Congress calls it a case of thriving off “crony capitalism” under Modi

The post “Authorities cannot arbitrarily accuse people of being foreigners or initiate an investigation without a substantial basis” states Supreme Court while reinstating citizenship of a Muslim man appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He added, that it is against the Constitutional mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution which does not provide for religious conversion, it only provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. The Court also noted that in several cases unlawful activity of conversion of people of SC/ST castes and other castes including economically poor persons into Christianity is being done at rampant pace throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court on expected lines, denied bail to the accused.

Exactly a week later, on 9 July, the same judge Agarwal sang the exact same tune, denying bail to yet another accused in a case of alleged ‘illegal conversion’. He observed that the right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be constituted as the right to convert others! He once again categorically stated that, “The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted.” 

The High Court referred to certain sections of the UP Government’s anti- conversion law of 2021. It noted that Section 3 of the 2021 Act clearly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement. It further observed, that the Act provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the section, which also restricts a person from abetting, convincing, or conspiring to such conversion. Further, the Court stated, that the Act was enacted keeping in view Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which does not allow or permit any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another religion. Bail was also denied to the accused in this case!

Within a week, the same judge gave similar orders (patently unconstitutional) and denied bail to the accused. The charges against the alleged accused are unwarranted and unsubstantiated. The counsel of the accused, in the second case, had categorically submitted to the High Court that, ‘the FIR does not identify any “religion converter” as defined by Section 2(I)(i) of the 2021 Act. It was further submitted that the witnesses’ statements alleging undue influence for conversion were unsubstantiated. Finally, it was contended that no person who had converted to Christianity came forward to lodge a complaint. On the other hand, the AGA submitted that a case under Section 3/5 of the Act of 2021 was made out against the applicant, a resident from Andhra Pradesh.’ 

The points in contention, are the following:

• Article 25 of the Constitution (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one’s religion, to all citizens;
• whoever has claimed that Article 25 gives one ‘the right to convert’?
• however, if one (an adult) freely embraces (converts to) another religion of one’s choice or for that matter, ‘stops believing that God exists’, who is the State or the Court to intervene?
• where is it written that ‘collective’ propagation of one’s religion, is not permitted?
• Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which India is a signatory) states, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
• denying a person bail, when it is not a serious crime, goes against the principle of natural justice

Interestingly, several BJP- ruled States in the country have enacted anti-conversion laws (Rajasthan may be the next State to do so).  This is clearly a ploy, a bogey, to defocus from more serious issues which plague the country today!  Without any statistics to defend his arguments, Justice Agarwal is very frightened that “the majority population will become a minority in India one day” Even if his funda ‘fears’ are true, he will first need to answer the question WHY? Why are the people of India embracing Christianity or for that matter, any other religion?

Instead of ‘criminalising conversions’, the learned judge should take a cue from Dr B. R. Ambedkar and his conversion to Buddhism! Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism was not born of fantasy nor was it a sudden overnight decision. He had spent over twenty years studying various religions and discerning which one would be most suited for him and the down-trodden masses for whom he spoke. Addressing a huge gathering of Mahars in Bombay in May 1936 he transparently shared his ideas on conversion and why he considered it to be the best and only route towards emancipation. He unequivocally and courageously stated, “I tell you all very specifically, religion is for man and not man for religion; to get human treatment, convert yourselves”

Significantly, on 1 April 2021, the Gujarat Legislative Assembly amended the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act 2003 which deals with instances of forcible religious conversions for marriage. This newly enacted amendment was challenged before the Gujarat High Court through writ petitions, on the grounds that it violated certain fundamental rights.  The Gujarat High Court passed an interim order prohibiting its application to inter-faith marriages. Observations of the Court in the aforementioned order provide useful insights in the aspects of freedom of marriage, free choice, and their significance under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life). The Court also questioned the constitutional validity of such an “anti-conversion” law in light of established judicial precedents.

Addressing a public gathering on the 2003 Gujarat Law at the Nehru Centre in London on 11 June 2003, eminent Jurist and former Solicitor General of India, the late Mr. Soli Sorabjee said, “The Gujarat legislation goes one step further and provides that the person who is converted has also to seek permission from the District Magistrate about the fact of such conversion. Failure to comply with these statutory provisions invites severe punishment of imprisonment and fine. These provisions are objectionable. They intrude on a person’s right to privacy. One’s religious belief is essentially a private matter as is conversion from one’s religion to another.  It is a result of deep-seated inner convictions. The State laws have the effect of deterring genuine conversions and impairing the substance of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. These laws have further shaken the confidence of the minority communities and accentuated their sense of insecurity.”

Instead of pathetically exposing his communal mindset, there is plenty, which the Allahabad High Court judge, needs to learn on Constitutional matters: justice and propriety!

(Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights, reconciliation & peace activist/writer. Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com )

The post Criminalising ‘Conversions’! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Deciding to restart the agitation demanding the implementation of the agreement dated 9th December 2021 between the Union Government and SKM, it said, “Intensifying direct struggles of farmers and farmworkers and also joint struggles with the organised and unorganised workers is the need of the hour in order to bring relief to the people who are facing severe miseries and widespread indebtedness, unemployment and price rise.”

Those attending the meeting included Dr Ashok Dhawale, Dr Darshan Pal, Yudhvir Singh, Balbeer Singh Rajewal, Revula Venkaiah,  Medha Patkar, Satyawan, Ruldu Singh Mansa, Dr Sunilam, Avik Saha, Dr Ashish Mittal, Tajinder Singh Virk, Kanwarjit Singhand Hannan Mollah.  143 delegates from 17 states took part.

It was held against the backdrop of victory of farmer leaders Amraram from Sikar, Rajasthan; Rajaram Singh from Karakat, Bihar; Sudama Prasad from Arrah, Bihar and R Sachithanantham from Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, in the Lok Sabha polls.

“As part of restarting the struggle, the SKM will submit the updated demand charter to all Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha as well as Rajya Sabha). A delegation of the respective SKM state leadership will directly meet them on 16, 17, 18 July 2024 and request them to put pressure on the NDA Govt to immediately take action on the demands. SKM leadership will seek an appointment with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and submit the memorandum of demands to them”, it declared.

The 9th December 2021 agreement covers the demands of ensuring legally guaranteed MSP@ C2+50% with procurement for all crops, no to privatisation of the power sector and prepaid smart meters, compensation to all the families of martyrs who died during the historic farmers struggle, withdrawal of all the cases related to the farmers agitation, and freeing farmers from criminal liability by amending the act on pollution control due to stubble burning.

“The general body meeting strongly condemned the anti-farmer Govt of NDA for violating the agreement made after the supreme sacrifice of 736 martyrs and sufferings of lakhs of farmers who participated for 384 days — 26th November 2020 to 11th December 2021 — of consistent and militant struggle at the Delhi borders”, the statement said.

Revealing its agitation plan, SKM said, “On 9th August 2024, SKM shall observe Quit India Day as Corporates Quit India Day by holding protest demonstrations across the country in support of the demand charter. The demand that India must come out of WTO and No MNCs in agricultural production and trade will be popularised among the farmers.”

Then, “On 17th August 2024 the SKM Punjab unit will observe ‘3 hours protest at the homes of all ministers including the Chief Minister of Punjab’ regarding the demands of Punjab, including the severe water crisis, burden of debt, opening India-Pakistan trade through road corridors and federal demands of Punjab against the policy of centralisation of power and resources by the Modi-led NDA government.”

“On the same day SKM will organise large seminars in all the states on the issue of water crisis and climate change affecting agriculture and against the commodification of natural resources including water, land, forest and minerals”, SKM added.

As part of restarting the struggle, the SKM will submit the updated demand charter to all Members of Parliament

It further said, in view of the upcoming Assembly elections, the State coordination committees of Haryana, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir will convene their meetings and ensure an independent and massive campaign among the farmers based on the SKM’s demands to expose, oppose and punish BJP in the forthcoming assembly elections.

“The State units also will explore coordination with trade unions and other mass and class organisations, and hold Vehicle Jathas, Padayatras and Mahapanchayats”, it added.

SKM’s demands include:

1. Legally guaranteed MSP@C2+50% with guaranteed procurement for all crops.
2. Comprehensive loan waiver to free farmers and agricultural workers from indebtedness and end farm suicides.
3. No privatisation of power sector, no prepaid smart meters.
4. Comprehensive insurance coverage to all crops and animal husbandry under the Public Sector, scrapping of the anti-farmer and pro-corporate PMFBY Scheme.
5. Pension of Rs.10,000 (ten thousand) per month to all farmers and agricultural workers.
6. Implementing Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, revised circle rate of land every alternative year across India, providing due compensation to all those who lost land due to illegal acquisition for projects by the public as well as private sector and stopping acquisition without rehabilitation and resettlement; ending Bulldozer Raj of demolition of slums and settlements without prior rehabilitation.
7. No corporatisation of agriculture, No MNC’s in agricultural production and trade, bringing India out of WTO agreement on agriculture.
8. No GST on agricultural inputs such as fertilisers, seeds, pesticides, electricity, irrigation, petroleum products, machineries and tractors.
9. Amending the GST Act to ensure the State Governments’ right to taxation as per the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution of India with the principle of strong States and strong Union of India.
10. Introducing separate Union Budget for Agriculture with adequate share of GDP.
11. Abolition of the Department of Cooperation in the Union Government, and keeping Cooperation as a State Subject as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The Union Government has to support the States instead of promoting centralisation of power for the interest of the corporate class at the cost of the producing classes — farmers and workers.
12. Ensuring permanent solution for wildlife menace; provide Rs 1 crore compensation for loss of life and adequate compensation for loss of crops and cattle.
13. Providing compensation for all the families of martyrs of the historic farmers’ struggle including the martyrs of Lakhimpur Kheri.
14. Withdrawing all the cases related with the farmers’ struggle and building a suitable Martyrs Memorial at Singhu/Tikri Border to commemorate the 736 farmer martyrs.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post August 9 to be observed as Corporates Quit India day: Top farmers’ group appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Videos that surfaced online showed Muslims being turned back from voting, some even injured, without having cast their votes, as per reports.

As per a report in India Today, the by-elections took place after the elected MLA from Bahujan Samaj Party, Sarwat Karim Ansari died last year. Manglaur is also a town with a significant population of Muslims. Manglaur will see competition between Congress’ Nizamuddin and BJP’s Kartar Singh Bhadana, as well as the late BSP’s son Ubedur Rehman.

Congress candidate Qazi Nizamuddin, who reportedly took the injured to the hospital, accused miscreants of openly firing, “Miscreants have been openly firing. This is the murder of Democracy. There is also news of someone being injured. There was no ambulance or any other measures taken to take the injured to hospital.”

VIDEO | Assembly bypoll: A clash broke out between two groups in Uttarakhand’s Manglaur.

“Miscreants have been openly firing. This is the murder of Democracy. There is also news of someone being injured. There was no ambulance or any other measures taken to take the injured to… pic.twitter.com/xAU3Qu2tGL

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 10, 2024

However, the police have reportedly denied shots being fired. In a video shared by Hate Detectors, the police can even be seen abusing and pushing around the elderly as well as young Muslims on camera.

This is how the police officers behaved with the #Muslims including women when they went to cast their votes during the bypolls in #Uttarakhand‘s #Manglaur. The police officer can be seen abusing and pushing around people. pic.twitter.com/QXwXpwM1H0

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) July 11, 2024

This is not the first time, stories of alleged voter suppression against Muslims have turned up. In the 2024 General Assembly elections, scores of such stories came from across the country. One of which came from Sambhal, in Uttar Pradesh, where Muslims were beaten up at the poll booths as they went to cast their vote. Locals had alleged that the police itself had lathi charged Muslims who came to vote.

Similarly, on June 1st, a press release by Citizens’ Watch led initiative called Independent Election Observers (IEO) reported systemic exclusion of working-class and minority voters in Delhi’s sixth phase of elections and termed it as voter suppression. Some of the common complaints that happened a lot include missing and deleted voters from the electoral roll, with the Muslim community being those who were affected considerably. The IEO also observed that the Election Commission of India allegedly created this mis-governance to dissuade certain voters. It also cites examples of overcrowded polling booths in working-class and Muslim localities which made it difficult for voters to cast their ballots.

Related:

Reports from UP’s Sambhal claim that several members of the Muslim community prevented from exercising their vote

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

Assam sees final day of polling after break-neck campaign unleashed by parties

YouTuber who campaigned with Rajasthan CM, Pawan Sahu uses slur against Hindu voters

The post Uttarakhand: Local leader alleges shots fired by BJP workers as Muslim voters beaten when they went to vote appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Gujrat resident, Kajal Shingala, who calls herself Kajal Hindustani, has been flagged multiple times for making inflammatory remarks against women and religious minorities. She has had a history of disturbing the communal harmony of India through her provocative and misinformed statements.

CJP highlighted the recent Hate Speeches delivered by her:

In the complaint filed before Police, CJP mentioned that Kajal Hindustani has strong antecedents in inciting hate and is a repeat hate offender as she has been involved in numerous cases of hate speech, and was arrested by the Gujarat police in April 2023 for delivering incendiary anti-Muslim speech at an event organized by Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Una.

On March 5 at Hindu Janakroash Morcha rally organised by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Ratnagiri, Kolhapur, she delivered a hate speech targeting Muslims, and accusing them of pursuing Ghazwa-e-Hind (battle to take over India and make it into Islamic nation). During her speech, she recalled that there are four major challenges before the country, i.e., love jihad, land encroachment, religious conversion, and drugs. Charging the religious minority of encroachment, she said, “They systematically plan all of these. They find a place, arrange 4 pieces of bricks around it, put a green cloth over it, and make it mazaar. Gradually it will take the form of Dargah, and then, when the government would talk about demolishing it, they will engage in stone pelting against the government authorities and police.” In this case, we sent our complaint to Dhananjay Kulkarni (Superintendent of Police, Ratnagiri) and M. Devender Singh (Collector, Ratnagiri) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, and 505 (1) and (2).

In another video that emerged of her at an event in Nagpur organised by the same organisation on February 2 this year, she asked Hindus to socially boycott Muslims, arguing that any relation between a Hindu and a Muslim is impossible, as the latter wants to commit Ghazwa-e-Hind. In this case, we sent our complaint to Kamlakar Gaikwad (Superintendent of Police, Nagpur) and Vipin Itankar (Collector, Nagpur) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, and 505 (1) and (2).

Similarly, on February 6, 2024 in a speech delivered at Shri. Shivaji High school in Navapur (Nandurbar), she urged that “Only buy groceries from Hindu brothers, only give jobs to Hindu brothers. If your Hindu brother is selling a Tomato at an expensive price than others, then buy less quantity but buy only from your Hindu brothers”, once again accusing the Muslim community of overbreeding, Ghazwa-e-Hind, and terrorism. In this case, we sent our complaint to Vinayak

Mahamuni (Sub Divisional Officer, Nandurbar) and Manisha Khatri (Collector, Nandurbar) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, 505 (1) and (2).

This theme was further repeated during her speech on January 31, 2024 at an event in Jalgaon. In this case, we sent our complaint to M Rajkumar (Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon) and Ayush Prasad (Collector, Jalgaon) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, and 505 (1) and (2).

The complaint also provides the recent directives issued by the Supreme Court of India in regards to curbing hate speeches, which directs the police to video tape such events that has a probability of hate speeches being delivered and then file suo-moto FIRs against the speakers and organisers and the circular issued by DGP Maharashtra in February, 2023 and May, 2023 urging strict action on Hate Speech.

CJP dispatched complaints to the Superintendent of Police (SP) and District Magistrate (DM), Nanded (Maharashtra), urging prompt action that the inflammatory and divisive speech delivered by Kajal Hindustani amounts to insightful and provocative. CJP has urged mandatory registration of FIR in incidents of Hate Speeches in compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated April 28, 2023, in which the division bench of Justice KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 943 of 2021], directed all States/UTs to register Suo moto FIR against Hate Speech irrespective of religion. The court added that when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Section 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law.

Most crucially, we have also invoked the binding judicial orders of the Supreme Court in the Shaheen Abdullah vs Union of Indian (Writ Petition (Civil) 940/2022) which mandate the police to suo moto register cases in incidents of hate speeches, as per law.

With this substantive background and facts, CJP urged Maharashtra police to take action as per sections 196, 197 (1), 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and any other provisions of law, as deemed necessary by the police.

The Complaint can be read here:

Related:

Hindu Jan Akrosh rally in Mumbai sees conspiracy theories being peddled against Muslims

BJP MLA Raja Singh granted permission for Mira Road rally on Feb 25, subject to anti-hate speech conditions

CJP urges Maharashtra Police to deny permission to BJP MLA Raja Singh to take out rally in Mira Road as it could result in a law-and-order situations

The post CJP moves Maharashtra Police against the Hateful and Provocative Speech delivered by Kajal Hindustani in Mudkhed, Nanded appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In our complaint dated July 10 to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), a statutory body mandated with the duty to protect the rights of the minorities, we flagged 8 episodes of hate crimes committed against weaker sections of the society across the states of Orrisa, Jharkhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh in the months of June-July this year. The hate crime incidents listed in our complaint includes cases of mob lynching, ransacking of the shop, physical assault, and house trespassing on the occasion of Eid al-Adha to prevent consumption of meat. We addressed our complaint to Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the NCM, Iqbal Singh Lalpura and Kersi Kaikhushroo Deboo, respectively, under Section 9(d) of the NMC Act, which mandates that the minority body to “look into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of the minorities and take up such matters with the appropriate authorities”.

For each listed incident, we have provided a detailed account of the facts, including date, location, particulars of the incident, and actors involved therein (wherever identifiable). In addition, CJP has specified the applicable criminal laws under both Indian Penal Code and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to the incidents in question. To further strengthen the complaint legally, we have also cited binding court judgements on the subject matter, international conventions, and the relevant executive or police orders (wherever applicable). Importantly, while addressing the issue of hate crime, CJP has also urged the NMC to look into societal and long-term effects of hate crimes on the overall wellbeing and safety not only of the minorities but all sections of the society, accentuating the debilitating effects of hate crime on individuals, groups, and the country as a whole.

Finally, we pressed the National Commission of Minorities to take several concrete measures on the complained cases, including directing police/investigative agencies to identity and track down the culprits, ensuring registration of FIRs, and further encouraged the Commission to closely monitor the probe in the listed incidents.

Details of the incidents

1. Date: July 1

Location: Koderma, Jharkhand

Details: As per journalist Meer Faisal, an Imam named Maulana Sahabuddin from Basramo Turkabad in the Barkatha area was lynched by a mob in Koderma district on July 1st. A resident of Raghuniyadih, Sahabuddin was returning home on his bike when a mob surrounded him and accused him of hitting a woman on the road. After this accusation, they brutally beat him to death, hitting his viciously.

2. Date: June 30

Location: Sadulpur, Churu, Rajasthan (close to Lasedi village on NH52)

Details: A group of around 20 cow vigilantes brutally assaulted a driver and his companion in Sadulpur, late on Sunday night (June 30). The victims, identified as Sonu Bishnoi (29) and Sundar Bishnoi (35), were transporting lemons from Jaipur to Punjab when they were intercepted by vigilantes on suspicion of cattle smuggling. A video of the incident shows the mob armed with sticks thrashing the victims even as they lay on the ground, hitting them in the face with shoes and kicking their heads. Vigilantes even took away their mobile phones, rendering them helpless. The victims were initially taken to a local hospital in Churu and later referred to a private hospital in Haryana for better treatment. Sonu Banshiram sustained multiple fractures in both legs, while Sundar Singh suffered injuries to his arms and head. Reportedly, the victims heard the names Sonu, Sonia, Varun, and Dinesh during the attack.

Rajasthan: Cow vigilantes brutally thrashed Sonu Bishnoi and Sundar Bishnoi from Haryana over false allegations of transporting cattle, while in reality, the pickup truck was loaded with lemons. pic.twitter.com/5MdDyy7ujJ

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) July 2, 2024

3. Date: June 19 

Location: Chhota Chowk, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh 

Details: On June 19, a mob of 400-500 people looted the textile shop of the Muslim man in Chhota Chowk, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, over false allegations of cow slaughter. The shop was vandalised after the shopkeeper had shared a picture of an animal sacrifice on his WhatsApp status. Article 14 reported that even though there is a video of the men inciting the mob before the attack on Muslim shops, the police have not arrested them till date. After the attack, some of the Muslim shopkeepers fled from the area and have since lost their livelihood and erstwhile home. A video of the incident shows the mob destroying and throwing out the contents of the shop as crowd cheers under police presence. After this, the crowd marched to the district collector’s office, chanting slogans such as “Goli maaro saalon ko” and “Jai Shri Ram.” The threats of violence were further repeated at a gathering of people on 26 June.

A Hindutva mob in Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, looted and vandalized a Muslim man’s shop in front of the police after he posted a picture of an animal sacrifice on his WhatsApp status. pic.twitter.com/KQndpp0fZU

— The Observer Post (@TheObserverPost) June 19, 2024

4. Date: June 18

Location: Mamu Bhanja, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

Details: A 35-year-old Muslim man, named Mohammed Farid alias Aurangzeb, was lynched by a mob on the night of June 18. As per the police, he was beaten to death over suspicion of a theft attempt. However, Mohammed Zaki, the victim’s brother, has stated that Farid was just coming back home from work when he was attacked by a mob in the locality. The incident reportedly took place around 10:15 PM on June 18. As per Hindustan Times, the complaint alleges that the accused ‘gathered together’ with the intention to kill Farid as he was a Muslim, “They (accused) gathered with the intention of killing brother Aurangzeb. They had lathi, stick, hockey (stick) and iron rod in hand and attacked my brother after identifying him as a Muslim, they killed him,” the complainant has alleged in the FIR.” The family of the victim has demanded compensation and strict punishment for the accused.

 5. Date: June 16 

Location: Khordha, Orrisa 

Details: A mob arrived and forced their way into a house and seized meat from a fridge in the home on June 16. This incident had taken place only shortly after Eid al-Adha and a viral video has surfaced showing a group of cow vigilantes forcefully entering a Muslim household. The mob, chanting slogans of “Jai Shri Ram,” as they entered and raided the family’s refrigerator, seizing all the meat and the refrigerator itself on mere suspicion that it contained beef.

6. Date: June 12 

Location: Jagdalpur, Chattisgarh 

Details: As per Maktoob Media, on June 12, Christian families in Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, were reportedly attacked by a Hindutva mob. They were also given an ultimatum to denounce their religion within 10 days. The violent incident took place in Bade Paroda village, under Badanji Police Station. Three victims were hospitalised after the incident. As per Maktoob Media, the lawyer of the injured has stated that all the attacks happening in the area since 2023 were aided by local police, and has also been forcing the families to flee their village. One of the injured suffered a broken leg, according to the lawyer. Since 2023, Bade Paroda has been reportedly a tense area for violence against Christians, with Christian minorities often targeted by violence and intimidation.

 7. Date: June 10 

Location: Kaithal, Haryana 

Details: In Haryana’s Kaithal, a Sikh man was beaten by unknown people who also called him a Khalistani, as per Times of India. The Haryana Police have so far arrested two people in connection with the assault. Following the incident on June 10, the Kaithal police created a five-member Special Investigation Team to investigate. The arrested men have been identified as Ishu who is a resident of Singwal village in Jind, and Sunil who is from Shergarh village, according to Superintendent of Police Upasana.

8. Date: June 7 

Location: Raipur, Chhattisgarh 

Details: In Raipur, Chhattisgarh, two Muslim men, Chand Miya and Guddu Khan, were beaten to death by cow vigilantes on June 7 while transporting buffaloes in a truck. Their bodies were found in the Mahanadi River. A third man, Saddam Khan was also critically injured and receiving treatment in a hospital, only to succumb to his injuries a short while later. The incident took place when a group of youths began following it, eventually surrounding it on the Mahanadi bridge. Reports indicate that the attackers laid spikes on the road to stop the truck, then forcefully pulled out the occupants and assaulted them. In a desperate attempt to escape, one of the victims jumped into the river.

Copy of our complaint to the National Commission for Minorities can be found here:

Related:

Repeat offender among suspects in lynching of Muslim man in Gujarat

Cow vigilantes chase truck, tie up Muslim truck driver, and associate 

Jharkhand: Another case of mob lynching of Muslim man 

June 2024: 10 violent attacks against cattle transporters and 14 cases of communal violence in various states across India 

Mob beats to death a young Muslim, hostilities had been rising as locals were not happy with Muslims doing well in cricket 

The post CJP flags 8 incidents of hate crime including lynchings to National Commission for Minorities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since then many protests by Sadhus have taken place against Rahul’s statement. In Ahmedabad Congress office was attacked. RSS Combine is spreading that Rahul has called all Hindus violent etc. On the other side Rahul has elaborated that what he means by Hinduism is based on truth, non-violence and love. RSS ideologues are taking a sweep that Nehru to Rahul Gandhi’s ideology is out of touch with reality. As per them they have restricted only to minority questions to preserve their vote bank.

As such from the INDIA block many have stood with Rahul’s elaboration of the humanistic view of Hinduism. There is some overlap between the use of the word Hinduism and Hindutva currently. As Uddhav Thackeray said that his views on Hindutva are the same as Rahul elaborated (about Hinduism). RSS ideologues also criticize Nehru for starting his work of Sampradayikata Virodhi Abhiyan (Campaign against communalism) as being directed against RSS! They also take Nehru on for opposing President Rajendra Prasad’s inaugurating the Somanth temple. They claim that RSS hindutva derives from Dayanand Sarswati, Swami Vivekanand, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Shyama Prasad Mukerjee. As such RSS ideology does not have much to do with ideologies of Dayanand Sarswati and Swami Vivekanand, except using their names to cover their ideology.

As Hinduism is not a prophet based religion many interpretations of the same have been used. The very word Hindu is missing in the Holy Hindu scriptures, Vedas, Upnishad, Gita or Manu smriti. The word was coined by those coming from West of Sindhu, for whom the word S was used in a restricted manner and for S they used to pronounce H. Sindhu became Hindu and the word initially denoted the area spread from Sindhu River to sea. The earlier religious tendencies prevalent here were Vedic religion (which also can be labelled as Brahmanism), Ajivikas, Tantra, Nath, Shaiva, Buddhism and Jainism in the main.

Later the word Hindu became a conglomerate of different tendencies (barring Buddhism and Jainism) prevailing here. Except Brahmanism the other tendencies were called Shramans. The main difference between Brahmanism and Shramanism was the presence of caste and gender hierarchy in Brahmanism. The construction of the term Hinduism has been well explained by historian D. N. Jha in his Presidential address of Indian History Congress 2006. He points out “Of Course the Word (Hindu, added) was in use in pre-colonial India, but it was not before late eighteen or early 19^th Century that it was appropriated by British scholars.” Since then it has found wider use. From here on the term was used for all in the subcontinent except for those who were Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians.

As there were no rigid boundaries, the Brahmanical stream projected Vedas and Manusmriti as sacred scriptures. The major understandings of Hinduism also varied. For Ambedkar Hinduism is dominated by Brahmanism, caste system. That’s what led him to burn Manusmiriti. Mahatma Gandhi had on other hand called himself a Sanatani Hindu and wrote in Young India on 6^th October 1921 “Hinduism tells everyone to worship God according to his own faith or Dharma, and so it lives at peace with all the religions.” A unique concept for interfaith relations and pluralism! Now Rahul Gandhi while talking about Hinduism harps on truth, love and non-violence as being the core of Hinduism.

The word Hindutva was coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892 and linked it with the idealism of attaining spiritual heights. At the political level of this word Hindutva was introduced and defined by Savarkar in his book ‘Essentials of Hindutva’. (1923) His Hindutva is based on Aryan race, this Holy land (from Sindhu to Seas) and Culture (Brahmanical). Savarkar was very critical of Buddhism’s non-violence and attributed India’s weakness to non-violence propagated by Buddhism. This is a totally warped up understanding of our History. There was no country in the modern sense, and even if we grant Kingdoms equal to country we need to remember Emperor Asoka adopted Buddhism and his empire was the largest in Ancient India. He defined Hindu as one who regarded this land as his fatherland and Holy land.

RSS takes off from Savarkar and regards Islam and Christianity as foreign religions and upholds the ancient Holy Scriptures (Manu Smriti e.g.). RSS has made violence as part of its creed and its head office has an exhibition of various armaments, which are worshipped on the Dussera day. RSS shakhas have spread Hate by demonizing Muslim kings like Khilji, Babar, Aurangzeb and glorified Hindu Kings like Rana Pratap, Shivaji and Prithviraj Chauhan. It had also been critical of the national movement as people of all religions participated in it. It claims to represent the Hindus, as it takes up the emotive issues like temple destructions, Cow beef, and forcible conversions. The Hate spread by RSS was pointed out by none other than Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel after banning RSS in 1948, “All their speeches were full of communal poison, as a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.”

While leaders like Mahatma Gandhi to Rahul Gandhi have expanded and enhanced the humane aspect of Hinduism, the Savarkar-RSS have treaded the path of hate and consequent violence. While Ambedkar stands to oppose the Brahmanical domination of Hindu practice, Mahatma Gandhi to Rahul are giving an inclusive and non-violent meaning to Hinduism.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia

The post Rahul Gandhi’s Hinduism versus BJP-RSS’s Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While previous sections in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) –Section 153a, 153b, 153c and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were found wholly inadequate in identifying and prosecuting the growing corrosive phenomenon, the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 breaks no new ground.

In fact, the new criminal laws, that were hurriedly rushed through Parliament while 146 Members of Parliament were suspended, with no amendments being discussed not entertained –and no referrals to a Joint Select Committee as is the norm—had been evolved in a secretive fashion by a “Committee” consisting of former Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi (NLUD), Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao, present VC, NLUD, GS Bajpeyi and advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, Rajsya Sabha member, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That such a committee did ignore Supreme Court judgements with clear cut directions on laws for prosecuting hate speech as also the Law Commission’s 267th Report.

The new criminal laws dealing with the subject-matter are simply not sufficient to cope with the menace of ‘Hate Speeches’. Hate/derogatory/inflammatory speech has not been defined in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and neither in any other penal law.

The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. defines the expression “hate speech” as under:

“hate speech. —Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.”

Hate speech commonly relies on stereotypes about insular groups in order to influence hostile behaviour towards them. Supremacist and outright menacing statements deny that targeted groups have a legitimate right to equal civil treatment and advocate against their equal participation in a democracy. Destructive messages are particularly dangerous when they rely on historically established symbolism, such as burning crosses or swastikas, in order to kindle widely shared prejudices. Messages that are meant to hurt individuals –and incite violence against them –because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation have a greater social impact than those that attempt to draw out individuals into pugilistic conflicts. Establishing a broad consensus for large-scale harmful actions, such as those carried out by supremacist movements, relies on a form of self-expression that seeks the diminished deliberative participation of groups of the population. Hate speech extols injustices, devalues human worth, glamorises crimes, and seeks out recruits for anti-democratic organisations.

Comparison between BNS 2023 and IPC 1860:

In the absence of specific provisions against the offence of Hate Speech, the prosecution was initiated only through the following provisions referred. Here is the comparison between BNS 2023 and IPC 1860:

Within the BNS, 2023 sections 196(1), and 197 (1) (Ss. 153A and 153B of IPC, 1860) – the sections that deal with hate speech – inserted with provision of “Electronic Communication”.  However the entire newly enacted law –the Sanhita – does not, anywhere, define the tern, Electronic Communication.

Section 196(1) states that “if anyone Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication”, he/she will be punished. Under section 197(1) imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication, is/are subject to prosecution under this provision.

A misuse of this provision has already been evident in a case from Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, when someone posting news on an alleged incident of “lynching” was booked under this section. Read here.

Armed Possession not criminalised under BNS:

Critically, Section 153AA of IPC, which deals with punishment for knowingly carrying arms in any procession or organizing, or holding or taking part in any mass drill or mass training with arms finds no place in the BNS 2023. This section was enacted in 2005 by Parliament but was never notified! The Section (amendment of 153AA) however still signifies a crucial change that could have been brought in through BNS but not reflected. The BNS does not seems to be a new approach to the law that addresses present day societal upheavals especially the corrosive crimes of hate speech.

As crucial is the deliberate bypassing by the BNS 2023 of the Law Commission’s 267th Report on Hate Speech:

The Supreme Court of India in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477, directed the Law Commission of India to look into issue of hate speeches being made by politicians and to consider framing guidelines to prevent provocative statements and requested the Commission to examine the issue Hate Speech thoroughly also to define the expression “Hate Speech” and make Recommendations to Parliament to strengthen the Election Commission to curb the menace of “hate speeches” irrespective of whenever made.

The Judgment Can be read here:

On March 23, 2017, the Law Commission of India (Chairman, Former Judge SC, Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan) was submitted its 267th Report titled “Hate Speech” suggested to then Union Law Minister Ravi Shakar Prasad, amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Procedure Code, 1973 by adding new provisions on ‘Prohibiting incitement to hatred’ following section 153B IPC and ‘Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’ following section 505 IPC and accordingly amending the First Schedule of the CrPC.

Despite the recommendation made by the Law Commission, the Union Government ignored the gravity and sensitiveness of the issue of Hate Speech, which is on the rise across country. The ‘Hateful’ and ‘Inflammatory Speech’ leading to violence, riots, promote enmity on grounds of religion and disturbing the long-standing harmony among the citizens.

Proposed new provisions to curb Hate Speech:

With its 267th Report, the Law Commission suggested not just that new provisions in IPC are required to be incorporated but keeping the necessity of amending the penal law, a draft amendment bill, namely, The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 suggesting insertion of new section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases), needs to be added.

Proposed Sections in IPC:

Chapter II – Insertion of new section after section153B.- 

In the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code), after section 153B, the following section shall be inserted, namely: –

Prohibiting incitement to hatred- “153 C. Whoever on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe –

(a) uses gravely threatening words either spoken or written, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause, fear or alarm; or

(b) advocates hatred by words either spoken or written, signs, visible representations, that causes incitement to violence shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and fine up to Rs 5000, or with both.”.

Insertion of new section after section 505.-

In the Penal Code, after section 505, the following section shall be inserted, namely: – Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases.

“505 A. Whoever in public intentionally on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe –

uses words, or displays any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is gravely threatening, or derogatory;

(i) within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm, or;

(ii) with the intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence, against that person or another, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and/or fine up to Rs 5000, or both”.

The Law Commission’s 267th Report can be Read here:

Supreme Court’s concern over Hate speech:

Pertinently, the Supreme Court on various occasions, especially since 2022, has asked government to curb and prevent the incidents of hate speech in public discourse including the electronic and other media. As the existing legal framework is not sufficient to prevent this phenomenon, the Supreme Court has, time and again, issued directions about the absence of offence of Hate Speech in Indian Criminal Law. However, although, the word Hate Speech has not been squarely defined in Indian penal law, India’s Constitutional Courts have discussed this phenomenon, the ingredients of Hate Speech, the nuances and distinctions..

In October 2022, while hearing a petition by journalist Shaheen Abdullah, Justice KM Joseph had slammed the Government that “why is the government remaining a mute spectator” and asked them to bring a law regulating media and hate speech. In Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (C) No. 940 of 2022], the division bench of Justice Km Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, directed the directs Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi Governments to take suo motu action against hate speech crimes without waiting for formal complaints irrespective of the religion of the offender.

The order can be read here:

The directions issued by the Supreme Court in Shaheen Abdulla (Supra) had been limited to Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Uttarakhand.

On April 28, 2023, the division bench of Justice KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 943 of 2021], extended its 2022 order and directed all States/UTs to register Suo moto FIR against Hate Speech irrespective of religion. The court added that when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Section 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law.

The judgement can be read here:

On January, 2023, while hearing a batch of petitions involving hate speech incident and expressing the concerns about the manner in which TV Channels are functioning, the Supreme Court was observed that “offending anchors must be taken off Air, Media should not create division”.

Further, in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court embarked on a comprehensive review of Indian and foreign decisions on hate speech, and a few academic articles on the subject. Devgan, a television journalist, faced criminal charges under various provisions of the IPC on the basis of his statements referring to a saint in Islam as an “invader, terrorist and robber who had come to India to convert its population to Islam” during a television programme hosted by him. The Court refused to quash the criminal cases against him, which affirmed the adequacy of existing criminal law to recognise hate speech, even if made accidentally or in error, as was claimed by Devgan. The Court observed that hate speech constituted three elements – content, intent, and harm or impact – and that the content of a speech must be coupled with the intent of the speaker to incite or cause harm.

The Judgement can be read here:

In the case of Kaushal Kishore vs. State of Up and Others (2023) 4 SCC 1, clarified that every citizen of India must consciously be restrained in speech, and exercise the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) only in the sense that it was intended by the framers of the Constitution, to be exercised. This is the true content of Article 19(1)(a) which does not vest with citizens unbridled liberty to utter statements which are vitriolic, derogatory, unwarranted, have no redeeming purpose and which, in no way amount to a communication of ideas. Article 19(1)(a) vests a multi-faceted right, which protects several species of speech and expression from interference by the State.

However, what is clear is that the right to freedom speech and expression, in plural d democracy does not protect statements made by a citizen, which strike at the dignity of a fellow citizen. Fraternity and equality lie at the very base of our Constitutional culture and upon which the superstructure of rights are built, and these do not permit such rights to be employed in a manner so as to attack the rights of another. If speech, ensuing from persons of political, social or any other authority by their utterance impact the dignity and right to life of a fellow citizen or a depressed section, with also a potential to create circumstances for him/them that are exclusivist or make them prone to violence, this constitutes Hate Speech.

The Judgement can read here:

In the case of Tehseen Poonawala vs. Union of India and Others (2018) 9 SCC 501, the Supreme Court of India discussed preventive, remedial and punitive measures in order to identity and prevent the incidents of hate speeches. The court further recorded that mob vigilantism and mob violence have to be prevented by the governments by taking strict action. That rising intolerance and growing polarisation expressed through incidents of mob violence cannot be permitted to become the normal way of life or the normal state of law and order in the country. The State has a sacrosanct duty to protect its people from unruly elements and perpetrators of vigilantism, with utmost sincerity.

The Judgement can be read here:

Conclusion:

There is no doubt that India’s long standing religious and cultural harmony among the peoples of different beliefs and faith, infected and affected by the hate and inflammatory statements made by politicians and giving rise to mob violence, lynching, harassment etc. Hate Speech has now become a tool and short cut to get publicity and the politicians are instead of curbing the incidents of hate speeches are encouraging the wrongdoers to fulfill their “hateful propaganda”, “destructive messages” and “biased speeches” for vote bank politics at the cost of integrity and harmony of the nation.

All these rich jurisprudential developments have been wilfully ignored by both government and Parliament that hastily passed the 2023 BNS Laws. Instead of addressing the inadequacies of the previous IPC and CrPC, the BNS 2023 makes the prevalent laws even more regressive and police authorities armed with more power.

In the arena of hate speech, BNS 2023 is not just wanting as a set of laws that will ensure prosecution but in fact may harbour in an era that is conducive to the vulnerable victim communities being further targeted and criminalized.

Related:

Towards a Hate Free Nation: Handbook for Police & Administration

New Criminal Laws: Reform or Repression? Insights from Legal Experts

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bills: Pro-People Reforms or Draconian Changes?

Debating India’s New Criminal Laws: Moving Away from Colonization or Towards Authoritarianism?

The post Modi’s government bypasses SC & Law Commission, no nuanced, strong penal sections on Hate Speech: BNS, 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After they got a call from the police, Akhtar’s family saw his unconscious body with severe injuries to his legs and head.

Despite the evidence of a brutal attack, the police dismissed their pleas and have reportedly gone ahead and labelled Akhtar as a thief.

According to Clarion Media, his nephew Sarfaraz had told the media, “This is an incident of mob lynching. There is no issue related to the theft. When I went to the police station, my uncle was accused of theft. This is completely false. There is nothing like theft. No suspicious thing was found with him”

The family also reportedly got a phone call from a number whose name showed ‘Black Panther’. On the call they could hear only the sounds of despair and violence. “When I got the call, I could only hear ‘Maaro, Maaro’. There was so much noise.” A voice on the call also stated that they were going to kill Ansari.

As per a report in The Telegraph, the police have stated that Ansari was beaten by locals because he was stealing goats.

Earlier last week, Jharkhand had seen a similar horrible case of mob lynching where Maulana Shahabuddin, an imam from a mosque, was reportedly beaten to death in the state’s Koderma district.

After West Bengal, Rajasthan and Manipur, Jharkhand is one of the fourth Indian states that had passed an anti-mob lynching law, the law in the state was called “Prevention of Mob Violence and Mob Lynching Bill, 2021”, and granted a jail term of over 3 years as punishment. However, the implementation of the law has been stalled as the bill was returned by the government with objections. The opposition in the state, BJP, opposed the bill. Similarly, a group of tribals also opposed the bill, as per a report in Hindustan Times. A group called Janjati Suraksha Manch met the governor and had urged the government not to pass the bill as it would undermine the rights of the tribals and the special provisions granted to them by the centre.

Similarly, another case of violence has arrived from Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. A Muslim man named Firooz Qureshi was beaten up by three men in the district. He died after reaching home. An FIR regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been registered in the case. Furthermore, the Uttar Pradesh police has registered a case against Muslim journalists Zakir Ali Tiyagi and Wasim Ali Tiyagi, and others, for sharing a post regarding the incident.

This was the tweet in question.

शामली जिले के कस्बा जलालाबाद में मॉब लिंचिंग में फिरोज कुरैशी नामक युवक की मौत, फिरोज किसी कारण जलालाबाद के मोहल्ला गंगा आर्यनगर गया था वहां पिंकी,पंकज राजेन्द्र ने अपने साथियों के साथ मिलकर उसको बेरहमी से पीटा जिसके बाद उसे वहां के निवासियों ने किसी तरह बचाने की कोशिश की पर कुछ… pic.twitter.com/3pxO07dssZ

— Zakir Ali Tyagi (@ZakirAliTyagi) July 5, 2024

Zakir Ali told the Indian Express, “Shamli Police has registered an FIR against me for reporting the ‘lynching case’. This is not the first time. Even before this I had been attacked five times because of my reporting. Not only me but other journalists too are surprised.”

Related:

June 2024: 10 violent attacks against cattle transporters and 14 cases of communal violence in various states across India

 Mohammed Siraj trolled for ‘thanking Allah’ after World Cup victory

Mob beats to death a young Muslim, hostilities had been rising as locals were not happy with Muslims doing well in cricket

Assam CM and BJP state president blame Muslims for defeat, call them ‘communal group’ 

The post Jharkhand: Another case of mob lynching of Muslim man appeared first on SabrangIndia.