Historically, the Indian state has used demographic data for its population control goals. After decades of deploying demographic data to control fertility and sexuality, and sustained resistance by women’s movements for their reproductive rights, bodily autonomy and integrity, the ‘target’ has now moved to specific religious communities, in particular minorities, with a communal agenda, under the pretext of achieving an ‘infiltrator-free India’. 

The statement states:

“It is in this context that the we as feminists, civil liberties and people’s movements, activists, academics and concerned citizens are deeply concerned at the questionable Terms of Reference (ToR) of the ‘High-Level Committee on Demographic Change’ (HPC-DC) notified by the Government of India on May 26, 2026, in pursuance of the Prime Minister’s announcement of the ‘High-Powered Demography Mission’ on August 15, 2025.

“The Committee is to be chaired by Jst (Retd) Prakash Prabhakar Navlekar, with Mr. Durga Shankar Mishra (Retd. IAS), Mr. Balaji Srivastava (Retd. IPS), Dr. Shamika Ravi and the Census Commissioner, as its members. Notably, the ToR has references to “illegal immigration or “illegal migrants” in seven of its eight action points. The sole action point that does not include such references calls for an analysis of structural population changes among “religious and social communities”

“Demography is a broad field of inquiry that studies population processes such as birth, death, fertility, mortality, ageing, gender ratios, population distribution, migration, urbanisation and the influence of development models on demographic patterns. One would, therefore, expect the ToR to mandate an examination of the full range of demographic transformations currently reshaping India, including declining fertility rates, regional population disparities, internal migration, emigration, changing family structures, ageing populations, gender inequalities, and the intensification of care responsibilities. 

“A genuinely independent Committee would be tasked with analysing the socio-economic drivers of these critical changes, assessing the social, political, cultural and economic consequences at the regional, state and local levels, and recommending policies grounded in evidence and constitutional values. Instead, the ToR has presumed and pre-determined the outcomes of the inquiry and narrowed this vast subject almost exclusively to questions of “illegal immigration”, “religious and social communities”, border management, identification systems, detention and deportation. We are particularly concerned that the Committee has been tasked with analysing population changes among religious and social communities, while simultaneously operating within a framework that repeatedly links demographic change to “illegal immigration” and “demographic imbalance”.

“The Government should ensure that any study of demographic change is independent, methodologically transparent, federally undertaken, and free from assumptions that pre-determine its findings. Instead, this Committee appears poised to recommend mechanisms for identifying, detaining and deporting persons presumed to be illegal immigrants. Although presented as demographic analysis, the ToR effectively continues the regime’s misplaced focus on “illegal immigration” as a primary threat to national sovereignty while simultaneously stigmatising entire communities. Such an approach risks deepening social polarisation rather than advancing evidence-based public policy.

“As feminists, we reject attempts to reduce complex social realities to narratives of demographic threat linked to illegal immigration. History shows that anxieties about population composition often translate into increased surveillance of women’s bodies, restrictions on reproductive autonomy, and heightened discrimination against minorities, marginalized, and communities in peripheral locations.  The recent SIR exercise conducted through the lens of “illegal immigration” resulted in disproportionately high deletions of women voters and Muslims, relative to their share of the population.

“We, therefore, request that the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the objectives and ToR of the said Committee and defer the commencement of the Committee’s work, at least until the ongoing Census is completed. Only a robust, exhaustive, and transparent Census can provide a trustworthy demographic baseline for understanding the myriad complex population changes India is undergoing. The suggested policies based on the analysis of this Census data will equip the state to address the demographic challenges. Proceeding without such a foundation risks compounding errors, deepening exclusions, and enabling pre-determined conclusions, under the guise of demographic study.”

ALIFA has also urged that the government to step back from this misguided approach. Public policy must be guided by constitutional values, rigorous evidence, and respect for human rights. India’s demographic future should be approached as a question of justice, equality and human development, not as a narrative of suspicion and fear.

Related:

High-Level Committee on Demographic Change (HLC-DC): Another Offensive on Indian Muslims!

The post ALIFA seeks review of questionable ToR of ‘High-Level Committee on Demographic Change’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As public criticism mounted, the Government maintained that the clarification represented no change in legal position. Rather, officials asserted that passports had never been proof of citizenship. Quoting the statutory scheme of the Passports Act, officials argued that the Act itself contemplates the issuance of passports and travel documents to certain categories of non-citizens and therefore possession of a passport cannot constitute conclusive proof of citizenship. Government officials further justified their position by relying upon a 2013 judgment of the Bombay High Court, asserting that the Court had already held that a passport is not proof of citizenship. As reported by The Times of India, an official stated:

“It was not decided yesterday that the passport is not proof of citizenship. It was not even decided in the last 12 years. The passport has never been a proof of citizenship. Passports Act 1967 says that passports can be given to non-citizens. Judgments of Bombay HC from 2013 have also made it clear a passport is not proof of citizenship.”

The same report explained that the Government’s position rested upon two propositions: first, that the Passports Act allows passports or travel documents to be issued in limited situations to non-citizens; and secondly, that the Bombay High Court had recognised that possession of a passport cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of citizenship. Similar explanations appeared in media coverage by The Hindu, The Indian Express and other national newspapers, many of which reproduced the Government’s reliance on the Bombay High Court decision.

Even at first glance, the official explanation is not persuasive. The Times of India report itself mentions that the passport issued was subsequently terminated, suggesting that this case needs to be looked at in its specificity and is not illustrative. Sabrangindia has accessed the hitherto unavailable, unreported 2013 judgement (see below). A closer examination of both the statutory framework and the Bombay High Court judgment reveals that the legal position is considerably more nuanced. More importantly, it raises the question whether the Government has relied upon the Bombay High Court decision for a proposition that the Court itself never decided.

The statutory scheme of the Passports Act, 1967

The Passports Act, 1967 was enacted “to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.” The title of the Act itself demonstrates that Parliament recognised that travel documentation may occasionally be issued not only to Indian citizens but also to “other persons.”

This distinction is significant. The Act governs travel documentation, whereas citizenship is regulated independently by the Citizenship Act, 1955. The two enactments undoubtedly operate in different legal spheres. A passport is issued under one statute; citizenship is acquired, determined and regulated under another.

However, it does not necessarily follow that because a statute permits the issuance of travel documents to certain categories of non-citizens, every passport issued under the Act loses all evidentiary value regarding citizenship. The Government’s argument conflates two distinct legal propositions.

The first proposition, that citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, is unquestionably correct.

The second proposition, that a passport therefore has no evidentiary significance regarding citizenship, does not automatically follow from the first.

The Passports Act envisages exceptional circumstances in which travel documentation may be issued to non-citizens, such as certificates of identity, emergency certificates and other recognised travel documents issued in accordance with domestic law and international obligations. These exceptional statutory situations cannot be used to erase the ordinary legal presumption that accompanies the issuance of a passport to an Indian citizen after verification by the Passport Authority. The existence of exceptions does not determine the legal character of the general rule.

Indeed, the very process prescribed under the Passports Act and the Passport Rules demonstrates that issuance of a passport ordinarily follows verification of the applicant’s identity, nationality and supporting documents. While this verification may not amount to a judicial determination of citizenship, it would be equally incorrect to suggest that the exercise is legally meaningless or that a valid passport carries no evidentiary weight whatsoever.

The Bombay High Court Judgment: What did the court actually decide?

The Government’s principal judicial authority for its present position is the Bombay High Court’s decision in Anwar Hussain Abdul Kadar Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2013). The judgment, delivered by Justice K.U. Chandiwal in July 2013, has been cited in official explanations as establishing that “a passport is not proof of citizenship.”

A careful reading of the judgment, however, reveals something quite different. The applicants had been convicted under the Foreigners Act and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules. Before the High Court, they sought to rely upon several documents—including passports, Aadhaar cards and a birth certificate—to establish that they were Indian citizens. Their principal submission was that these documents had not been produced before the trial court and therefore the matter ought to be remanded for reconsideration.

The High Court declined to interfere. Crucially, however, the Court did not reject the passport because passports are incapable of evidencing citizenship. Instead, it rejected reliance on the particular passport produced before it because the passport had already been terminated.

The Court expressly observed:

“However, the passport to which the learned Counsel gave reference is already terminated passport. Therefore, no legal basis can be achieved for its reliance.” (Para 3)

This sentence constitutes the heart of the judgment. The Court’s reasoning was document-specific. It was not analysing the evidentiary value of a valid passport. Rather, it held that a passport whose legal validity had already been terminated could no longer furnish a legal basis for establishing citizenship.

The Court thereafter turned to the remaining documentary evidence. It observed that although one applicant had produced a birth certificate, the statutory requirements governing citizenship by birth had not been satisfied because no evidence had been adduced establishing that the applicant’s parents were Indian citizens. Consequently, the applicants had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden necessary to establish citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The judgment therefore rests upon two independent factual conclusions. First, the passport relied upon had already been terminated. Secondly, the applicants had otherwise failed to establish citizenship through admissible documentary evidence.

Neither finding amounts to a declaration that all valid passports are legally incapable of evidencing citizenship.

Why the termination of the passport matters

The fact that the passport had already been terminated is not an incidental factual detail; it is the central reason why the Court declined to rely upon it.

Section 10 of the Passports Act empowers the Passport Authority to vary, impound or revoke a passport in specified circumstances. A passport may be revoked where it has been obtained by fraud, suppression of material information or misrepresentation; where the holder has ceased to be an Indian citizen; where criminal proceedings are pending; where the holder has contravened the provisions of the Act or the conditions subject to which the passport was issued; or where revocation is considered necessary in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or the interests of the general public. Once a passport is revoked or terminated under the statutory framework, it ceases to enjoy the legal validity that attaches to a subsisting passport.

This distinction fundamentally alters the significance of the Bombay High Court’s reasoning. The Court was not confronted with a valid passport issued and continuing under the statutory scheme. It was confronted with a passport whose legal efficacy had already been extinguished. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that “no legal basis” existed for relying upon such a document.

To extend this reasoning to conclude that every valid passport issued by the Government of India is incapable of evidencing citizenship is to read the judgment far beyond its factual and legal context.

Reading the judgment beyond its ratio

It is a settled principle of judicial precedent that a decision is authority only for what it actually decides. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against extracting broad legal propositions from judgments without regard to the factual matrix in which they were rendered.

Measured against this principle, the Government’s reliance on Anwar Hussain appears to stretch the judgment beyond its actual ratio. The High Court never analysed whether a valid passport constitutes prima facie evidence of citizenship. It never considered the evidentiary status of passports issued after statutory verification. Nor did it hold that a valid passport can never be relied upon in citizenship proceedings. Those questions simply did not arise because the passport before the Court had already been terminated.

The judgment therefore establishes a much narrower proposition than the one presently attributed to it. It holds only that a terminated passport, coupled with an independent failure to establish citizenship through other admissible evidence, cannot justify interference with a conviction under the Foreigners Act.

The distinction is not merely semantic. It goes to the very heart of the ongoing debate. The Government’s recent clarification has transformed a fact-specific judicial determination into a sweeping proposition of general application. Such an interpretation risks attributing to the Bombay High Court a legal conclusion that it neither articulated nor was required to decide. If the Government seeks to argue that a valid passport should not be treated as proof of citizenship, that proposition must stand on its own statutory and constitutional foundations. It cannot fairly derive unquestioned authority from a judgment that dealt with an already terminated passport and a complete absence of supporting evidence establishing citizenship.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

Rejected as Voter, also denied a Passport? Here is how ‘New India’ deals with exclusion complaints under SIR: Former editor, Telegraph, R Rajagopal

EXCLUSIVE: Bulk FIRs targets Assamese Indians through Passport Act cases, new assault on Citizenship rights: Assam

HRDA condemns U’khand police’s plan to deny passport for “anti-national” social media posts

Backdoor NPR-NRC? Parents DOB for KYC; great grandfather’s address for passport re-issue

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

Sleeping under an Open Sky on No-Man’s Land: Two Children, Ten Lives, and the Machinery of Exclusion

The post Not What the Court Decided: Re-reading the Bombay High Court’s passport judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This grassroots movement emerged as a direct response to a vast administrative anti-encroachment campaign officially designated as “Operation Sweep.” The Rajasthan’s Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP)-ruled state government’s demolition drive had recently resulted in the demolition of several Islamic religious structures i.e. Mosques/Madrasas and the issuance of hundreds of legal eviction notices to such, reportedly without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. In response to these administrative actions, the assembled protesters submitted formal memorandums to local authorities, demanding an immediate suspension of the demolition drive and strict adherence to established legal processes, and the prevention of alleged selective communal targeting of minority religious sites.

सर्व धर्म शांति सभा, बाड़मेर।
“जहाँ सत्य, अहिंसा और धर्म का पग-पग लगता डेरा,
वो भारत देश है हमारा…”
सर्व धर्म शांति सभा में शामिल होकर आपसी भाईचारे, सामाजिक सौहार्द, संविधान के सम्मान और देश की एकता-अखंडता का संदेश दिया।
हमारी विविधता ही हमारी सबसे बड़ी ताकत है। सभी धर्मों, सभी… pic.twitter.com/1SqELVvewY

— Ummeda Ram Beniwal (@UmmedaRamBaytu) June 26, 2026

Background

The tensions in the region originated from a large-scale anti-encroachment and security drive initiated by the Rajasthan government in coordination with border security agencies. This enforcement campaign, named “Operation Sweep,” that began on spans a massive 1,050-kilometer border belt that physically separates India from Pakistan. Pursuant to directions issued by the Union Home Ministry, a joint team comprising the district administration, police, and the Border Security Force (BSF) undertook an operation concerning “alleged illegal constructions within 15 kilometres of the India–Pakistan border in Rajasthan’s Barmer district”, from June 18, 2026 onwards.

Rajasthan Bulldozer Action: Barmer में Operation Clean के तहत Ind-Pak सीमा की मस्जिद पर गरजा बुलडोजर #Rajasthan #BulldozerAction #OperationClean #LatestNews pic.twitter.com/PZHZMN0FxK

— Punjab Kesari (@punjabkesari) June 22, 2026

The operation covers four major administrative districts that contain significant Muslim populations, namely Barmer, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Sri Ganganagar. The state government and the associated security apparatus classified the drive as a highly necessary procedural measure designed to clear unauthorised constructions and reinforce critical security infrastructure within a highly sensitive strategic military corridor. However, the execution of these orders quickly drew allegations of systemic bias from local communities.

According to precise data released on dated June 23, 2026 during a press conference by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), approximately three hundred and fifty mosques and various Islamic religious structures situated across these four border districts were served with administrative demolition notices. Prior to the major public mobilisation, the regional enforcement drive had already resulted in the direct demolition of four separate mosques within the Barmer sector, alongside the destruction of an ancient mazaar, or shrine, in the Jaisalmer district. Local community activists and non-governmental organisations subsequently filed public complaints, asserting that the administration was selectively penalising Muslim places of worship while simultaneously ignoring similar documentation anomalies in the religious and residential structures of other communities.

Demolition of Mosques and Attack on Religious Freedom in India
23 JUNE 2026 | 3:30 PM | PRESS CLUB OF INDIA pic.twitter.com/D4RLnmwAY2

— APCR-Association for Protection of Civil Rights (@apcrofindia) June 24, 2026

In direct response to the sudden executions of these demolition orders, community members from both major religious groups organised public demonstrations to systematically de-escalate potential communal friction and demand immediate legal interventions.

Peaceful public mobilisation across Barmer and Jaisalmer

According to the Maktoob Media, the major public assemblies were recorded in the village of Badbir within the Barmer district, as well as in multiple commercial and residential locations across Jaisalmer. Hundreds of local residents gathered collectively outside the Barmer District Magistrate’s office to conduct an interfaith peace assembly.

The primary objective of these localised rallies was to challenge the execution of the demolition orders through entirely peaceful, constitutional means rather than through civil disobedience. The gathered protesters formally submitted a collective memorandum addressed to the President of India, urgently requesting an immediate pause on the entire demolition drive until transparent, unbiased legal verifications could be executed by the judiciary.

Local community leader demands equal treatment

Surtaram Meghwal, a two-time elected Dalit Sarpanch of Paradia village, emerged as one of the primary figures directing the local public response and articulating the grievances of the unified communities. Meghwal openly challenged the statutory validity of the state’s actions, stating his belief that the demolitions were an extrajudicial exercise being carried out without following any due legal process. He argued that if mosques were being actively checked and demolished by the state, then temples should also be examined under the exact same legal standards to ensure absolute administrative fairness.

Rajasthan: In #Barmer, Advocate Surtaram Meghawal, the Sarpanch of Paradia village, publicly warned the BJP govt against what he described as the selective demolition of #mosques while sparing #temples.

He urged the govt to uphold the Raj Dharma advocated by former PM Atal… pic.twitter.com/cQDPoQB8yB

— MuslimMirror.com (@MuslimMirror) June 25, 2026

Meghwal further detailed the ground realities of the public mobilisation that took place in Badbir following the destruction of multiple religious sites. He communicated to Maktoob that the villagers protested against the demolition of these religious structures to oppose the government actions and convey their collective message peacefully. He noted that since the protest began, the region had witnessed even greater brotherhood with more citizens coming forward in mutual support and reflecting a shared belief that there was still ample time to resolve the administrative issue through dialogue. Addressing the underlying socio-political dynamic of the border region, Meghwal explicitly blamed external political factors for generating artificial friction.

He questioned the procedural fairness of the drive, asking why only mosques and religious structures of Muslims were being targeted and reiterated his stance as a two-time Sarpanch that Hindus and Muslims harbor no inherent issues with each other in the region. He concluded that institutional politics would not break the unity of the people of Rajasthan, as they would consistently stand in solidarity with their Muslim neighbors, as Maktoob Media reported

Dialogue over division

The events in Barmer and Jaisalmer are illustrative of how local leadership and resistance is the best and most effective anti-dote to what is perceived as targeted injustice. Such moves are effective and pre-emptive and preventive, an antidote to communal conflict. Hindu and Muslim residents in these districts have come together to hold joint protests, submitted memorandums to the authorities, and sought legal remedies through constitutional processes. Their actions reflected a shared belief that disputes should be addressed through dialogue, fairness, and the rule of law.

The interfaith assemblies also highlighted the long-standing bonds between the communities living in the border region. Despite facing difficult living conditions and administrative challenges, residents chose to stand together and protect the harmony that has existed in their villages for generations. While the legality of the demolition drive will ultimately be decided through judicial and administrative processes, the peaceful response of the local people demonstrated the value of maintaining communal harmony during times of uncertainty. The events serve as a reminder that equal application of the law, respect for due process, and continued dialogue between communities and public authorities are essential for preserving public trust and social harmony.

Related

When Citizens Say No: The quiet revolt against hate in India’s streets

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Public Resistance and Democratic Assertion: India through protests, 2025

The post Brotherhood in Rajasthan: Hindus, Muslims Protect Border Mosques appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“In March this year, my name was deleted from the Ballygunge constituency electoral roll in Kolkata, apparently because the Special Intensive Revision process could not trace either my name or that of my late father in the 2002 voters’ list. My father, a Gandhian, retired professor and former State Secretary of the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi in Kerala, passed away in 2016. I remain unable to understand how a conscientious voter like him could have been absent from the rolls.

“Like nearly 27 lakh other residents of West Bengal, I was excluded on account of what were described as “logical discrepancies”. No reason was furnished even after I submitted my matriculation certificate, and my appeal is now pending before one of the tribunals constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions. As a consequence, I was unable to vote in the recent election.

“More distressing has been the fate of my passport renewal application. Although I completed the biometric formalities on March 19, 2026, police verification has not been cleared because my name no longer appears on the electoral roll. Despite submitting several alternative documents, I have been informed that they are insufficient. In fact, today (Saturday, June 27, 2026) is the 100th day since my biometrics for passport renewal were taken. I was formally informed last week by the passport-issuing authority that Kolkata Police sent an adverse report, citing the deletion of my name from the voters’ list. I have been asked to appear before the Regional Passport Office in Calcutta “immediately” but when I sought an appointment, without which it is difficult to gain entry, the date granted is July 17, 2026.

“In between, our daughter, a journalist in California, got married in San Francisco on April 17. Needless to say, it would have been impossible for me to attend the wedding in the absence of an active passport, notwithstanding my possession of a valid ten-year US visa.

“For all practical purposes, I find myself in a state of civic uncertainty although recently the government iterated that a passport is no proof of citizenship.  Much of my time is now consumed by efforts to reconstruct family records and secure documents dating back several decades….

“My days begin with checking my voting right appeal status and then the passport tracker. Then I write to the college where my mother taught in 1965 and to her school from where she passed out in 1959, asking for any document that proves she existed. The school has been very helpful but not the college. Similarly, I speak to prohibition campaign activists in Kerala, running down a list I collected after coming across an activist’s name in a group by chance, asking for any news clipping or photographs that show my father campaigning against illegal liquor vends and communalism.

“Some close friends and public figures have helped me in all these efforts. However, I am unaware if any media outlet or journalists’ association or guild (of which I am not a member) has shown any interest in my situation. A senior journalist reminded me that this situation is by no means unique as “rejection” has been the daily certainty confronting millions of Indians for centuries. I accept that point.

“My intention has never been to project myself as a victim. Rather, I have wanted to underline a larger point: if someone who spent his professional life in journalism and edited a relatively known newspaper can encounter such difficulties, one can only imagine what the truly marginalised must endure.  Did I approach any newspaper? No, because I do not want it to become an issue concerning me. Do editors and journalists know about my issue? Of course, several do. If they don’t, they should not be in the profession, don’t you think?

“Yet, the complete silence of newspapers on this issue has confirmed my suspicion, now reinforced with personal experience, that so-called mainstream journalism has little to do with my life. I do not “read” any newspaper now. I glance at some but hardly find anything that piques my interest.

“I continue, however, to admire the work of organisations such as The Wire, Scroll, The Reporters’ Collective, Newslaundry, The News Minute and PARI. They represent journalism of the highest order, and I sometimes feel it does them a disservice to evaluate them alongside much of what passes for mainstream journalism today.

“It is for this reason that I no longer feel ethically justified in serving on a jury entrusted with recognising excellence in journalism. My views on much of the misidentified “mainstream media” have become deeply sceptical, and I cannot be confident that they would not unconsciously influence my judgment. There may well be outstanding work being done within those organisations, but I am no longer sure that I would be able to assess it with the detachment such a responsibility demands. My disenchantment cannot be allowed to affect their chance at winning an award named after Shri Prem Bhatia.

“My reservations are ethical rather than legal. I believe my continued presence would diminish, rather than enhance, the integrity of the selection process.

“I, therefore, request that you kindly permit me to step aside. I apologise to you for any inconvenience caused. I remain deeply appreciative of this stellar initiative and wish it every success in the years ahead. Please feel free to share this note with anyone you prefer.

This note that has been made public by R. Rajagopal was also a part of his resignation from the Prem Bhatia Journalism Award Jury.

R. Rajagopal

P.S. The The Prem Bhatia Journalism Awards and Lecture were instituted in 1995 by the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust to honour the legacy of the legendary former editor of The Tribune. Mr. Bhatia was an eminent journalist, known for both his incisive political reporting and far-sightedness, as well as his independence of judgement and unfaltering objectivity. The trust instituted two awards — one for Excellence in Political Journalism, and the other for Excellence in Environmental Journalism, to honour his memory.In 2024, under an arrangement, the trust handed over its corpus to the Guild. Since 2025, the Editors Guild of India (EGi) has continued the legacy by administering the awards, along with the annual lecture.

Meanwhile the Editor’s Guild of India issued a statement condemning the treatment meted out to R. Rajagopal on Sunday, June 28. The full text may be read here:

“June 28, 2026 | New Delhi: The Editors Guild of India condemns the manner in which Mr. R. Rajagopal, a former Editor of The Telegraph, a leading Kolkata-based daily, is being treated by the bureaucracy that gets to decide who is an Indian citizen and who is not. Mr. Rajagopal, despites decades of work in the public domain as a journalist and editor, today finds himself not only disenfranchised as a voter due to the deletion of his name from the electoral rolls, but also unable to renew his passport since more than 100 days, allegedly due to an ‘adverse report’ from the Kolkata Police, who must have been very familiar with Mr. Rajagopal as the Editor of one of the city’s leading dailies. The police verification appears to have been denied on the basis that Mr. Rajagopal’s name no longer figured on the electoral rolls!

Mr. Rajagopal’s plight highlights the misery that millions of Indians are being put through due to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India.

If it could happen to someone like Mr. Rajagopal, a known public figure, the fate of others who have similarly been disenfranchised by a bureaucratic stroke of the pen, and lacking the voice to seek redressal can only be imagined.

The EGi calls on the EC to display common sense – and sympathy — and restore Mr. Rajagopal’s identity as a voter at the earliest — and extend similar consideration to all those who have suffered a similar fate.

Related:

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

The post Rejected as Voter, also denied a Passport? Here is how ‘New India’ deals with exclusion complaints under SIR: Former editor, Telegraph, R Rajagopal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Widening Crisis and the Call to Reject Blame

The statement highlighted the dangerous trajectory of the crisis, noting that the devastating conflict that erupted between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities in May 2023 has now escalated to include tensions between the Naga and Kuki communities. Warning that the situation must not devolve into a “war of all against all,” the signatories deliberately avoided assigning blame to any specific group. Instead, they mourned the casualties across all communities, including the Kuki-Zo, Meitei, and Naga populations.

The appeal stressed that competitive victimhood has no place in the current crisis, declaring that no historical grievance, political claim, or religious identity can justify the killing of civilians, hostage-taking, or the targeting of women and places of worship.

Furthermore, the coalition demanded the immediate protection of civilians, safe humanitarian access, the release of detainees, and the dignified return of mortal remains.

A major regional concern raised by the collective is the threat the ongoing violence poses to the broader North East’s fragile peace agreements. The appeal referenced the three decades of political negotiations and ceasefires facilitated by the Government of India, particularly the historic 1997 Indo-Naga peace process with the NSCN-IM, warning that the region could be plunged into deeper insecurity if communities lose faith in negotiated settlements.

However, the signatories also acknowledged recent acts of restraint that offer hope, praising Naga civil society’s successful intervention in securing the release of 14 Kuki detainees despite intense public anger.

The collective highlighted this as a crucial gesture for peace, demonstrating that community institutions can still prioritise responsibility over revenge.

A Diverse Coalition Demanding Accountability

The appeal is backed by a diverse and distinguished group of signatories, including filmmakers Anand Patwardhan and Suhasini Mulay, former civil servants Harsh Mander and V. Venugopal, former Planning Commission member Dr. Syeda Hameed and numerous journalists, economists, and environmentalists.

Notably, women’s rights organisations and feminist scholars constitute a significant portion of the coalition. Emphasizing this, political activist Annie Raja stated that women’s organisations across all communities must be empowered as the primary custodians of peace, as women have historically held communities together during times of crisis.

Dr. Syeda Hameed further underscored the national significance of the crisis, stating that Manipur is a direct test of the Indian republic’s constitutional morality and that the Union Government must act before all faith in peace collapses. Nicholas Chinnappan, President of Friends of the Earth India, added that the violence is deeply intertwined with issues of land, resources, and militarization, asserting that peace must be built on a foundation of justice.

Core Demands for Peace and Justice

In its concluding demands, the appeal called upon both the Union and State governments to protect lives without discrimination, recover illegal weapons, and prevent further armed mobilization.

The signatories demanded an impartial, time-bound peace process involving independent mediators and representatives from all affected communities, including the Kuki-Zo, Meitei, Naga, Pangal, Mising, and Hmar communities.

Additionally, they called for an independent, judicially monitored investigation into all major incidents of violence, sexual assault, arson, and custodial abuse that have occurred since May 2023, with scrutiny of the roles played by armed groups, state forces, and political actors. The statement concluded by asserting that democracy cannot survive if communities are forced to negotiate life and death through armed factions while constitutional institutions fail in their fundamental duties.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Citizens and Civil Society Groups Issue Urgent Appeal to Halt Escalating Violence in Manipur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thereafter, in a detailed statement, MSCE said that the objective of the restrictions is not to interfere with religious practices but to ensure transparency and prevent malpractices during the examination, which will be conducted under live CCTV surveillance.

“The council has not imposed restrictions on what candidates can wear. However, during the examination, the face must be clearly visible on CCTV cameras. No cloth or covering should conceal the ears, head, mouth or any part of the face above the neck,” MSCE commissioner Nandakumar Bedse said.

Outlining the initial rationale behind the decision, the council said that examination authorities across the country are increasingly dealing with sophisticated methods of cheating, including concealed mobile phones, miniature Bluetooth devices and other electronic gadgets.

Officials pointed out that in recent D El Ed and computer shorthand examinations conducted by the council, some candidates were found to have hidden mobile phones inside dupattas and burqas and used them during the examination.

“The Teacher Eligibility Test is a highly sensitive examination. With the emergence of AI-enabled tools, miniature Bluetooth devices and other electronic equipment, preventing malpractices has become increasingly challenging. Ensuring that every candidate’s face is clearly visible on live CCTV is essential to maintaining fairness and credibility,” the council said.

This clarification put out by the council is now expected to put to rest the controversy surrounding the dress-code instructions ahead of the examination scheduled for June 28. Figures reveal that  more than 6 lakh candidates have registered for this year’s TET examination, making effective monitoring a key challenge. Officials said clear visibility of candidates is necessary for identity verification, biometric authentication and CCTV-based surveillance throughout the examination period.

The council also relied on practices followed in several national and state-level competitive examinations, including UPSC, SSC, IBPS, SBI, RRB, GATE and public service commission examinations, where face-covering items are restricted to facilitate identification and monitoring.

The MSCE also referred to a 2024 Bombay high court (HC) judgment in a petition challenging a college dress code that prohibited hijab, burqa and other religious identifiers on campus. The court upheld the college’s dress code instructions, observing that the petitioners had failed to establish that wearing a hijab constituted an essential religious practice.

A translation of the clarifying instructions may be read below:

 Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Office Building,

(Second and Fourth Floor) Survey No. 832 A, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411004

Telephone No.: 020-29709396    Website: www.mscepune.in   E-mail: mscepune@gmail.com

Outward No.:
MSCE/Svee.Sanha/217/2026                                                           Date: 22/06/2026

Subject: Regarding clarification on the use of dupatta, burqa, and hijab by female candidates in the Teacher Eligibility Test

Clear instructions have been issued that since live CCTV will be used in all classrooms at the examination centers during the Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the Maharashtra State Examination Council on June 28, 2026, nothing including a dupatta, burqa, mask, or cap can be worn so that the entire face is clearly visible. However, emails have been received requesting that female candidates be permitted to use the burqa, hijab, and dupatta. A clarification on the said matter is being made as follows:—

In the Writ Petition WPL No. 17737 / 24, Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary Vs Chembur Trombay Edu. Societys, Chembur Trombay Education Society’s, N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College of Art, Science and Commerce, Chembur, Mumbai, order dated June 26, 2 024, filed in the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai, 9 female students challenged the college’s dress code instructions, wherein hijab, burqa, niqab, and other attire revealing religious identity were banned on campus. In the said judicial decision, the Hon’ble High Court recorded observations as follows:—

In the writ petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioners have been donning a Hijab and/or Nakab for last few years. The pleadings in the writ petition to support the plea that donning of a Hijab or Nakab is an essential religious practice however are insufficient. Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners’ contention that donning of Hijab and Nakab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard therefore fails.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the Instructions issued by the College under which a dress code has been prescribed for its students does not suffer from any infirmity so as to violate provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

In almost all major competitive examinations in India—national-level examinations such as UPSC, SSC, IBPS, SBI, RRB, GATE, CLAT, CA, CS, CMA, etc., and State Public Service Commission examinations like MPSC, GPSC, BPSC, UPPSC—face-covering clothes such as dupatta, burqa, scarf, cap, and goggles are prohibited. This is because it is necessary for the face to be clearly visible during identity verification, biometric checks, and the CCTV verification process throughout the examination period. The main objective behind banning the hijab, burqa, or dupatta on the face during examinations is to prevent malpractices by closely monitoring all candidates through Live CCTV during the entire examination period, to ease identity verification, and consequently to maintain transparency and credibility in the examination.

Various types of malpractices are being used in examinations nowadays, such as carrying a mobile phone, sending the question paper outside via mobile WhatsApp/Telegram, receiving answers via mobile, and keeping extremely small-sized Wi-Fi Bluetooth devices in the ears, among many other tricks. Therefore, the complete face and the entire portion above the neck—meaning the mouth and ears of all candidates at the examination centre—must be clearly visible so that there is no room for suspicion regarding malpractice. If the face is kept covered, it will not even be known who is talking to whom. Furthermore, if a female candidate is asked to show her face based on suspicion for verification at the examination centre, it might lead to a completely different issue altogether.

Recently, in the D.El.Ed. and Computer Shorthand examinations conducted by the Maharashtra State Examination Council, it has come to light that candidates hid mobile phones in their dupatta/burqa, brought them into the examination centre, and used them.

The Teacher Eligibility Test is a highly sensitive examination, and considering factors like AI, Bluetooth devices, and electronic devices as small as shirt buttons, it has become highly challenging to prevent any kind of malpractice. For the examination to be transparent and to curb all kinds of manipulations, it is necessary that the faces of all 6 lakh candidates are clearly visible in the Live CCTV.

Overall, considering all the above points, female candidates will have the freedom to wear any clothes, dupatta, odhni, or burqa for the Teacher Eligibility Test; however, during the examination period inside the classroom at the examination centre, the face must be fully and clearly visible in the CCTV camera. For this purpose, above the neck—meaning on the ears, head, or mouth/face there should be no cloth/covering of any kind; this is being clarified here.”

The June 22, 2026 circular has been signed by Dr. Nandkumar Bedse (I.P.S.), Chairman, Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune.

The original circular in Marathi may be read below Embed Original

Related:

“How does dictating attire empower women?” Supreme Court partially stays Mumbai College’s Hijab Ban

Students challenge Hijab ban, college defends secular dress code – Bombay HC to rule on June 26th

Bombay High court upholds hijab ban in colleges: Muslim students’ rights curtailed

The post Face must be visible, then hijab, burqa, dupatta or attire of choice permitted to TET candidates: MCSE appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to data presented in Lok Sabha during March, at least 622 sanitation workers died in sewers and septic tank incidents across India since 2017 with Uttar Pradesh recording the highest fatalities at 86. This highlights the structural risks and vulnerabilities faced by sanitation workers.

At a press conference organised by the Dalit Adivasi Shakti Adhikar Manch (DASAM) in New Delhi in May 2026, they revealed that at least 36 sanitation workers died while cleaning sewers, septic tanks, drains and sewage chambers between March and May 2026. Referring to the data presented in Parliament, DASAM said that out of the 622 deaths, 317 occurred between 2021 and 2025. Most of the workers belonged to Valmiki communities, other historically marginalised caste groups, or migrant labour background. [1]

Most sanitation workers in Ward 66 belong to the Balmiki caste, historically associated with sanitation labour and among the most marginalised Dalit communities. Many of these workers live in clustered settlements and are employed, directly or indirectly, by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC), reflecting the enduring link between caste and sanitation work.

Workers further allege that Rajput used casteist slurs for the workers, even threatening termination for non-compliance. Such allegations also raise questions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which criminalises caste-based abuse and intimidation.

Altogether, these accusations point to potential violations of legal protections against caste-based discrimination. Despite these allegations, the supervisor continues to remain in his position, raising questions about accountability and enforcement of existing laws.

While sanitation workers employed by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC) are issued formal joining letters outlining the terms and conditions to their employment, access to these documents is not always guaranteed. A 25-year-old worker, who wished to remain anonymous, said he has been working with the LMC for nearly a year, yet his joining letter has been withheld. He alleges that requests for the document have been met with derogatory remarks about his caste and class, along with threats of termination. “What are we supposed to show when we get into an accident?” questioned one of the workers.

The workers expressed their dissatisfaction by gathering on June 10, 2026 to protest and demand their additional Rs. 2000 and four days of holidays, while giving the authorities 3 days to act. They allege that authorities at Lucknow Swachhata Abhiyan (LSA) had stated they will be firing Avinash, but they are yet to hear back, despite three days already having passed by.

The allegations against Rajput, however, are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern within the sanitation system in Lucknow. One where accountability is inconsistent and often remains unchecked.

“The mayor, Sushma Kharakwa, had already fired him once. We are not sure why he came back,” said another worker.

While ward 66 is struggling to call out the corruption and discrimination, workers say that such situations are far from unique. Across all wards, Sweepers working with LMC are expected to also clean the sewers or pick up animal carcasses if asked. Many of these workers, often in their 20s, say they are required to descend up to five feet into sewers to carry out manual cleaning. For deeper drains, the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC) deploys mechanised equipment, though workers allege this is not always consistently implemented.

Cost considerations often shape these decisions, with workers revealing that bringing in machinery to clean the sewer becomes expensive. The cost adds up with fuel, travel and hiring operators.

This is where private contractors come in with the hopes of saving money that would otherwise be spent on the machinery. “thekedaars allegedly take Rs. 5000-6000 and give their workers 500-600. A government employed sanitation worker would get around Rs. 1000.”

While law is framed to safeguard Scheduled castes, sanitation workers in Lucknow are still fighting for lawful existence. On June 6, 2026 Lalaram, a 28-year-old sanitation worker went into a manhole with only a rope as instructed by his supervisor on scene, Akash Kumar. He soon lost consciousness and was rushed to a hospital, his supervisor. Initially being taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences (RMLIMS), Akash diverted him to a private hospital. Lalaram died before receiving medical care and Akash Kumar fled the scene. The ward’s corporator is Arun Rai, a representative of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). When contacted, he refused to be interviewed on the topic.

The incident drew responses from city authorities. Mayor Sushma Kharakwa and Municipal Commissioner Gaurav Kumar announced action against the contractor, including blacklisting the firm and initiating an FIR. Financial assistance was also promised to the family.

Workers remain sceptical, questioning whether meaningful change will follow. Many say that the response to the incident has been driven largely by media attention and local political support, which may ensure compensation for the family. However, the larger concern around the safety of sanitation workers continues to persist. “Usually, the supervisors of these private contractors run away after such incidents, and then nothing ends up happening,” said one of the workers.

With Lucknow ranking the third cleanest city in 2024-2025. The irony remains, with regular derogatory comments and a clear spatial hostility moving fluidly between the private and government employees for sanitation work. 

(The author is an independent journalist, currently pursuing masters in Convergent Journalism at AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia)

[1] These statistics presented in Parliament were reported I The Hindu among other publications

Related:

ASHA workers, Anganwadi workers and sanitation workers overlooked in India’s healthcare protection reforms

8 sanitation workers die in UP in last 10 days due to hazardous cleaning, activists calls for FIR 

Safai Shramik Union raises demands for a law that safeguards rights of sanitation workers: Maharashtra

The post Lucknow: Caste hierarchies & contract labour exploitation among sanitation workers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That challenge from citizens has now reached the Bombay High Court. This week, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the Forum Against Oppression of Women filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Act (MSPSA), contending that the law violates fundamental constitutional guarantees and grants excessive, unchecked powers to the executive. The challenge marks the beginning of a legal test for a legislation that has generated sustained opposition from civil liberties organisations, trade unions, academics, lawyers, students’ groups, political parties and democratic rights movements across Maharashtra.

Importantly, many of the arguments now being advanced before the High Court closely mirror concerns that were repeatedly raised during the legislative process itself. Among the organisations that consistently opposed the legislation was Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), which submitted detailed objections to the Joint Select Committee examining the then Bill, participated in the broader state-wide campaign against the legislation, and warned that the law’s vague provisions could become a tool for suppressing dissent rather than addressing genuine security threats.

A constitutional challenge to the heart of the law

According to the petition filed before the High Court, the Act suffers from a fundamental constitutional defect: it authorises severe restrictions on freedoms of speech, expression, association and assembly without incorporating the procedural safeguards that constitutional jurisprudence requires when the State seeks to limit such rights.

The petition argues that the law violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and undermines broader constitutional principles of liberty, equality and democratic participation. It further contends that the Act creates a framework through which organisations can be declared unlawful on the basis of broad executive discretion, while insulating those decisions from meaningful scrutiny.

Particularly significant is the challenge to the Act’s definitions of “unlawful activity” and “unlawful organisation.” According to the petitioners, these definitions are so broad and vague that they can potentially encompass trade unions, social movements, human rights organisations, political opposition groups and individuals engaged in peaceful dissent.

The challenge therefore strikes at the central architecture of the legislation rather than merely isolated provisions. It asks whether a law ostensibly enacted to combat extremism can constitutionally employ language so expansive that ordinary democratic activity may fall within its ambit.

A warning raised long before the Act was passed

The constitutional challenge did not emerge in a vacuum. For months before the legislation was enacted, Maharashtra witnessed one of the most extensive civil society mobilisations against a proposed law in recent memory. More than 12,750 objections and suggestions were reportedly submitted to the Joint Select Committee examining the Bill, making it one of the largest public responses ever received by the Maharashtra legislature. More than ninety percent of the submissions reportedly opposed the legislation.

Citizens for Justice and Peace was among the organisations at the forefront of this campaign. In April 2025, CJP submitted a detailed objection memorandum to the Joint Select Committee, warning that the legislation posed a serious threat to constitutional freedoms and democratic dissent. CJP argued that the Bill’s framing around the idea of “Urban Naxalism” rested on an inherently vague and politically charged concept that lacked clear legal meaning. Significantly, the organisation pointed out that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs itself had previously stated that it does not use the term “urban naxal” as an official category in dealing with Left-Wing Extremism. CJP warned that a law justified through such an indeterminate concept risked becoming a mechanism for targeting journalists, activists, artists, civil society organisations and political critics rather than genuine security threats.

Today, many of those concerns have reappeared in the constitutional challenge before the High Court.

The battle over “unlawful activity”

One of the most striking parallels between the writ petition and earlier civil society objections concerns the Act’s definition of unlawful activity.

The petition before the High Court argues that the definition is overbroad and vague, allowing the State to invoke the law against a wide range of lawful democratic activities.

CJP’s earlier objections had similarly focused on Section 2(f), arguing that phrases such as conduct that creates a “danger or menace to public order” were left undefined and provided no clear legal standards. According to CJP, terms such as “menace” were capable of subjective interpretation and could permit authorities to categorise ordinary activities as unlawful according to their discretion. The concern was not merely semantic. Constitutional law has long recognised that vague criminal provisions create opportunities for arbitrary enforcement. When citizens cannot reasonably determine what conduct is prohibited, enforcement becomes dependent on the discretion of the executive rather than the rule of law.

That concern now sits at the centre of the High Court challenge.

The question of executive power

The writ petition also challenges the breadth of powers conferred upon the State government to declare organisations unlawful. Again, this reflects a recurring theme in earlier objections raised by civil liberties groups.

CJP argued that the proposed framework granted extraordinary authority to the executive while providing inadequate independent oversight. It questioned the composition of the Advisory Board established under the legislation, noting that members need only be qualified for appointment as High Court judges rather than serving judicial officers. Because appointments are ultimately controlled by the government itself, CJP warned that the mechanism lacked sufficient institutional independence. The broader concern was that a law designed to regulate political organisations and associations should not depend primarily upon executive opinion.

The constitutional challenge now similarly questions whether the legislation creates a system in which governmental discretion is insufficiently constrained by objective standards and procedural safeguards.

Existing laws already covered the field

Another criticism repeatedly advanced by opponents of the legislation was that Maharashtra already possessed an extensive arsenal of security laws.

CJP argued that provisions dealing with terrorism, organised crime, unlawful activities and threats to national security already exist through laws such as the UAPA, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. It questioned why an additional statute with even broader powers was necessary at all. The constitutional challenge raises a related issue. If existing criminal law already addresses violent extremism and organised criminal activity, what precisely justifies a separate law empowering the State to declare organisations unlawful through broad and vaguely worded standards?

This question becomes especially important because the Act itself repeatedly invokes concerns regarding Left-Wing Extremism while failing to define key terms such as “naxalism” or “left-wing extremist” within its operative provisions.

A state-wide democratic resistance

The present litigation is also the culmination of a much broader political and civic campaign. In April 2025, protests against the Bill were organised across Maharashtra, bringing together civil liberties organisations, workers’ groups, farmers’ organisations, students’ groups, political parties and grassroots movements. Demonstrations took place across dozens of districts and reflected an unusually broad coalition united by concerns regarding civil liberties and democratic freedoms.

CJP played a visible role in that mobilisation, participating in a wider coalition that argued the legislation threatened constitutionally protected rights of speech, association, assembly and protest. The campaign consistently maintained that the law’s vague language created the risk that peaceful political opposition could be conflated with threats to public security. The filing of the writ petition therefore represents not the beginning of resistance to the law, but the latest stage of a struggle that has been unfolding for over a year. The formal objections raised by CJP have been detailed and may be perused here.

Why the High Court’s decision matters

The challenge before the Bombay High Court extends beyond the future of a single state law. At its core lies a constitutional question that has repeatedly confronted Indian courts: how far can the State go in the name of security before constitutional freedoms are impermissibly compromised?

The petition asks whether a law can authorise severe consequences, including the declaration of organisations as unlawful, through definitions that have been described as vague, subjective and susceptible to political misuse. It raises concerns about executive overreach, procedural fairness, access to justice and the protection of democratic dissent.

For organisations such as Citizens for Justice and Peace, the issue has never been whether the State can act against genuine violence or armed insurgency. Rather, the concern has been whether legislation drafted in the language of security can ultimately be deployed against lawful political activity.

The complete dissent note by CJP may be read here.

Detailed reports may be read here, here and here.

Related:

Public Resistance and Democratic Assertion: India through protests, 2025

Dissent Note: The alarming scope of Maharashtra’s Special Public Safety Bill, 2024

Censorship After NEET: A substitute for accountability

The Supreme Court in 2025: When procedure trumped principle

Assam, the third state to pass UCC: Gender justice or targeted communalism the aim?

The post From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rashtriya Swayamseval Sangh (RSS) as the Gurukul (university) of Hindutva (the ideology that advocates India being a majoritarian theocratic state) specialises in regular training of their cadres at which truncated (read manipulated and selective) versions of history are dished out, ingrained. As the latest evidence of this, we find on the 51^st anniversary of the Emergency [1975-77], a number of RSS-BJP leaders enlightening us Indians on “how the RSS opposed the Emergency, how valiantly its cadres challenged the dictatorial rule of Indira Gandhi and made great sacrifices during anti-Emergency movement” etc. The newspapers are filled with advertisements announcing ‘Samvidhan Hatya Divas’ in which none less than Prime Minister Modi is depicted bowing to the Constitution.

[The Indian Express, Delhi, June 25, 2026]

Only last year, the RSS English organ of the RSS, the Organizer (June 24, 2025) presented PM Modi as a singular symbol of the fight against Emergency and wrote:

“The lesson had been burned into public memory. The Emergency became more than a chapter in history. It became a warning. For Narendra Modi, it was not just a past event. It was part of his personal journey. As Prime Minister, he has often reminded the nation of those dark times…It was about imprisoning free thought, art, and expression. That period left behind not just scars, but reminders. It taught us that freedom is earned, not gifted.”

 [‘National Emergency 1975: The murder of the Indian republic on June 25,  https://organiser.org/2025/06/24/298840/bharat/national-emergency-1975-the-murder-of-the-indian-republic-on-june-25/]

Let us evaluate first, the claim that the RSS-BJP rulers are/have been committed to the liberal democratic values as a faith. The most prominent ideologue of the RSS, MS Golwalkar, also known as ‘Guru of Hate’ [whom PM Modi credits for grooming him into a political leader] while addressing the 1350 top level cadres of the RSS in 1940 declared,

“RSS is inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.”

[Golwalkar, MS, Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd., vol. I, p. 11.]

With such a philosophical love for totalitarianism the RSS has always balked against the sharing of power. It has also been in strong opposition to the federal structure of the constitution, a ‘Basic’ feature of the India polity. Golwalkar declared in 1961,

“Today’s federal form of government not only gives birth but also nourishes the feelings of separatism… It must be completely uprooted, constitution purified, and unitary form of government be established.”

[Ibid. vol. III, p. 128.]

So far as the claims of the outfit battling the Emergency is concerned the RSS, these “claims” need to be evaluated in the light of contemporary narratives including the RSS documents. In this connection two narratives one by a veteran thinker and journalist of India, Prabhash Joshi and the other by TV Rajeswar, former Intelligence Bureau [IB] chief who was the deputy chief of IB during the Emergency are of immense importance. Both, one a senior official of the government of India and the other, a senior journalist in the Hindi language, recounted the days of Emergency (or state terrorism) when RSS surrendered to the repressive regime of Indira Gandhi, assured her and her son, Sanjay Gandhi to enforce faithfully the draconian 20-point programme announced by the Emergency regime. They in fact negotiated surrender with the Indira Gandhi regime. A large number of RSS cadres came out of jails by submitting MAAFINAMAAS (mercy petitions). This account by Prabhash Joshi appeared in the English weekly Tehelka on the 25th anniversary of the Emergency.[1] According to him even during the Emergency “there was always a lurking sense of suspicion, a distance, a discreet lack of trust” about RSS’ joining the anti-Emergency struggle. He went on to recount that,

“Balasaheb Deoras, then RSS chief, wrote a letter to Indira Gandhi pledging to help implement the notorious 20-point programme 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. They were the first to apologize. Only their leaders remained in jail: Atal Behari Vajpayee [most of the time in hospital], LK Advani, even Arun Jaitley. But the RSS did not fight the Emergency. So why is the BJP trying to appropriate that memory?”

Prabhash Joshi concluded 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”[2]

Rajeswar in an interview with Karan Thapar also disclosed that Deoras:

“Quietly established a link with the PM’s house and expressed strong support for several steps taken to enforce order and discipline in the country. Deoras was keen to meet Mrs. Gandhi and Sanjay. But Mrs. Gandhi refused.”

[Ibid]

According to Rajeswar’s book,

“Sanjay Gandhi’s concerted drive to enforce family planning, particularly among Muslims, had earned Deoras’s approbation.”[3] Rajeswar also shared the fact that even after Emergency the “organization (RSS) had specifically conveyed its support to the Congress in the post-emergency elections.”[4] It will be interesting to note that even according to Subramanian Swamy during the Emergency period, most of the senior leaders of RSS had betrayed the struggle against the Emergency.[5]

The contemporary documents from the RSS archives also corroborate that the narratives of Prabhash Joshi and Rajeswar were/are accurate. The third supremo of the RSS, Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras wrote the first letter to Indira Gandhi within two months of the imposition of Emergency. It was the time when state terror was widespread. In letter dated August 22, 1975, he began with the following praise of Indira:

“I heard your address to the nation which you delivered on August 15, 1975, from Red Fort on radio in jail [Yervada jail] with attention. Your address was timely and balanced so I decided to write to you”.   

[Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras, Hindu Sangathan aur Sattavaadi Rajneeti, Jagriti Prkashan, Noida, 1997, p. 270.]

Indira Gandhi did not respond to it. So Deoras wrote another letter to Indira on November 10, 1975. He began his letter with congratulating her on being cleared by the Supreme Court of disqualification which was ordered by the Allahabad High Court, 

“All the five Justices of the Supreme Court have declared your election constitutional, heartiest greetings for it.” It is to be noted that opposition was firmly of the opinion that this judgment was influenced by the ruling party, the Congress. Deoras also also stated that

“The RSS has been named in context of Jaiprakash Narayan’s movement. The government has also connected RSS with Gujarat movement and Bihar movement without any reason…Sangh has no relation with these movements…”

[Ibid., pp. 272-73.]

Since Indira Gandhi did not respond to this letter either, RSS chief got hold of Vinoba Bhave who supported the Emergency religiously and was a favourite of Indira Gandhi. In a letter dated January 12, 1976, Deoras begged that Acharya should suggest a way by which the ban on RSS was removed.

[Ibid. pp. 275-77.]

Since Acharya too did not respond to Deoras letter, the latter in another letter without date wrote in desperation,

“According to press reports respected PM [Indira Gandhi] is going to meet you at Pavnar Ashram on January 24. At that time there will be discussion about the present condition of the country. I beg you to try to remove the wrong assumptions of PM about RSS so that ban on RSS is lifted and RSS members are released from jails. We are looking forward for the times when RSS and its members are able to contribute to the plans of progress which are being run in all the fields under the leadership of PM.”

 [Ibid. p. 278.]

[All these letters in Hindi are being reproduced from a publication of the RSS at the end of this article.]

Even a prominent Hindutva ideologue Balraj Madhok who as an RSS whole-timer founded Bhartiya Jana Sangh (1951) on RSS command confessed:

“Sarsanghchalak of the Sangh Shri Bal Saheb Deoras was a MISA prisoner in Pune’s Yervada Jail…his life was full of comforts. Therefore, he wrote two letters to the jailed Indira Gandhi on August 22, 1975 and November 10, 1975 to change her attitude towards the Sangh and lift the ban on it. He also wrote a letter to Shri Vinoba Bhave and requested him to try to remove the feeling of opposition towards the Sangh from Indira Gandhi’s mind. These letters were leaked by the government, and they were published in many newspapers. This naturally had an adverse effect on the morale of the Sangh volunteers and the Satyagraha movement became almost dead.”

[Madhok, Balraj, Zindagi Ka Safar –3: Deendayal Upadhyay Ki Hatya Se Indira Gandhi Ki Hatya Tak (Journey of Life-3: From the Murder of Deendayal Upadhyay to the Murder of Indira Gandhi), Dinman Prakashan, 2003, pp. 188-189.]

It is also historically significant that former President of the Indian Republic, Pranab Mukherjee was invited by the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat as the chief guest at the graduation ceremony of its new recruits must be working over-time to convert India into a Hindu state. Pranab Mukherjee had been indicted as one of the top leaders of Congress for Emergency excesses by the Shah Commission.

Given this history, it is quite regrettable if not downright shameful that despite these facts thousands of RSS cadres continue to get monthly pension for their ostensible “persecution” during the Emergency. The BJP ruled states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra decided to award a monthly pension of Rs 20,000 to those who were jailed during the Emergency period for less than two months, and Rs 10,000 to those who were jailed for less than a month. This rule took care of the financial interest of those RSS cadres who submitted mercy letters completing only one- or two-months’ jail term. For securing this not insignificant amount in pension there was/has been no condition imposed that the beneficiary should have been in jail for the whole period of the Emergency!

Interestingly, in the case of anti-British freedom struggle there has not been even a single RSS cadre to claim the freedom fighter pension. It may be noted that nobody remembers hundreds of Communist youths, branded as Naxals killed in fake encounters during the Emergency. Interestingly, Maharashtra-based Shiv Sena, the Hindutva co-traveller of the RSS openly supported the Emergency.

Renowned senior journalist and one of the most widely read political commentators in India today, Coomi Kapoor evaluating the RSS-BJP over the past last 12 years forthrightly has observed:

“Increasingly, those in power believe they are not directly answerable to the people. The government’s radio silence over major mess-ups in the NEET and CBSE examinations, affecting lakhs of students, is a telling example. To respond to public complaints is perceived as a weakness by today’s regime. The lack of internal debate in the ruling party, too, is perturbing. The BJP parliamentary board rarely meets and when it does, it merely rubber stamps decisions taken elsewhere. The surprise elevation of inexperienced junior party persons as chief ministers, without any prior consultations, is yet another instance of the absence of inner-party democracy. No less concerning is the falling standard of independence and probity of constitutional bodies meant to uphold democratic values.

“The Election Commission’s blatant exclusion of over 90 lakh names from the West Bengal SIR rolls unnecessarily put a question mark over an election where the public mood was clearly against Mamata Banerjee…The crux of a true democracy is securing a majority in Parliament through an ethical recourse to the ballot box, not by winning over opposition legislators by whatever means, fair or foul, post elections. In the ongoing ruthless mission to secure a two-thirds majority, one recalls uneasily just how Indira Gandhi utilised her brute two-thirds majority to subvert our Constitution and push through Emergency rule.

“As the country marks the half-century anniversary of the Emergency, many ruling party supporters wax eloquent on Indira Gandhi’s Emergency excesses as a warning to future generations not to go down that discredited path and derail democracy. Ironically, many of the practices of the Emergency are actually being emulated today. Even the unnecessary sycophancy of rulers in advertisements, bill boards and at public events seems ominously reminiscent of that black period and recalls Congress President D K Barooah’s fawning slogan, ‘Indira is India and India is Indira’.’’

Coomi Kapoor, ‘Five decades after the Emergency, difficult questions, unheeded warnings’, reported The Indian Express.

So, the writing on the wall is clear. Indira Gandhi had imposed the Emergency, using Articles (352-360) of the Indian constitution; the same Indira Gandhi within 18 months announced general elections on January 18, 1977 and officially lifted the Emergency on March 21, 1977. Political prisoners who had been imprisoned were released and free to contest the elections that were held soon thereafter. Despite the robust opposition to the Emergency, there was never a question or doubt that the elections of 1977 would be free or fair. Under the present Modi regime (a minority government in its ‘third’ term), there is no question of withdrawing the state of undeclared emergency that has never been formally imposed. As institution after institution is sought to be, and is subverted, including the hitherto independent Election Commission of India, an unscrupulous regime continues with its agenda of snatching all democratic freedoms!

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

[1] http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=op070205And_Not_Even.asp; this copy is available in libraries

[2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rss-backed-indira-gandhis-emergency-ex-ib-chief-264127-2015-09-21

[3] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ib-ex-chiefs-book-rss-chief-deoras-had-backed-some-emergency-moves/

[4] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RSS-backed-Emergency-reveals-former-IB-chief/articleshow/49052143.cms

[5] https://medium.com/@hindu.nationalist1/double-game-of-senior-rss-leaders-during-emergency-74abc07a4fa8

Related:

Syama Prasad Mookerjee: ‘Patriot’ or collaborator of British Rulers & Muslim League?

Womens Reservation Bill 2026: Women’s Rights & the RSS

Have Hindus always been Vegetarian?

The post 51st Anniversary of Emergency in India: While the RSS supported the Emergency, it now ruthlessly presides over an ‘undeclared Emergency’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by The Wire, on April 26, 2026, residents of Manoharpura in Mathura discovered that graves inside the Ahl-e-Muslimeen Kabristan had allegedly been damaged during a demolition exercise carried out with JCB machines working under the supervision of local authorities. Burial shrouds were exposed, graves were uprooted and skeletal remains reportedly became visible. Families arrived to find the resting places of parents, grandparents and relatives disturbed, turning what should have been a protected space of mourning and remembrance into a site of anguish and outrage.

The cemetery is not an informal burial ground. According to documents cited by The Wire, the Ahl-e-Muslimeen Kabristan is a gazetted waqf property dating back to 1909 and recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board. For generations, it has served as the burial ground for local Muslim families. Residents allege that nine graves were damaged, while six trees, boundary structures, fencing pillars and other parts of the cemetery were also destroyed during the operation.

Yet what transformed the incident from a local controversy into a matter of wider constitutional concern was not only the damage itself, but the state’s response to it.

Documents reviewed by The Wire reportedly show that the Mathura-Vrindavan Municipal Corporation formally acknowledged that approximately nine graves had been damaged. In a communication issued following complaints lodged through Uttar Pradesh’s Integrated Grievance Redressal System (IGRS), authorities reportedly directed compensation at the rate of Rs 100 per grave, valuing the destruction of nine graves at Rs 900. Separate assessments were conducted for damaged trees and fencing structures, resulting in compensation calculations for those losses as well.

For many residents, the issue was not merely that the amount was small. Rather, it was the very act of assigning a bureaucratic value to disturbed graves that appeared shocking. The controversy has therefore become less about the amount of compensation and more about what the calculation itself represents.

The question repeatedly raised by affected families is a simple one: what is the value of a grave?

The significance of that question becomes clearer when one considers the unique nature of burial grounds. A cemetery is not merely land. Nor is it simply a collection of physical structures. Burial grounds occupy a distinctive place within every society because they exist at the intersection of memory, religion, family history and human dignity. They are spaces where communities maintain continuity with previous generations and where the living continue to honour those who have passed away.

Every grave represents a life lived and relationships that continue beyond death. A parent, a sibling, a spouse, a grandparent or a child may be buried there. The disturbance of a grave therefore affects far more than physical property. It disrupts a family’s connection to the deceased and a community’s relationship with its own history.

This is why societies across cultures and faith traditions have historically treated the disturbance of burial grounds as a particularly serious wrong. Respect for the dead has long been regarded as one of the most basic markers of civilisation itself. Even international humanitarian law, which governs armed conflict, contains provisions concerning the respectful treatment of human remains and burial sites. The protection of the dead is recognised as a moral obligation that survives political conflict, territorial disputes and social divisions.

The outrage in Mathura stems from precisely this understanding. Residents are not merely complaining about damage to land. They are expressing anguish over what they regard as the desecration of a sacred space and a violation of the dignity of their dead.

The controversy also raises important questions about how law understands compensation.

Compensation in law is often misunderstood as a mechanism for calculating the market value of a loss. In reality, courts routinely award compensation for injuries that are impossible to measure in economic terms. Constitutional courts have awarded compensation for custodial violence, illegal detention, police excesses, violations of fundamental rights, wrongful deaths, emotional suffering and infringements of human dignity.

In such cases, compensation does not place a literal price on liberty, dignity or human suffering. Rather, it serves a broader purpose. It acknowledges wrongdoing, recognises injury, affirms the dignity of the victim and signals the state’s acceptance of responsibility.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised this principle. Beginning with landmark cases such as Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and subsequent constitutional tort jurisprudence, Indian courts have held that monetary compensation may be awarded when fundamental rights are violated. Such compensation is not intended to erase the injury suffered. Instead, it functions as public recognition that a serious constitutional wrong has occurred.

Viewed through this lens, the Mathura episode appears particularly troubling.

The official response reportedly treated damaged graves within the same administrative framework used to calculate losses relating to fencing structures, landscaping and trees. Yet a grave is not municipal infrastructure. It is not an asset whose value can be determined through replacement cost. It is the resting place of a human being and occupies a unique position within constitutional, religious and social life.

The controversy therefore exposes the limitations of administrative approaches to certain forms of harm. Some injuries cannot be fully understood through accounting exercises because the injury itself lies not in the physical object damaged but in what that object represents.

The constitutional implications of the incident extend beyond compensation. Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty and has been interpreted by courts to include human dignity as one of its central components. Importantly, Indian courts have repeatedly recognised that dignity does not disappear at the moment of death.

Judicial decisions have acknowledged the importance of dignified burial, dignified cremation and respectful treatment of human remains. During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts across the country intervened repeatedly to ensure that even those who had died from infectious diseases were accorded respectful last rites. The underlying principle was clear: human dignity survives death. The treatment of the dead reflects the constitutional values of the living.

Seen from this perspective, the alleged disturbance of graves at the Ahl-e-Muslimeen Kabristan engages concerns that extend beyond municipal negligence. It raises questions about whether public authorities adequately recognised the nature of the harm involved. If the disturbance of graves implicates dignity, memory and religious identity, then reducing the injury to a compensation calculation risk obscuring the true nature of the wrong.

The controversy also engages questions of religious freedom. Burial practices are integral components of religious life. Cemeteries and graveyards are not ordinary public spaces but sacred sites through which communities discharge religious obligations, preserve ancestral connections and maintain collective memory. Their protection is therefore closely connected to the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Article 25.

This concern becomes particularly significant where the cemetery in question is a recognised waqf property. Waqf institutions occupy a protected legal status and are intended to preserve religious and charitable assets for the benefit of the community. The fact that the Ahl-e-Muslimeen Kabristan is a notified waqf property raises additional questions regarding the safeguards that existed to protect the site and the procedures followed before demolition work was undertaken.

The incident acquires further significance when viewed against the broader political and social context of Mathura. As The Wire notes, the district has witnessed continuing disputes concerning Muslim religious sites, waqf properties, demolition drives affecting Muslim localities, campaigns targeting Muslim-owned businesses and politically charged litigation surrounding the Shahi Idgah mosque. Local residents have also raised concerns regarding encroachments around the cemetery, the establishment of a garbage collection point near its entrance and previous attempts to alter the character of the land.

Whether these concerns are accepted or contested, they form the backdrop against which the graveyard controversy is being interpreted by the affected community.

This context matters because institutions do not operate in a vacuum. Administrative actions acquire social meaning through historical experience. For many local Muslims, the disturbance of graves does not appear as an isolated bureaucratic mistake. Rather, it is seen as part of a broader pattern in which Muslim spaces—homes, businesses, places of worship and now burial grounds—have increasingly become sites of contestation and intervention.

This is what transforms the story from an administrative controversy into a constitutional one. The issue is not merely whether a contractor made an error or whether compensation was eventually paid. The deeper concern is how institutions respond when sacred spaces belonging to a minority community are damaged. Do they treat the incident as a technical mistake requiring reimbursement, or as a serious violation demanding accountability, restoration and recognition of the injury inflicted?

The documents cited by The Wire establish a paper trail showing that authorities acknowledged the damage and directed compensation. But acknowledgment is not accountability. Compensation is not justice.

A cheque may close an administrative file, but it does not answer the central questions raised by the episode. Why was a legally recognised cemetery disturbed? Who authorised the operation? What safeguards existed to protect burial sites? Was the legal status of the cemetery verified beforehand? Were any officials held responsible? Will restoration measures be undertaken? And what remedies are available when the dignity of the dead is violated?

Until those questions are answered, the controversy surrounding the Ahl-e-Muslimeen Kabristan will continue to resonate far beyond the boundaries of a single graveyard. Ultimately, the most disturbing aspect of the Mathura incident may be the message that many residents believe it conveys. The issue is not simply that graves were damaged. It is that the destruction of a sacred burial ground appears to have been processed through the machinery of administration as though it were no different from a damaged fence or uprooted tree. In doing so, the state risks transforming a question of dignity into a question of accounting.

And that is why the controversy has become about far more than nine damaged graves. It forces a larger reckoning with how law, administration and public institutions understand harm itself. Some injuries can be compensated. Others can only be acknowledged. The disturbance of the dead belongs firmly in the latter category.

Related:

Constitutional ideals vs. public order: SC delivers split verdict on Christian burial rights, fails to confront structural discrimination

‘Can’t keep the pot boiling over dead bodies’: Supreme Court directs dignified cremation/burial of Manipur violence victims

Muslim group switches sect, Kerala HC upholds their rights to prayer and burial

Segregated burial grounds, a violation of the Constitution: Madras High Court

Christians not being allowed burials, forced to cremate in Mumbai?

In a Heartwarming Gesture, Hindu Family Donates Land for Muslim Burial Ground in Assam

The post When the State Valued a Desecrated Grave at Rs 100: The Mathura cemetery controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.