CJP stated in the complaints that the alleged hate speeches violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and attracted offences under provisions relating to promotion of enmity between groups, criminal intimidation, statements conducing to public mischief, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and incitement to violence.

The complaints concern speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani in Mumbai, Kalyani in Nadia district of West Bengal, and Junnar in Pune district.

Complaint against Nitesh Narayan Rane over Chandivali speech: May 12, 2026

In a complaint dated May 12, 2026, addressed to Shri Nikhil Gupta, Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, Addl. Commissioner of Police, West Region, Mumbai, and Senior Police Inspector, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, CJP sought registration of an FIR against BJP MLA and Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nitesh Narayan Rane for allegedly delivering a divisive communal speech during a Hindu convention held in Chandivali, Mumbai on May 3, 2026.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane utilised dehumanising language against Muslims, spread conspiracy theories regarding “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” and “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” and openly encouraged social and economic boycott of Muslims. The complaint alleged that the speech attempted to create fear and hostility by portraying Muslims as an existential threat to Hindus and India.

According to CJP, Rane repeatedly referred to Muslims as “green snakes” and urged the audience to confront them. The complaint reproduces the speech transcript, including the following statements:

“[They] should come to Maharashtra. This writhing of green snakes (referring to Muslims) must stop. That is why the saffron flag has been unfurled in Maharashtra, remember this.”

“And therefore, while moving around as a Hindu, do so with self-confidence. Move with courage. If any green snake is writhing here, take guidance from Tai and then give me a call.”

The complaint further stated that Rane repeatedly described India as a “Hindu Rashtra” and suggested that Muslims were attempting to convert India into an Islamic nation through organised conspiracies.

CJP also stated in the complaint that Rane attempted to create fear among Hindus by claiming that Muslims would prevent Hindu religious practices if their population increased.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“You won’t be able to perform puja in your home. This saffron flag won’t be able to fly here. You won’t be able to apply the Tilak on your forehead.”

“Mothers and sisters won’t be able to apply vermilion (Sindoor) on their heads.”

According to CJP, the speech also included references to alleged communal incidents in Palghar and Virar to reinforce hostility against Muslims. The complaint additionally highlighted Rane’s remarks calling for economic boycott of Muslims:

“So, when we are dealing with them, buying from them, or giving them jobs—first, if someone is sitting at a shop, even if the shop’s signboard says ‘Jay Shri Ram,’ sometimes Abdul is sitting inside.”

“First tell him, ‘Recite the Hanuman Chalisa for me first.’ If you recite the Hanuman Chalisa only then will I buy from you, otherwise I won’t.”

“Therefore, if jobs are to be given or purchases are to be made, it should only be for Hindus—this should be the stance of all of us.”

CJP stated in the complaint that these remarks amounted to explicit encouragement of discrimination and exclusion of citizens based on religion and constituted a direct appeal for economic boycott of Muslims.

A copy of complaint dated May 12, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Nitesh Rane over Malad Malvani speech during Ram Navami Yatra

In another complaint dated April 28, 2026, addressed to Maharashtra Police authorities, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Nitesh Narayan Rane over a speech delivered during the Ram Navami Yatra held in Malad Malvani, Mumbai, on March 26, 2026.

According to CJP, the speech promoted communal hostility, issued direct threats of violence, and attempted to alienate Muslims by declaring India a “Hindu Rashtra” and describing the locality as belonging exclusively to “saffron-clad” Hindus.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane used references to “Pakistan” as a dog-whistle against Muslims and openly threatened those opposing Hindutva ideology.

The complaint reproduces the following portions of the speech:

“Perhaps some people here in Malvani have forgotten that this is our Hindu Rashtra, this is not someone’s Pakistan. If anyone tries to remove that saffron flag, we will not let their cylinder come up again. If anyone again looks at our saffron flag with dirty eyes, then their eyes will be taken out and played with like marbles.”

CJP alleged that these remarks amounted to open threats of violence and intimidation. The complaint further stated that Rane specifically directed slogans toward a mosque in the locality, thereby attempting to provoke confrontation and disturb communal harmony. The reproduced statement reads:

“That voice must reach the big mosque.”

According to CJP, such statements sought to intimidate the Muslim community and portray them as outsiders within the constitutional framework of India. The complaint also alleged that Rane invoked the authority of a “government with a Hindutva ideology” to suggest political backing for aggressive communal mobilisation.

A copy of complaint dated April 28, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Hari Mishra in West Bengal over hate speech during election campaign in Nadia

In a complaint dated May 6, 2026 addressed to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Nadia district, West Bengal, CJP sought registration of an FIR under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against BJP leader Hari Mishra for a speech delivered during an election campaign in Kalyani, Nadia district, on April 23, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Mishra spread anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and falsely claimed that Hindu festivals could not be celebrated in Muslim-majority areas.

The complaint reproduces portions of the speech including:

“In any area where the Muslim population is above 30-35%, Saraswati Puja will not happen. In places like Malda and Murshidabad… you first have to take permission from the nearest mosque. A situation worse than Bangladesh is going to happen on the soil of West Bengal.”

CJP further alleged that Mishra falsely claimed that the Constitution of India did not function in parts of West Bengal. The reproduced transcript includes:

“The Constitution of India does not work in many parts of Malda and Murshidabad. In about 25-30% of the areas in Malda and Murshidabad, the Constitution, rules, laws, and regulations of India do not apply.”

The complaint also referred to statements linking demographic change with political exclusion: “The day Muslims reach above 40-45%, not a single Hindu MP, MLA, counselor, or chairman will remain in West Bengal.”

According to CJP, these remarks sought to portray Muslims as a threat to democratic institutions and communal coexistence and were intended to create fear and polarisation during the election period.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Harshu Thakur in Junnar, Pune over speech delivered at Virat Hindu Sammelan

In a separate complaint dated May 6, 2026, addressed to the Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Junnar Division, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Harshu Thakur over a speech delivered at the Virat Hindu Sammelan held in Junnar, Pune district, on April 19, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Thakur spread anti-Muslim rhetoric through references to “Forest Jihad,” “Love Jihad,” and “Land Jihad,” while also making statements encouraging militarised responses and targeting Islamic institutions and burial practices.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“Wherever there is open land, there are graves. If you start funding madrasas, then only terrorists will be produced there. Mulla-Maulvis give them training on how to trap girls in ‘Love Jihad’ and how to carry out ‘Land Jihad’. They are taught how to make bombs.”

CJP further highlighted remarks targeting Muslim men and encouraging women to arm themselves:

“All these ‘Abduls’ are the same. Every Hindu woman just needs to be given a weapon.”

The complaint also alleged that Thakur attempted to frame Muslims as inherently violent while encouraging religious segregation and hostility.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Judicial precedents on which CJP relied upon

In the complaints submitted before police authorities in Maharashtra and West Bengal, CJP also relied upon multiple judicial precedents of the Supreme Court concerning hate speech, communal targeting, and the constitutional obligation of authorities to act against inflammatory rhetoric. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India [W.P. (Civ.) No. 956 of 2020], CJP highlighted the Court’s observations that “the edifice of a democratic society committed to the rule of law under a regime of constitutional rights, values and duties is founded on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting pot of civilisations, cultures, religions and languages. Any attempt to vilify a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavour by this Court as the custodian of constitutional values.”

CJP stated that the speeches delivered by Nitesh Rane, Hari Mishra, and Harshu Thakur collectively portrayed Muslims as conspirators, outsiders, extremists, and demographic threats, thereby directly undermining constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and peaceful coexistence. The complaints further referred to Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India [AIR 2014 SC 1591], where the Supreme Court observed that “hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership to a group,” and warned that such speech can lay the groundwork for discrimination, ostracism, violence, and even genocide. CJP stated that the repeated references to “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Forest Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” alleged demographic conspiracies, and calls for economic boycott sought to institutionalise fear and hostility against Muslims and therefore warranted immediate criminal action.

The complaints additionally cited the Supreme Court’s order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 943 of 2021], wherein all States and Union Territories were directed to register suo moto FIRs against hate speech irrespective of religion whenever offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505 IPC and related provisions are attracted.

Provisions related to hate speech under BNS, 2023

CJP further stated that the speeches attract multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353. According to the complaints, the repeated targeting of Muslim religious institutions, educational spaces, and social identity through references such as “green snakes,” “Forest Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and allegations that madrasas produce “only terrorists” amounted to promoting enmity between religious groups and acts prejudicial to communal harmony under Section 196 BNS.

CJP stated that the speeches also made imputations against the constitutional allegiance of an entire community by portraying Muslims and Islamic institutions as threats to the State, thereby attracting Section 197 BNS. The complaints further alleged that mocking Dargahs, Mazars, burial practices, Islamic scholars, and Muslim religious practices constituted deliberate insults to religion and religious beliefs under Sections 299 and 302 BNS.

CJP additionally argued that the repeated calls for mobilisation, warnings regarding demographic change, threats of violence, references to arming civilians, and calls for economic boycott amounted to intentional provocation intended to breach public peace under Section 352 BNS and dissemination of false information likely to create fear and communal unrest under Section 353 BNS.

The complaints maintained that the speeches delivered across Mumbai, Pune, and Nadia reflected a continuing pattern of inflammatory communal rhetoric aimed at deepening religious polarisation and normalising hostility against Muslims, thereby necessitating immediate registration of FIRs and preventive intervention by the concerned police authorities in compliance with constitutional obligations and Supreme Court directives.

Maharashtra DGP circulars cited by CJP

CJP also referred to circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, in February and April 2023 concerning preventive and penal action against hate speech.

According to the complaint, Circular No. DGP 20/Petition No.940/2022/54.2023 dated February 2, 2023 highlighted the Supreme Court’s order dated January 13, 2023 directing police authorities to take suo motu action whenever speeches attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC.

The circular had directed all Unit Commanders to follow the Supreme Court order and entails “measures to be taken to maintain law and order due to agitations, morchas, speeches etc.”

It gives detailed instructions on what steps are to be taken when any morchas are to be held:

“2. All the Unit Commanders should hold a meeting with the concerned organisers before such a morcha and fix the route of the morcha with appropriate terms and condition. A combined meeting of all social groups should be taken to convey clearly to all that they should maintain peace and keep law and order during the morcha. Preventive action against Anti-social elements should be taken. Those elements who help in maintaining peace and harmony should be encouraged. Audio Video recording of the morcha should be done. Police Head Quarters should ensure adequate supply of equipment’s, like Lathi, Helmets, etc. to police men deployed for morcha bandobast. If any law-and-order situation arises, offences should be registered immediately and arrest should be made. Intelligence machinery should be activated to collect advance information about morcha, agitation and efforts should be made to pre-empt any communal incidents.”

Supreme Court directions on preventing/prosecuting hate speakers

CJP further referred to multiple Supreme Court orders concerning hate speech and preventive policing. According to the complaints, on February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding a proposed event by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai and directed that if permission was granted for the event, it would be subject to the condition that no hate speech would be delivered.

The court also outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We also direct that the Officer(s), in case, permission is granted and, in case, the occasion arises for invoking the power under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Officer(s) concerned to invoke the said power and to act as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.” 

Even in 2024 itself, while on January 17, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had expressed their anguish at the petitioners being forced to approach the Supreme Court multiple times against individuals and organisations even after there being guidelines for tacking and taking action against hate speeches. During the said hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police at Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh to take ‘appropriate steps’ to ensure that no incitement to hate speech occurs at the rallies scheduled in the said districts in the coming few days of January.

The said order was passed following the concerns raised by the petitioners over delivery of potential hate speeches at rallies planned by Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Bharatiya Janata Party Legislator T Raja Singh in the month of January.

CJP stated that the court had outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We would require the authorities to be conscious that no incitement to violence and hate speech are permissible. The concerned District Magistrates and Superintendent of Police of Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh will take necessary steps, as may be required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, police/administration will install CCTV Cameras having recording facility, so as to ensure identification of the perpetrators in the event of any violence/hate speech.”

Background: Profile of Nitesh Rane and previous complaints filed by CJP

CJP stated in its complaints that the speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani were not isolated incidents but formed part of a continuing pattern of inflammatory speeches allegedly delivered by Nitesh Rane across Maharashtra. According to CJP, the organisation had previously filed complaints dated March 7, March 18, and March 28, 2025 concerning speeches delivered by Rane in Sindhudurg, Pune, and Ratnagiri districts.

The complaints related to events including:

• “Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan” in Kundal on February 8, 2025
• “Shivjanmostav” event in Sawantwadi on February 19, 2025
• Public felicitation programme at Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20, 2025
• Religious gathering in Wagholi, Pune on February 5, 2025

CJP stated that across these events, Rane repeatedly invoked terms such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” portrayed Muslims as a collective threat, and made statements capable of inciting hostility, fear, and social boycott against the Muslim community. The complaints further stated that such rhetoric, particularly when delivered by a sitting Cabinet Minister, was inflammatory, unsupported by evidence, and violative of constitutional protections.

FIRs and ongoing legal scrutiny against Nitesh Rane

Under the judicial oversight of the Bombay High Court in Aftab Siddique & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (2024), multiple FIRs have already been registered against Nitesh Rane in connection with alleged hate speech cases. CJP reproduced details of these FIRs in its complaints and stated that they reflected a continuing pattern of communal speeches delivered by Rane in different parts of Maharashtra.

Mankhurd Police Station (C.R. No. 152/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane under Sections 153A, 503, 504 and 505 IPC. According to the complaint, this case originated from speeches perceived as threatening to the Muslim community and capable of inciting public disorder.

Ghatkopar Police Station (C.R. No. 521/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Subhash Ahir under Sections 153A, 504, 506 and 188 IPC in connection with inflammatory speeches delivered in Mumbai suburbs.

Kashimira Police Station (C.R. No. 259/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain in relation to the Mira-Bhayander incidents under Sections 153A, 153B, 143, 504 and 506 IPC along with Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Malwani Police Station (C.R. No. 298/2024)

Originally registered against Bhagwan Thakur, with Nitesh Rane later added as an accused under Sections 153A, 504 and 506 IPC in relation to speeches targeting specific religious communities.

CJP further pointed out that Nitesh Rane’s October 2024 election affidavit reportedly disclosed 38 FIRs registered against him, including 20 cases relating specifically to allegations of hate speech.

Related

Free and Fair Elections: CJP’s 2025 fight against hate and voter intimidation

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

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

The post CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Citizens for Justice and Peace is providing legal aid in this case.

Details of the proceedings

Court examines how the Tribunal opinion became ex-parte: At the outset, counsel appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal authorities prayed for time to file an affidavit in the matter. The Bench then asked what the case concerned. Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that the writ petition challenges an ex parte opinion passed by the Foreigners Tribunal in 2018.

Seeking clarification, the Bench asked what exactly was meant by the opinion being “ex-parte.”

Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta explained that the petitioner had initially appeared before the Tribunal but was unable to continue contesting the proceedings because he could not afford the advocate’s fees. As a result, although appearance had been entered before the Tribunal, the matter eventually proceeded ex-parte.

The Bench then specifically asked whether legal aid had been provided at any stage. In response, Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta also submitted that no legal aid had been extended to the petitioner despite his financial condition. He further informed the Court that the absence of legal aid constitutes one of the central grounds in the present writ petition. According to him, legal aid could have been made available, but there was no effort on the part of the authorities or the system to ensure representation after it became clear that the petitioner was unable to sustain private legal counsel.

The Court then asked till what stage the petitioner had participated in the Tribunal proceedings. Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta clarified that although appearance had been entered before the Tribunal, no written statement had ultimately been filed.

State introduces allegation of “pushback” during hearing: The Bench then turned to counsel appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal authorities and asked whether the State’s case was that the petitioner had simply neglected to file the written statement.

In response, counsel for the Tribunal authorities stated before the Court that it was “not a case of neglect,” and further alleged that the petitioner had been “pushed back” and had thereafter “again entered India.”

The statement appeared to take the petitioner’s side by surprise. Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta immediately responded that this was entirely new information to him and had never previously surfaced in the proceedings or records available to the petitioner. The Bench remarked to him that he was “a veteran in the field.”

Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta clarified that no allegation regarding any pushback had ever been disclosed earlier and that this was the first time such a statement had been made in court. He submitted that nothing on record available to him suggested that the petitioner had been pushed back and had subsequently re-entered India.

Following this exchange, counsel for the Tribunal authorities reiterated the request for time to place the State’s stand on affidavit.

Court questions why notice had not been issued earlier: The Bench then asked whether notice had formally been issued in the writ petition. Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta explained that notice had not yet been issued because, during the earlier hearing, the State had sought time to address the question of delay by filing an affidavit. In the meantime, however, interim protection against deportation had already been granted by the Court.

The Bench also enquired whether the petitioner continued to remain in detention. Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta informed the Court that, to his knowledge, the petitioner remained lodged in the detention camp. When asked since when, he submitted that the petitioner had been in custody since May 25, 2025, on the basis of the 2018 Foreigners Tribunal opinion. He further reminded the Court that the present writ petition had been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court to challenge the Tribunal’s opinion.

Notice issued; Court observes fresh hearing may be considered

After hearing the parties, the Bench observed that notice ought now to be formally issued so that the State would be required to place its stand on affidavit.

The Court accordingly issued notice in the matter, making it returnable by June 15, 2026. The Bench also directed that the interim protection against deportation shall continue.

Significantly, while dictating the order, the Court observed that if the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for remanding the matter to the Foreigners Tribunal for a fresh hearing, such a course should be considered immediately.

The observation assumes significance in light of the petitioner’s argument that the Tribunal proceedings culminated in an ex parte opinion after he became unable to afford legal representation and despite no legal aid being provided.

Background of the Case

The writ petition challenges the ex-parte opinion dated June 13, 2018, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang, declaring Abdul Sheikh @ Abdul Gafar to be a foreigner who had allegedly entered India after March 25, 1971.

According to the petition, the petitioner had initially contested the proceedings through counsel but could not continue because of severe financial constraints. The petition states that the ex-parte nature of the opinion was therefore not the result of deliberate non-participation, but the petitioner’s inability to continue private legal representation.

The petition further records that the petitioner was detained in 2019 and released in 2021 pursuant to prevailing directions governing prolonged detention of declared foreigners. It states that he was again taken into custody on May 25, 2025.

The present challenge before the High Court has been filed after the Supreme Court, while disposing of earlier proceedings in December 2025, clarified that the petitioner would remain at liberty to challenge the Foreigners Tribunal opinion.

The petition attributes the delay in filing the present challenge to prolonged detention, financial hardship, lack of legal aid, restricted access while in custody, and the practical difficulty of preparing legal proceedings without direct communication with the detenue.

The matter will next be heard on June 15, 2026.

Details of the previous proceedings may be read here.

Related:

“They were once sent back, awaiting deportation”: State’s new claim deepens uncertainty over fate of Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Gauhati High Court issues notice in Abdul Sheikh Citizenship case, continues protection from deportation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Long before the current anxieties around Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises emerged, CJP had already been deeply involved in questions surrounding identity documentation, citizenship verification and exclusionary administrative processes. Our first intensive and continuing interventions are in the north-eastern state of Assam, where a peculiar blend of exclusivist xenophobic politics shaped policy and actions that have together targeted legitimate Indians in the quagmire of having ‘to establish documented citizenship.’ Read about CJP’d continuing journey through 2025 here.

Subsequently, two years down the line, 2019-2020, during the months and years of fear generated by the CAA-NRC debates, CJP organised extensive documentation and awareness campaigns across several states, helping communities understand legal processes, preserve records, obtain missing documents and resist panic-driven misinformation. The organisation’s interventions consistently focused on ensuring that vulnerable populations—especially minorities, migrants, women, Adivasis, Denotified Tribes (DNTs), informal workers and economically marginalised groups—were not pushed outside the constitutional framework through procedural barriers.

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

It is from this history of engagement that CJP, together with Vote for Democracy (VFD), began conducting a series of detailed SIR awareness and training sessions in Maharashtra. In 2025, with the elections to the Bihar State Assembly, the State’s most recent efforts to push large sections of Indians to potential disenfranchisement by exacting an unrealistic ‘citizenship test’ began. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise that subsequently travelled to Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh has defied statutory law (Representation of People’s Act, 1951), Constitutional precedents (Article 14, 15 and 21) and the basic principles of due process and natural justice.

Tragically, this SIR exercise has been preceded by the most significant erosion of autonomy and integrity of a constitutional body like the Election Commission of India (ECI), casting a cloud on the very integrity of the election process under Articles 324-326 of the Indian Constitution. Vote for Democracy (VFD), a citizens’ platform guided by experts has analysed and exposed this deterioration of fair and free elections from the parliamentary elections of April-June 2024. VFD’s reports may be read here, here, here and here.

These trainings were never intended to legitimise or endorse a hurried and deeply problematic SIR exercise. In fact, the position adopted by CJP and VFD has remained unequivocal: the current SIR model, as implemented across multiple states, raises profound constitutional concerns because of the manner in which it transfers the burden of proof onto ordinary citizens while creating conditions ripe for exclusion and disenfranchisement. The purpose of the trainings, therefore, was not compliance for its own sake. It was protection.

As the CJP-VFD booklet on SIR itself clearly states, the trainings are meant “strictly to arm you with the tools to defend your rights and navigate this unconstitutional hurdle, not to legitimise it.”

The booklet may be read here and here.

At a time when fear, misinformation and confusion were spreading rapidly among communities, the trainings sought to communicate one essential message: panic helps exclusionary systems thrive. Knowledge, preparation and collective solidarity followed by determined interventions and action, are what protect democratic rights.

The Maharashtra trainings

Over the course of several months, CJP conducted three major SIR-focused training and awareness programmes in Maharashtra:

• March 21: Training session with Bombay Catholic Sabha
• April 16: Joint awareness and training session with a Community-Based Organisation (CBO), Agripada, South Mumbai
• April 30: Community training programme with Jan Haqq Sangharsh Samiti

These were not routine seminars or technical workshops. They became spaces where fear, uncertainty and lived experiences surfaced openly.

Participants included community organisers, women’s groups, migrant workers, social activists, minority organisations, students, religious leaders, local volunteers, housing rights advocates, DNT representatives, trade union workers, and ordinary residents increasingly worried about how SIR-style exercises could impact their ability to remain on electoral rolls.

Across all three programmes, a striking reality emerged repeatedly: for many people, the fear was not abstract. It was deeply personal. The idea that decades-old documents could suddenly determine one’s legitimacy as a voter –and thereafter a citizen– triggered anxieties rooted in poverty, displacement, migration, illiteracy, gender discrimination and bureaucratic neglect accumulated over generations.

In fact, for a joint delegation meeting with the CEO of Maharashtra, Chokkalingam in early March 2026, of which CJP was a crucial part, was revelatory. The officer unambiguously stated that the 2003 Guidelines would not be followed but also admitted that ‘no fresh guidelines had yet been issued’ by the ECI, Delhi. Emphasising that the current exercise would be one in determining that ‘only Indians’ figure on the electoral roll, Chokkalingam explained the amendments made to Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 that distinguished between a) those born before 1987, b) those between 1987 (July 1) and 2004 and those c) those born after that date in terms of what sorts of documentary proof were required to ‘establish’ Indian citizenship. For a) simply being born in India was proof enough, for b) in addition to his/her own birth in India, it was required to establish that at least one of the parents was Indian; and for c) it was important to establish that neither mother nor father was an ‘illegal immigrant.’

The Bihar and West Bengal Experience: Why these trainings became necessary

The Maharashtra sessions were built directly upon the extensive field experiences documented by CJP and VFD teams in states where SIR-related exercises had already generated serious problems. These include Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. Assam has, meanwhile only so far had a Special Revision (SR) of its rolls, not an SIR.

Ground reports from Bihar and West Bengal revealed patterns of confusion, mass anxiety, arbitrary notices, technological mismatches, documentation hurdles and administrative opacity. These findings eventually culminated in the publication of the detailed handbook Inside the Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Deadly Deadlines, Mechanical Disenfranchisement, and the Ground Reality of Claims and Objections Period & SIR Notices/Hearings.

The booklet combined investigative analysis, field documentation, legal guidance and practical training material. It explained the structure of the SIR process, the roles of electoral officers, the significance of legacy electoral rolls, the functioning of notices and hearings, appeal mechanisms, acceptable documents, and the methods through which exclusion was being operationalised on the ground.

Most importantly, it documented how the current SIR framework represented a dramatic departure from earlier electoral revision exercises.

The 2003 SIR process, for example, had been conducted over nearly six months, relied on existing electoral rolls and EPIC cards as foundational documents, and emphasised facilitative house-to-house verification. Enumerators were not expected to function as citizenship adjudicators. This time round, 2025-2026, with the ECI acting like the weaponised (read unconstitutional) arm of an exclusivist regime, hurried and arbitrary adjudications on citizenship have become the order of the day.

The present model, therefore, has increasingly transformed electoral verification into an exercise marked by compressed timelines, mechanical scrutiny, opaque software systems, and retrospective documentary burdens. CJP and VFD’s field reports documented how software-driven mismatches involving spelling variations, transliteration differences, age-gap calculations and data-entry inconsistencies generated large numbers of “unmatched” or “suspicious” entries.

The Maharashtra trainings therefore emerged not from speculation, but from documented experiences already unfolding elsewhere.

What happens when the poor are asked to prove their existence?

A significant portion of the Maharashtra trainings conducted by CJP focused on helping participants understand the broad range of documents that may potentially be relied upon during SIR-related verification processes. Methods of accessing documents that may exist and be available with local authorities, understanding and tracking legacy and linkages to those voters/citizens who are available and verifiable in the baseline document –the electoral role between 2002-2004—were also granularly shared. CJP’s experiences pan-India across states and regions, intervening on multiple fronts has created a rich knowledge base of accessing documents from levels of the bureaucracy and this is being widely shared. The trainings repeatedly stressed an important point: people often panic because they assume that the absence of one “perfect” document automatically disqualifies them. However, the indicative list itself demonstrates that identity and eligibility can be established through multiple forms of documentary evidence.

Participants were carefully guided through the list of acceptable or supporting documents referenced in the handbook and subsequent judicial interventions. These include: identity cards or pension payment orders issued to government employees or pensioners; identity cards or certificates issued by government authorities, banks, post offices, LIC or PSUs prior to July 1, 1987; birth certificates; passports; matriculation or educational certificates; permanent residence certificates; forest rights certificates; OBC, SC or ST caste certificates; NRC records where available; family registers prepared by state or local authorities; land or house allotment certificates; Aadhaar cards; and Class 10 admit cards or pass certificates.

Throughout the trainings, facilitators repeatedly emphasised that even one among these documents, when supported with supplementary records and consistent identity details, could help establish a person’s identity and continued existence within the social and administrative framework of the country. The sessions therefore focused heavily on practical strategies: how to organise documents chronologically, how to retrieve old records, how to preserve photocopies and acknowledgements, and how to identify alternative supporting papers where primary documents were unavailable.

Yet, as the discussions during the trainings revealed, the ground reality surrounding documentation is far more complicated than official lists often assume. For large sections of the population, documents are not simply lying safely preserved in family cupboards waiting to be produced before authorities. Instead, documentation histories are fragmented by poverty, migration, environmental disasters, displacement, gender discrimination and bureaucratic neglect accumulated over decades. Many participants explained that births in their communities took place at home and were never formally registered. Others spoke of losing papers during drought-induced migration, floods, demolitions, fires or repeated changes in residence. Several older participants described how schools they attended no longer exist, making retrieval of school leaving certificates or mark sheets almost impossible today.

Women repeatedly raised concerns about documentary inconsistencies arising from early (pre 18 or 21 years) marriage-related surname changes, spelling variations and shifts in residence. Some women who were married young explained that they had voted for the first time from their husband’s homes, bypassing any formal electoral linkage with their natal families. This now makes tracing documentary continuity with parental records extremely difficult though not impossible.

Similarly, members of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNTs), migrant workers and daily wage earners pointed out that even obtaining caste certificates, residence proofs or duplicate records often requires multiple visits to government offices—something many cannot afford without losing crucial daily income. For homeless persons, tenants, informal workers and highly mobile populations, stable address-based documentation itself becomes a challenge.

The trainings therefore highlighted a critical contradiction at the heart of documentation-heavy verification exercises: while the State increasingly demands layered documentary proof, millions of people have historically lived at the margins of formal documentation systems themselves. In this context, the sessions sought not only to explain which documents may help, but also to collectively confront the deeper structural inequalities that determine who is able to preserve paperwork, who is visible within administrative systems, and who remains vulnerable to exclusion.

Documents Decide Everything: The fear communities brought into the trainings

One of the most powerful aspects of the Maharashtra sessions was the extent to which people spoke openly about the fragility of their documentary histories. Again and again, participants raised concerns that exposed the enormous disconnect between bureaucratic expectations and lived realities.

The missing birth certificate problem: Perhaps the most recurring concern involved birth certificates.

Large sections of older generations, particularly from rural, working-class and poor communities, were born at home and never formally registered with civil authorities. Institutional births were inaccessible, expensive or culturally uncommon for decades. Women participants repeatedly spoke about how neither they nor their siblings had any birth records because births took place with the assistance of local midwives rather than within hospitals.

The statistics themselves reveal why this remains such a massive issue. Birth registration in India became widespread only relatively recently. Even official data shows significant historical gaps in registration coverage.

For many participants, the sudden expectation that decades-old birth records must now exist produced profound anxiety.

Maharashtra’s histories of drought, migration and loss: Participants also described how environmental and economic crises had repeatedly destroyed family records.

Several communities had lived through devastating droughts across parts of Maharashtra, forcing migration, distress movement and repeated displacement. Others recalled losing documents during floods, cyclones, fires or long-term housing instability. Some participants referred to records lost during the tsunami years or during forced relocations connected to urban redevelopment and informal settlement demolitions. For poor families surviving through cycles of migration and precarious labour, preserving fragile paper records over decades was often impossible.

Yet the current SIR-style expectations assume stable homes, continuous paperwork, formal institutional access and uninterrupted documentation histories.

When the school itself no longer exists: Another major issue that surfaced repeatedly was the problem of accessing school records. Many older government schools, village schools and informal educational institutions no longer exist in their original form. Buildings were demolished, records disappeared, administrations changed, or archives were never digitised.

Several participants explained that even when they knew they had once studied in a particular school, obtaining school leaving certificates or mark sheets today had become practically impossible because the institution itself had shut down or records were destroyed years ago.

For individuals from poor families who studied intermittently or dropped out early to begin work, educational documentation is often fragmentary or inaccessible. Yet these very records are increasingly treated as crucial identity markers.

The invisible burden on Denotified tribes and marginalised communities: The trainings also foregrounded concerns specific to Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNTs), whose histories of exclusion from stable settlement patterns, education systems and formal state recognition continue to shape their present vulnerabilities.

Participants pointed out that many DNT communities remain structurally under-documented because generations lived outside formal administrative frameworks. Accessing caste certificates, residence records or historical proofs often requires repeated interactions with distant bureaucratic offices.

For daily wage earners, every visit to a government office means losing a day’s income. The trainings repeatedly emphasised that documentation burdens are never socially neutral. They fall most heavily on those already living precariously.

Women and documentary disruption: Women’s experiences emerged as one of the most significant dimensions of the discussions. Across communities and religions, women described how marriage routinely disrupted documentary continuity. Changes in surname after marriage frequently resulted in inconsistencies across different identity documents.

Many older women explained that they had married before turning 18 and had voted for the first time from their husband’s residence rather than from their natal home. This makes establishing documentary linkage with parental records extraordinarily difficult decades later.

Minor spelling variations across ration cards, Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, educational certificates and marriage-related records further complicate verification. The Maharashtra trainings paid particular attention to these gendered documentary realities because women are often expected to “prove” continuity across names, addresses and households shaped by patriarchal social structures.

Electoral revision cannot become citizenship surveillance

Throughout the sessions, CJP and VFD repeatedly stressed a crucial constitutional principle: electoral revision cannot be converted into a mechanism of suspicion against already-enfranchised citizens.

The handbook itself notes that the present SIR framework reverses long-standing democratic presumptions by effectively treating registered voters as suspect unless they can repeatedly prove their eligibility through documentary evidence.

This is particularly alarming because millions of people currently on electoral rolls have already voted in multiple elections over decades.

The trainings therefore focused heavily on rights awareness:

• understanding notices,
• organising documents,
• preserving acknowledgements,
• seeking written orders,
• attending hearings with support persons,
• filing appeals,
• resisting arbitrary deletions,
• and documenting procedural violations.

Participants were also trained on how to search older electoral rolls, including the 2002–2004 rolls increasingly treated as “legacy data” within SIR processes. The sessions explained the functioning of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs), appeal processes, and the importance of procedural safeguards.

Rights groups and CBO’s were trained on and encouraged to, by the CJP team, to organise collectively and voice concerns with the offices of the state election commission so that specific concerns and anxieties of the varieties of stake holders—genuine voters, be they migrants from other states, women, minorities, DNTs, displaced persons—could be readily addressed by an otherwise opaque SEC.

CJP’s memorandum to the Maharashtra CEO

Parallel to these trainings, CJP and VFD formally approached the Maharashtra State Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra with a detailed memorandum raising concerns about possible disenfranchisement and procedural opacity.

The memorandum urged authorities to ensure:

• accessible and searchable electoral rolls,
• properly trained personnel,
• multilingual assistance systems,
• protection against algorithmic exclusion,
• public transparency,
• a publicised social audit of the draft revised polls and the final ones (this has been mentioned as a mandatory and healthy requirement in the ECI’s own 2023 Handbook of Guidelines on Electoral Rolls;
• and safeguards against arbitrary deletions.

Importantly, the memorandum emphasised that electoral revision must reduce fear rather than produce it. It warned that when documentation burdens are imposed without adequate support structures, the people who suffer first are always those already pushed to the margins: minorities, migrants, tenants, women, informal workers, DNTs and economically vulnerable populations.

Beyond Documentation: Building collective confidence

What distinguished these Maharashtra trainings was that they did not treat documentation as merely technical paperwork. They recognised documentation as deeply tied to dignity, memory, class, caste, migration, gender and survival.

For many participants, the sessions became spaces where people realised they were not individually “failing” because documents were missing or inconsistent. Rather, their experiences reflected structural realities shared by millions across India.

The trainings therefore consistently emphasised solidarity and collective defence:

• helping elderly persons retrieve records,
• assisting women facing name mismatches,
• supporting migrant workers unable to attend hearings,
• guiding daily wage earners through documentation processes,
• and ensuring that vulnerable communities do not face bureaucratic intimidation alone.

At a time when administrative processes increasingly risk producing fear and invisibility, these sessions attempted to restore confidence in constitutional rights and democratic participation.

A democratic intervention against fear

Ultimately, the SIR trainings conducted by CJP across Maharashtra were not merely legal awareness programmes. They were democratic interventions against fear.

They sought to remind people that the right to vote is not a favour granted conditionally by shifting bureaucratic systems. It is a constitutional guarantee rooted in the promise of universal adult franchise. They also sought to expose a harsh reality: when democratic participation becomes dependent upon perfect documentation histories stretching across decades, exclusion ceases to be accidental. It becomes structural.

For precisely this reason, the trainings insisted that preparation—not panic—must guide public response. Because behind every “missing document,” “mismatched name,” or “unavailable legacy record” is not simply a paperwork problem, but a human history shaped by poverty, migration, patriarchy, displacement, disaster and institutional neglect.

And it is these histories that CJP’s Maharashtra trainings sought to bring into the centre of the conversation—so that democracy is not reduced to an exercise in mechanical verification, but remains anchored in constitutional inclusion, human dignity and collective rights.

Related:

Inside the SIR: A voter roll exercise turning into a test of survival

Demystifying the SIR Notice: A systemic hurdle, not a final verdict

CJP Assam: A journey without parallel, evolving & expanding rights jurisprudence

The post Documents Cannot Decide Democracy: How CJP is training communities to navigate the SIR process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by Live Law, the new order immediately nullifies the earlier 2022 government directive and expressly allows students to wear symbols and articles associated with religious or customary practice, including the hijab or headscarf, turban (Pete), sacred thread or Janeu (Janivara), Shivadhara, Rudraksha and other similar faith-based items. The government clarified that such symbols would be permissible so long as they do not interfere with institutional discipline, safety, identification of students, classroom functioning or public order.

The state government has framed the move as an attempt to balance constitutional values of equality, secularism and inclusion with the need to maintain institutional discipline. According to reports published by The Times of India, the order emphasises that educational institutions are constitutional spaces meant to cultivate scientific temper, rational thinking, fraternity, dignity, equality and mutual respect among students. The preamble to the order states that “secularism, in constitutional sense, does not mean opposition to personal beliefs,” but instead requires equal respect for all faiths, institutional neutrality and non-discriminatory conduct by the State and educational authorities.

The government further observed that institutional discipline and uniformity can be preserved “without mandatorily prohibiting limited traditional and practice-based symbols that students commonly wear.” Referring to provisions under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Rule 11 of the Karnataka Education Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula etc.) Rules, 1995, the order states that limited faith-based practices may be accommodated so long as they do not disrupt teaching, safety or order within educational institutions.

Importantly, the circular also provides explicit protections against exclusion and humiliation of students. It states that no student wearing permitted symbols can be denied admission, attendance, participation in classroom activities, examinations, competitions or academic progress solely on that basis. The order further directs that no student shall be compelled to remove such symbols and that no institution or authority may forcibly remove them. School Development and Monitoring Committees (SDMCs), College Development Committees (CDCs), governing bodies and institutional heads have additionally been instructed not to humiliate, demean or subject students to insulting behaviour because of their attire or faith-based practices.

The order does, however, carve out a narrow exception for examinations, clarifying that dress code regulations prescribed for national or state-level examinations may continue to apply wherever required by examination authorities. At the same time, the government stressed that implementation of the new policy must remain free from communal or religious discrimination and be uniformly applied across institutions.

The circular also invokes the inclusive social philosophy of 12th century reformer Basavanna, quoting the phrase “Iva Nammave” (“They are ours”) and directing educational institutions to adopt this principle while dealing with students from different communities and backgrounds.

The reversal comes against the backdrop of the highly contentious hijab controversy that erupted in Karnataka in early 2022 after several Muslim students were denied entry into classrooms for wearing hijabs. The previous BJP government had issued the February 5, 2022 order mandating strict adherence to prescribed uniforms in educational institutions, effectively banning the hijab inside classrooms. The move triggered state-wide protests, counter-mobilisations by saffron scarf-wearing groups, intense political polarisation and legal challenges before the Karnataka High Court and later the Supreme Court.

In March 2022, the Karnataka High Court upheld the government order, holding that wearing the hijab was not an “essential religious practice” protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Subsequently, a split verdict by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in October 2022 resulted in the matter being referred to a larger bench, where the constitutional challenge to the hijab restrictions continues to remain pending.

The government’s latest move also appears to have been influenced by more recent controversies surrounding religious attire and symbols in educational spaces. According to The Times of India, the decision followed public outrage over an April 24 incident in which a student’s sacred thread was allegedly cut during an examination. Separately, the Karnataka High Court had recently issued notice to the state government in a public interest litigation challenging the action of Karnataka Examination Authority officials who allegedly prevented students wearing sacred threads from appearing in the Common Entrance Test (CET) 2025.

Defending the policy shift, Karnataka School Education Minister Madhu Bangarappa stated that the government order formally recognised long-standing religious and customary practices followed by different communities. He reportedly said that practices such as wearing the sacred thread, Shivadhara, turban, traditional attire, Jain customary clothing and hijab had now been properly specified and protected under the new order. He added that students from Class 1 to Class 12 should not face any obstacles for wearing such permitted symbols in educational institutions under the Education Department.

Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao also defended the decision, stating that “limited customary practices are being allowed and nobody should be hurt because of this.”

The opposition BJP, however, sharply criticised the withdrawal of the hijab ban and accused the Congress government of engaging in appeasement politics. Leader of Opposition R. Ashoka alleged that the Congress government was reviving the hijab issue for electoral considerations and described the move as “anti-Hindu.” According to report carried by The Quint, BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya also criticised the decision, claiming that it institutionalised religious identity inside classrooms and undermined the idea of schools as spaces of equality and shared citizenship.

Despite the political backlash, the Karnataka government has maintained that the order seeks to protect constitutional freedoms while preserving institutional discipline and social harmony. The revised guidelines now apply across government, aided and private schools and pre-university colleges in Karnataka, marking a significant departure from one of the most contentious educational and religious policy decisions in recent years.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

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

Karnataka: Muslim girl asked to not wear hijab to school, after students protested wearing saffron shawls

Extremists assaulted Muslim woman; hijab stripped of in broad daylight in Bengaluru and Muzaffarnagar

Ex-Muslims observe ‘No Hijab Day’

The post Karnataka revises school uniform policy, permits religious symbols alongside uniforms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minster (CM), Himanta Biswa Sarma made the announcement while addressing the media after the first Cabinet meeting in his second term holding the post. Sarma took oath as Chief Minister for the second consecutive term on May 12, 2026. Results of the elections came in on May 4.

At his press meet Himanta Said the decision was taken to present the UCC in the House on the last day of the present session of the Assam Assembly on May 26. The Assam Cabinet approved the draft UCC on the May 13 and he said that we will present the UCC in the House on the last day of the first Assembly session as soon as the members take oath.

Explaining the intended law, he said the UCC will exclude tribal booth Hills and plains people from the scope of the UCC and clarified that said the UCC will not affect any religious customs. Specifically, the proposed UCC will focus on a total of four issues,” he added, “These include the minimum age of marriage, Polygamy, the rights of women in property and live in relationships.”

He added that if someone asks whether the UCC requires worship or prayers, how to hold a Chaklong wedding, etc., there should be no such questions, which is why the UCC is not concerned with religious observances or religious traditions. “The government has no say in how worship has to be done or prayers have to be offered.

He may be heard https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1891XEALmG/

A special session of the Assam Assembly is scheduled to be held from May 21–26, 2026. Newly elected MLAs will take oath during the session. The proposed bill that was approved in the Cabinet Minister’s meeting on May 12 will be tabled on May 26, the concluding day of the session.

According to the brief by Sarma, the proposed legislation aims to address:

i) Legal age of marriage

ii) Polygamy

iii) Inheritance rights

iv) Live-in relationships

v) Compulsory registration of marriage and divorce

With this move, Assam will become the third state after Uttarakhand and Gujarat to table a UCC Bill. All three are states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

It is noteworthy—and can certainly be asserted—that this decision, taken during the very first cabinet meeting of the BJP’s third government in Assam (and Himanta’s 2.0 administration), was specifically aimed at targeting a particular community.

On a previous occasion as well, the Himanta government had raised issues such as “Love Jihad” in the Legislative Assembly, specifically targeting the Muslim community.

Meanwhile, Himanta Biswa Sarma has previously stated that banning polygamy and “deceitful religious conversions” is part of Assam’s move toward a UCC-like framework. This echoes recommendations of the Justice (Retd.) Rumi Kumari Phukan Committee, which examined the legal viability of such a measure.

Related:

Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest

The post Assam: Bill on Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a partisan act? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the police statement, both Verma and Choudhary were allegedly associated with “Mazdoor Bigul Dasta” and had played a “significant role” in the violence, arson and disruption that accompanied the workers’ protest. Police further claimed that the two attempted to disturb public order by “provoking” workers in different areas and circulating inflammatory material. Senior police officers, quoted in report by The Times of India, cited CCTV footage, electronic evidence, intelligence inputs and social media activity as the basis for invoking the NSA, a preventive detention law that permits incarceration for up to one year without trial on grounds related to national security or maintenance of public order.

The use of the NSA against the two has, however, triggered strong criticism from lawyers, labour rights groups, civil liberties organisations and campaigners associated with the Campaign for the Release of Workers and Activists of Noida (CaRWAN), who have termed the move an attempt to indefinitely prolong incarceration after the prosecution allegedly failed to establish concrete evidence during bail proceedings. Supreme Court advocate Ali Zia Kabir Choudhary, representing several accused in the matter, told The Wire that neither the accused nor their legal teams had been formally provided documents explaining the grounds on which the NSA was invoked. He pointed out that under constitutional safeguards, including Article 22 concerning protection against arrest and detention; the arrested persons are entitled to be informed of the grounds of detention.

“The only detail we have is the police press release. No papers have been supplied. In court we argued that there is not a single piece of evidence showing that Satyam or others called for violence,” Choudhary said while speaking to The Wire, adding that in Verma’s case, police had allegedly failed to show that he was even part of any WhatsApp groups cited during arguments. He further alleged that the prosecution relied largely on unrelated photographs and chats involving persons who were not arrested.

Timing of NSA invocation raises concerns

CaRWAN, in a statement issued on May 13 and cited by The Wire, questioned the timing of the NSA charges, noting that the law was invoked only after the prosecution faced difficulty during bail hearings. The collective stated that during the hearing, defence counsel highlighted the “emptiness of the charges” and the “illegality of the arrests,” while prosecutors allegedly failed to present substantial incriminating material against either Verma or Choudhary. The group argued that the accused had already spent over a month in judicial custody and that the sudden invocation of the NSA appeared designed solely to ensure continued detention.

The police crackdown follows weeks of unrest linked to industrial workers’ protests in Noida and Greater Noida. As reported by Hindustan Times, the demonstrations began on April 10 after the Haryana government announced a substantial increase in minimum wages for workers, prompting labourers in Noida’s industrial belt to demand similar hikes, better overtime compensation and improved working conditions. While protests remained largely peaceful in the initial days, violence broke out on April 13 across several industrial sectors, during which factories were allegedly vandalised, vehicles torched and police personnel injured in incidents of stone pelting.

Following the violence, the Uttar Pradesh Police launched a sweeping crackdown. Multiple FIRs, various reports place the number between seven and fifteen, were registered across police stations including Phase II and Sector 63. According to The Indian Express, hundreds of people were detained in the aftermath, while at least 60 individuals remain incarcerated on charges ranging from rioting and criminal conspiracy to attempt to murder. Police have consistently maintained, including in statements carried by The Hindu and Hindustan Times, that the violence was not spontaneous but orchestrated by an “organised syndicate of outsiders.”

Activists, students and scholars among those arrested

The arrests have drawn particular attention because many of those booked are students, researchers, labour organisers and activists rather than industrial workers themselves.

Satyam Verma, a 60-year-old journalist based in Lucknow, was arrested on April 17. According to The Indian Express, Verma previously worked with the news agency Univarta and has been associated with Janchetna Books and Jagaruk Nagrik Manch. He has also written for the labour publication Mazdoor Bigul, after which the organisation “Mazdoor Bigul Dasta” is allegedly named. Friends and supporters quoted in The Indian Express described him as a writer, translator and editor deeply engaged with labour rights and progressive literature. He is also the son of noted historian and academic Lal Bahadur Verma.

Civil rights groups have strongly disputed police claims portraying Verma as a “main conspirator.” CaRWAN stated in comments carried by The Times of India and The Wire that Verma was not present in Noida during the protests and had reportedly not visited the city in over a decade. His associates argue that the prosecution has attempted to criminalise ideological affiliations rather than establish any direct role in violence.

Aakriti Choudhary, 25, a postgraduate in history from Delhi University’s Daulat Ram College and an aspiring PhD scholar, was detained by plainclothes officers at Noida’s Botanical Garden Metro Station on April 11 — two days before the violence erupted. The Hindu reported that police initially claimed she was detained for disturbing public order, but later alleged that subsequent investigation uncovered evidence linking her to organising the protests.

Her father, Arun Choudhary, associated with the CPI(M) mouthpiece Ganashakti, questioned in comments to The Indian Express how someone detained before April 13 could be charged with orchestrating violence that occurred later. He defended his daughter’s participation in labour solidarity campaigns and criticised attempts to equate Left political beliefs with criminality. Defence lawyers similarly noted, according to Hindustan Times, that during proceedings prosecutors allegedly presented a book recovered from her residence as evidence of “Left-wing ideology.”

Concerns over criminalisation of ideology and dissent

It has been argued that the prosecution’s case increasingly appears to rely on political profiling rather than direct evidence of criminal conduct. Rajnish Yadav, counsel for Choudhary and other accused, told The Indian Express that the activists had merely participated in solidarity efforts, including speeches and street plays supporting workers demanding fair wages. He compared their participation to broader solidarity movements seen during the farmers’ protests.

The police have also arrested several other young activists and students. Among them is Aditya Anand, a 28-year-old NIT Jamshedpur graduate employed at Genpact, arrested from Tiruchirappalli on April 18. According to The Indian Express, police allege he delivered “provocative” speeches and organised marches during the protests. His family, however, portrayed him as a socially conscious engineer deeply engaged in labour rights issues and associated with the Naujawan Bharat Sabha.

Another accused, Himanshu Thakur, a 24-year-old history postgraduate from Hansraj College and a NET-qualified PhD aspirant, was arrested from Delhi’s Shalimar Bagh on allegations of coordinating protests and instigating crowds. His family told The Indian Express that he was the sole earning member of the household who supplemented family income through freelance translation work while advocating for students’ and women’s rights.

Families of working-class accused have also described devastating economic consequences following the arrests. The Indian Express reported that Amit Kumar, a 19-year-old worker from Prayagraj earning ₹8,000 a month in Noida, and Pankaj Kumar, a mason from New Ashok Nagar, are among those whose detention has reportedly pushed already vulnerable families into debt and unemployment.

Questions over misuse of the NSA

The use of the NSA in Uttar Pradesh has long been controversial. In April 2021, an investigation by The Indian Express reported that the Allahabad High Court had raised concerns over the apparent misuse of the law after red-flagging 94 out of 120 habeas corpus petitions involving NSA detentions. Similarly, Newslaundry reported in 2022 that police proposals seeking NSA sanctions in communal violence cases had invoked conspiracy narratives such as “land jihad.”

It must be pointed out that the NSA, unlike ordinary criminal law, allows preventive detention through executive orders without the procedural protections of a regular criminal trial. Human rights advocates have repeatedly warned that the law is frequently deployed to circumvent bail and prolong incarceration where ordinary criminal charges may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The invocation of the NSA in the Noida workers’ protest case has therefore intensified concerns regarding the shrinking space for labour organising, student activism and political dissent.

Related:

JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

Solidarity with protests of locals against projects facilitating coal transportation (Goa to Karnataka): NAPM

‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting

The post NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a group of 50+ interfaith coalitions, led by Dalit leaders and advocates met with several legislators, many of whom instantly agreed to support this bill, understanding why caste equity is so important in New York State. One key meeting was with Senator James Sanders who helped introduce this bill last year, and who spoke with immense power about the need to recognise the solidarity between Black folks and Dalit communities. “Anyone who is against this [bill] doesn’t know your own history”, he said!

Ms. Swati Sawant who has been working on this bill for over three years gifted him a statue of Babasaheb and explained the connection between Black and Dalit shared histories.

Iconic writer and campaigner, Yashica Dutt, whose 2024 published Coming Out as a Dalit, is a powerful individual account that throws a spotlight on systemic injustice in India and its growing impact on US society, took a leading part in this campaigning effort.  Writing about this on her Facebook-meta page, Yashica said that she documented that day in detail “for a video to be produced later.” She also spoke about her book Coming Out as Dalit and talked about how it points to the existence of caste, right here in the United States.

The campaign has asked all those who live in New York to support A6290/S6531! Besides, at the click of a button, any person can send their letter to their New York State lawmaker in less than a minute — https://sikhcoalition.quorum.us/campaign/nycasteequity/thanks

SabrangIndia had previously reported, how in July 2025, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California in its ruling on July 18, in response to an allegation by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) that had claimed that the California civil rights department’s enforcement of anti-caste policies violated the “constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans,” dismissed HAF’s contention. HAF had attempted arguments to the effect that the California civil rights department’s enforcement of anti-caste policies violated the “constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans.” This claim had been dismissed by a US District Court.

Academics and civil rights activists had then too welcomed a landmark judgment by a US federal court upholding the California civil rights department’s constitutional authority to defence caste-oppressed individuals through state action.

Related:

In a ‘major win’ for anti-caste activists, a US Federal Court upholds California Govt’s authority to act against caste oppression

Unsealed: Suhag Shukla’s Deposition in Hindu American Foundation’s Failed Defamation Case Against Us

Debunking Myths: A Critical Analysis of Hindu American Foundation’s Ram Temple Narrative

The post New York: Support Bill to end caste discrimination, campaign intensifies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to Kolkata Police Commissioner Ajay Kumar Nand, the arrest followed a complaint lodged by the District Election Officer (DEO) of Kolkata North. Police stated that Chatterjee had been summoned twice during the inquiry but allegedly failed to appear before investigators, prompting the cyber cell to proceed with his arrest.

“The complaint against him was lodged by the District Election Officer of Kolkata North, following which the cyber cell initiated action. He was summoned twice in connection with the matter, but he did not appear, and that is the reason why he was arrested,” Commissioner Nand told reporters at Lalbazar police headquarters, as quoted by The Hindu.

Police officials said Chatterjee would be produced before a court on Wednesday.

Posts on EVMs and Election Commission under scanner

Investigators allege that Chatterjee circulated misleading claims regarding EVM functioning and attempted to create distrust around the electoral process through social media posts made during polling and counting phases of the election, according to The Indian Express.

Officials told The Indian Express that on April 23, during the first phase of polling, Chatterjee publicly questioned why certain EVMs reportedly malfunctioned in the morning despite undergoing checks the previous night. In another social media post on May 4, the day votes were counted, he allegedly accused the Election Commission of India of carrying out a “secret plan” during the counting process.

Police have described these statements as attempts to spread confusion and misinformation surrounding the conduct of elections and the functioning of EVMs, according to The Telegraph.

Chatterjee had also advised voters through social media posts to verify VVPAT slips carefully before leaving polling booths after casting their votes, The Indian Express reported.

Academic-turned-activist and Bengali identity politics

A Harvard-educated neuroscientist and faculty member at the Indian Statistical Institute, Chatterjee became widely known in recent years for his political activism centred on Bengali linguistic and cultural identity, as noted by The Indian Express.

Founded in 2017, Bangla Pokkho has consistently campaigned for prioritising Bengali language, culture and employment opportunities for local youth in West Bengal. The organisation has also opposed what it describes as the “imposition” of Hindi in the State, according to The Hindu.

During the 2026 Assembly elections, Chatterjee had publicly urged voters to support either the All India Trinamool Congress or Left Front candidates while opposing the Bharatiya Janata Party, which he characterised as a party of “outsiders”, The Hindu reported.

CLEAR calls arrest an “assault on democratic dissent”

In the wake of the arrest, the Campaign for Language Equality and Rights (CLEAR), a civil society platform advocating linguistic equality and mother tongue rights, issued a strongly worded statement condemning the police action and demanding the immediate and unconditional release of Garga Chatterjee. Describing Chatterjee as a “neuroscientist, cultural activist” and one of CLEAR’s founding members, the organisation argued that the arrest amounted to “a direct assault on freedom of speech, democratic dissent, and the constitutional rights of every citizen.”

Invoking Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, CLEAR cited recent observations of the Supreme Court of India affirming the right of citizens to criticise state institutions and peacefully dissent against government decisions. The statement further argued that public scrutiny of EVMs and the electoral process had repeatedly been recognised as legitimate within constitutional democracy, including in cases such as Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India and Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India. “Questioning EVMs is not sedition. It is democracy,” the statement said.

CLEAR also expressed concern over the fact that the complaint against Chatterjee had reportedly originated from the Election Commission of India itself, arguing that this raised “serious concerns regarding conflict of interest and the use of state machinery to silence criticism.” The organisation further alleged that no specific social media posts had been publicly identified as forming the basis of the FIR, calling the arrest “arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to the principles of natural justice.” Alongside demanding withdrawal of the complaint and transparency regarding the FIR, CLEAR called upon civil society groups and democratic organisations across the country to stand in solidarity with Chatterjee.

Political parties liberation demands release

Reacting to the arrest, Dipankar Bhattacharya, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, criticised the police action and demanded Chatterjee’s immediate release.

According to The Indian Express, Bhattacharya described Chatterjee as a “well-known campaigner for Bengali identity and electoral transparency” and objected to the arrest over posts concerning alleged EVM tampering.

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra took to social media to show her support.

I may not be a fan of Garga Chatterjee but arresting him & taking down his @GargaC X handle shows just how paranoid the new BJP Bengal government is. Banglar Bipokhhe Bangla Birodhi is the true face of this Parivartan. Make no mistake.

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) May 12, 2026

Previous arrests and controversies

This is not the first time Chatterjee has faced criminal proceedings over controversial remarks. In 2022, he was arrested following multiple FIRs filed in Assam accusing him of hurting Assamese sentiments and promoting enmity between communities after he allegedly referred to Sukaphaa, founder of the Ahom dynasty, as a “Chinese invader”, according to The Telegraph.

The controversy led to intervention by the Gauhati High Court, which issued directions concerning the execution of a non-bailable warrant against him. He was later granted transit bail subject to appearing before a court in Guwahati, as reported by The Telegraph. Separately, Bangla Pokkho members had also come under scrutiny in 2024 after two students from Bihar appearing for a Staff Selection Commission examination in Siliguri were allegedly assaulted. The Indian Express reported that a person linked to the organisation was detained in connection with the incident.

Related:

Bengal after the Ballot: Fear, retaliation and the politics of territorial power

As lynchings “normalise” in ‘New India, a Bihar imam is ‘thrashed, pushed’ from train to die in Bareilly

From FIRs to “Corporate Jihad”: How the TCS Nashik case was transformed from an investigation into a communal narrative

Fractured Fault lines: Violence, governance gaps, and rising tensions across Odisha

Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate: Mapping the state of free speech ahead of the 2026 polls

The post ‘Bangla Pokkho’ founder Garga Chatterjee arrested over alleged EVM misinformation ahead of Bengal polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Aurat March Karachi had also rejected suggestions that it had signed or accepted the terms of the no-objection certificate. “This is not the case. The NOC was issued to us by the government last night as directives imposed upon public assembly,” the group said. It said it would march against marital rape, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, defamation laws, patriarchal violence, and attacks on the right to protest and assemble.

Before Sunday, May 10 the day scheduled for the march, a press conference organised by key organisers was not permitted and several of them subject to physical coercion and even detained. The final ‘no objection’ for the march came after a previous confrontation on Tuesday (May 5) evening outside the Karachi Press Club, where police prevented Aurat March organizers from holding a press conference about the planned May 10 march, and several activists were detained.

Among those detained included Sheema Kermani, an organiser of Aurat March; Muneeza Ahmed; Safina Javed; transgender activist Shahzadi Rai; and several other women activists and volunteers. They had arrived to speak to the media but were not allowed to enter the Karachi Press Club. Despite protesting the move, Kermani was reportedly dragged out of her vehicle by women police officers and taken away in a police vehicle. Voicepk reported that five women and two transgender activists were detained for several hours before being released.

The incident triggered strong criticism, including allegations of police misconduct and unlawful detention of activists. Thereafter, the Sindh government later suspended officials involved in the handling of the confrontation, including a senior police officer.

Speaking to the media, Kermani said the no-objection certificate had been sent to Aurat March organizers, but that no documents had been signed by the group. She expressed surprise at the condition regarding women’s clothing, saying the government had never raised such a point during negotiations. Kermani said organizers were consulting with one another and would decide how to respond. Finally, the women marched on their own terms on Sunday.

This year’s Aurat March theme had focused on intergenerational trauma and “Good Daughters,” addressing societal pressure on women to conform to idealised roles and the challenges mothers face.

Aurat March has long remained a topic of discussion in Pakistan because it sits at the intersection of competing social, religious, and political narratives. Supporters view it as a platform for raising women’s rights issues, including gender-based violence, workplace discrimination, legal protections, bodily autonomy, unpaid labour, and freedom of expression. Conservative ideologues argue that some of its slogans, themes, and public displays challenge traditional cultural and religious norms.

The visibility of placards, speeches, and artistic expression during the march has repeatedly triggered debate over ‘public morality and the limits of protest.’

Interestingly, the slogans and issues were expansive. This Aurat March, on International Mother’s Day, saw women of Karachi marching for Baloch women fighting against enforced disappearances, for girl children from religious minorities being forcefully converted, for freedom from karo kari (honour killings), for the right to complete bodily autonomy, for the recognition and tangible appreciation via Aurat Haq-e-Mehnat of the endless physical and emotional domestic labour done by women (especially mothers), for adding consent and body safety education in curriculums, for the countless victims of marital rape, and for standing in complete solidarity with marginalized communities throughout the country.

And, as organisers said on Meta-Facebook, “we marched for feminist joy, love, and resistance as well! Check out some of our favourite moments from #AuratMarch2026.”

Images: From Sheema Kermani’s page

Related:

Aurat March: Highlight of International Women’s Day celebrations in Pakistan

The Taliban Tried To Stop Lida Mangal From Employing Afghan Women

Pakistan’s education policy blatantly anti-minority, anti-women

The post Karachi, Pakistan: Women march for autonomy, gendered equality, resistance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Shamima Jahan, while partly upholding a Foreigners Tribunal order against a woman from Cachar district, set aside the declaration made against her sons and daughters, reiterating that the law does not permit “derivative declarations” of foreigner status merely on the basis of kinship.

The judgment, delivered on April 30, 2026 in Maya Das v. Union of India & Ors., draws an important procedural boundary in Foreigners Tribunal proceedings in Assam, where entire families are often swept into the consequences of a declaration against one individual.

Tribunal had declared entire family as foreigners

The case arose from an order dated May 24, 2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 4, Silchar, in FT Case No. 105/2015. The reference had been initiated by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar, against petitioner Maya Das alone. However, while answering the reference, the Tribunal not only declared Maya Das to be a foreigner who had allegedly entered India after March 25, 1971, but also declared her sons, Diju Das and Pintu Das, and daughters, Mukta Das, Sukta Das and Bijoya Das, to be foreigners as well.

Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s findings, contending that she had produced sufficient documentary and oral evidence to establish her citizenship and linkage to her projected father, Nibaran Chandra Das.

The documents relied upon included voters’ lists, NRC data, birth certificates, voter identity records, a marriage certificate and a certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary.

Court reiterates burden of proof under Section 9

The High Court, however, declined to interfere with the declaration against Maya Das herself. Reaffirming the settled position under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Bench observed that the burden of proving citizenship lies entirely upon the proceedee and “never shifts.”

“With regard to the aspect of burden of proof as laid down in Section 9 of the Act of 1946, the law is well settled that the burden of proof that a proceedee is an Indian citizen is always on the said proceedee and never shifts.” (Para 18)

The Court extensively discussed the statutory framework governing Foreigners Tribunal proceedings and reiterated that proceedings under the Foreigners Act operate differently from ordinary civil or criminal adjudication. Since the facts concerning nationality and ancestry lie “especially within the knowledge” of the proceedee, the legal burden rests squarely on the individual facing the reference.

In doing so, the Bench relied upon earlier Supreme Court precedents including Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration and Ghaus Mohammad v. Union of India, both of which had affirmed the constitutionality and operation of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act.

Documentary linkage found inadequate

The Court scrutinised the evidentiary basis relied upon by the petitioner and concluded that while legacy documents relating to her projected father existed, there was no legally proved and credible linkage connecting the petitioner to those documents.

The Bench noted that the voters’ lists and NRC documents contained the name of the projected father, but the documents containing the petitioner’s own name failed to establish a verifiable familial connection with him.

“In the instant case, it does not appear that there is any relevant document which have been proved in accordance with law to show a connection of the petitioner with Nibaran Ch. Das, her projected father, whose name appears in the Voters List of 1965. As noted above, the petitioner had also produced the NRC and land document pertaining to her projected father. However, the documents containing the name of the petitioner do no show a link with her projected father.” (Para 22)

Particular emphasis was placed on the limited evidentiary value of Gaon Panchayat certificates. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that such certificates are not proof of citizenship by themselves and can, at best, serve as supporting linkage documents after proper verification.

The Bench further observed that the school certificate produced by the petitioner had not been proved in accordance with law and that oral testimony unsupported by contemporaneous documentary records could not discharge the statutory burden under Section 9.

The Court ultimately held:

“In the opinion of this Court, the evidence adduced by the petitioner through herself and the Secretary of the Syedbond Gaon Panchayat would not be sufficient to discharge her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.” (Para 23)

High court draws a clear line against automatic family-wide declarations

Yet, while refusing relief to the petitioner herself, the High Court decisively intervened on the question of the children’s declaration.

The Bench held that the Foreigners Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the petitioner’s sons and daughters’ foreigners despite there being no independent reference against them.

“There is however another issue involved in this case. Vide the impugned order, while the Reference is answered against the petitioner, it has been held that the sons and daughters of the petitioner, namely, Diju Das, Pintu Das, Mukta Das, Sukta Das and Bijoya Das are also foreigners.” (Para 25)

Calling the legal position “settled,” the Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Sudhir Kr. Roy v. Union of India to reiterate that a Foreigners Tribunal can only adjudicate upon the individual against whom a formal reference has been made.

The Court categorically observed:

“It is a settled position of law that until a specific reference is initiated against an individual, no orders of declaration as foreigner of such persons can be made by any Foreigners Tribunal and in this connection, reference may be made to the judgment dated 04.01.2019 passed in the case of Sudhir Kr. Roy vs. Union of India in WP(C)/6790/2018 wherein it has been held that the authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh reference against the family members of a person who is declared foreigner but the fact that a family member has been declared a foreigner would not be sufficient by itself to declare the other family members as foreigners without any specific reference.” (Para 25)

Importantly, the Bench added that while authorities remain free to initiate separate proceedings against family members of a declared foreigner, such declarations cannot automatically flow from the status of a parent. This aspect of the ruling is likely to carry wider implications in Assam’s foreigners’ determination regime, where references and declarations have frequently affected multiple members of a family in cascading fashion.

Limits of writ jurisdiction reaffirmed

The judgment also contains an elaborate discussion on the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in challenges to Foreigners Tribunal opinions. The Court reiterated that in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court does not function as an appellate authority re-appreciating evidence. Rather, interference is warranted only in cases involving procedural illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, the Bench emphasised that a writ court “does not review or reweigh the evidence” upon which findings of fact have been reached by the Tribunal.

The Court therefore declined to upset the Tribunal’s findings against Maya Das, holding that no infirmity in the decision-making process had been demonstrated.

Liberty reserved under Citizenship Amendment Act

In the concluding portion of the judgment, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition against the petitioner herself would not prejudice her right to seek relief under the Citizenship Amendment Act, if otherwise available in law.

While the judgment ultimately leaves intact the declaration against the petitioner, its intervention on behalf of her children marks an important reaffirmation of procedural safeguards in Foreigners Tribunal jurisprudence. By insisting upon individualized references and individualized adjudication, the Court has underscored that citizenship determinations cannot be expanded merely through familial association or inheritance of status.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Earlier concerns raised by CJP over family separation in Assam’s citizenship regime

The Gauhati High Court’s insistence that children cannot automatically be declared foreigners merely because a parent has been so declared also echoes long-standing concerns raised before the Supreme Court regarding family separation and the arbitrary exclusion of children from citizenship processes in Assam.

In 2019, Citizens for Justice and Peace had moved an Intervention Application before the Supreme Court in the ongoing NRC proceedings in Assam Public Works v. Union of India, specifically highlighting the plight of children excluded from the National Register of Citizens despite their parents being included.

Filed through Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, the application warned the apex court that the NRC process had produced deeply disturbing situations where children were rendered vulnerable to statelessness, detention and family separation even while their parents or close relatives had been recognised as Indian citizens.

CJP’s intervention had argued that such exclusions violated not only constitutional guarantees under Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 of the Constitution, but also India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The application stressed that arbitrary exclusion of children struck at the heart of the principle of family unity and exposed minors to immense psychological, social and economic trauma.

To demonstrate the scale of the crisis, CJP had placed before the Supreme Court a list of 61 children who had been excluded from the NRC despite their parents being included. Detailed case studies were also furnished. Among them was the case of Hasmat Ali, whose three minor children were excluded from the NRC even though both parents had made it to the final list. The application described how the family was forced into an exhausting cycle of hearings, document collection, travel to distant tribunals and mounting debt — all driven by the fear that the children could ultimately face detention or separation from their parents.

The intervention also drew attention to the broader humanitarian consequences of the NRC process, submitting that numerous deaths had occurred in connection with citizenship-related anxieties and detention, including recorded deaths inside Assam’s detention centres.

Importantly, while the Supreme Court did not immediately decide the intervention application finally, it took cognisance of the concerns raised and, during hearings on January 6, 2020, directed the Assam government to ensure that children whose parents were included in the NRC would neither be sent to detention centres nor separated from their families until the issue was fully considered.

That intervention assumed significance because it foregrounded a principle that now finds reaffirmation in the present Gauhati High Court ruling: citizenship determinations cannot casually fracture family structures or operate mechanically against children merely because of the status of a parent.

The present judgment, while arising in the context of Foreigners Tribunal proceedings rather than NRC exclusions, similarly underscores that the law requires individualized scrutiny and individualized proceedings. By holding that no person can be declared a foreigner without a specific reference against them, the High Court has effectively reinforced procedural safeguards against sweeping, family-wide declarations that risk undermining the rights and security of children and other dependants.

A detailed report may be read here.

Related:

CJP Assam: A journey without parallel, evolving & expanding rights jurisprudence

Assam’s “Doubtful Citizens”: CJP secures justice for Anowara Khatun, declared Indian citizen after decades of state persecution

Dead Voters, Forged Forms, and Political Interference: CJP flags systemic manipulation in Assam’s electoral roll revision, seeks ECI probe

A voter list exercise under scrutiny: Assam’s Special Revision of electoral rolls, allegations of targeted harassment and misuse of Form-7

The post Gauhati HC draws a line against automatic family-wide ‘foreigner’ declarations appeared first on SabrangIndia.