SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ News Related to Human Rights Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:07:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ 32 32 After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved https://sabrangindia.in/after-lehra-do-tiranga-protests-neha-bora-moves-delhi-hc-against-police-notice-cjp-leaders-release-remains-unresolved/ Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:07:55 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49687 More than 100 protesters were detained in Delhi as police blocked the planned flag march, while demonstrations in Mumbai and Bengaluru took different courses

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

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

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

 

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

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

Neha Bora challenges police notice before Delhi High Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi’s planned rally was stopped, but protests continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened in Mumbai and Bengaluru?

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

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

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

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

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

Dipke released, but Das and Ranka remain in custody

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

When a bookstall becomes a political target

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The historical warning

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Related:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

From a forgotten case to a sustained legal fight

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

Detailed story may be read here.

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

Detailed piece may be read here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 13: The long journey back to freedom


CJP Team Assam with Ajabha Khatun after being released

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A village waits. A family welcomes her home.

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

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

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

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

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

The fight is not over

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]> First Published on: June 5, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramzan Mubarak,
Khuda Hafiz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]> Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal https://sabrangindia.in/calcutta-high-court-says-political-dissent-must-not-be-stifled-directs-police-to-protect-cpim-bookstall-near-durga-puja-pandal/ Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:46:35 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49664 Justice Saugata Bhattacharya stresses that democracy requires space for competing political ideologies, directing West Bengal Police to ensure the Left party can set up its traditional bookstall amid allegations of preferential treatment for the Hindu Jagran Manch.

The post Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that democracy cannot flourish when political expression is selectively restricted. Directing the West Bengal Police to facilitate the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] in setting up its traditional bookstall near a Durga Puja pandal in Bongaon, the Court emphasised that the State has a responsibility to create an atmosphere in which people with differing political beliefs can express their views without intimidation or obstruction.

On Thursday, October 15, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the Superintendent of Police of Bongaon Police District and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon police station to ensure public order and deploy adequate security so that the CPI(M) could erect its bookstall and sell books during the Durga Puja festivities. The permission extends to a location within a 100-metre radius of the party office, which is situated near the pandal. The police have also been directed to prevent others from disrupting the party’s activities and to submit a compliance report at the next hearing on November 23.

According to the report of LiveLaw, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies was welcome in a democracy, making it “fruitful, deep-rooted and mature”.

“It is expected of the present ruling dispensation to create an atmosphere where persons owing allegiance to different political ideologies will not hesitate to voice their views,” the judge said.

The observations came amid allegations that the CPI(M) had been prevented from setting up its traditional bookstall while a stall belonging to the Hindu Jagran Manch was allowed to occupy the area. The Left party told the Court that it had been setting up bookstalls near Durga Puja pandals for decades, with its petition referring to a tradition extending over approximately 50 to 60 years. It alleged that the Hindu Jagran Manch had obstructed its efforts to erect a temporary structure while operating its own stall in the vicinity without comparable interference.

Court questions unequal treatment

The matter came before the Court on Wednesday, October 14, when Justice Bhattacharya questioned the State’s position on the CPI(M)’s request for permission. As reported by LiveLaw, the judge asked why the party should be prevented from setting up its stall if other organisations were permitted to erect structures along the same road. “I don’t deny that permission is needed. But if you are allowing one group then allow the others as well,” the Court observed.

Questioning the apparent disparity, Justice Bhattacharya also asked, “How is this stall (Hindu Jagran Manch) allowed? It is a huge stall.”

The State government contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the dispute concerned the use of land belonging to the Public Works Department (PWD), rather than police inaction. It maintained that informing the police of the proposed bookstall did not amount to obtaining permission from the competent authority.

The State further argued that both groups had lodged FIRs, disputing the contention that the matter arose from police inaction. The Court, however, questioned whether the alleged obstruction and removal of the CPI(M)’s proposed structure warranted police intervention. It also emphasised the need for a uniform policy governing the erection of stalls on PWD land.

Justice Bhattacharya directed the investigating officer to report on whether other stalls had been established along the road without permission. The CPI(M) was also granted liberty to place additional facts and documents on record through a supplementary affidavit.

Appeal fails to halt order

The police subsequently challenged Justice Bhattacharya’s Wednesday order. According to PTI, a Division Bench presided over by Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge disposed of the appeal filed by the officer-in-charge of Bongaon police station on Thursday. The State respondents’ request to stay the operation of the order was also refused by Justice Bhattacharya.

The subsequent directions place the responsibility on the police not merely to maintain order but to ensure that the CPI(M) can exercise its right to political expression without being driven out of a space it has traditionally used.

The dispute raises a question that extends beyond the placement of a seasonal bookstall: whether access to public spaces and the ability to communicate political ideas are being governed by consistent rules or by the relative influence of competing organisations.

 

Related:

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

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

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

The post Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate https://sabrangindia.in/seeking-justice-for-ankita-bhandari-parents-detained-in-pre-dawn-crackdown-at-india-gate/ Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:25:31 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49659 The pre-dawn police action came as the family demanded that Dushyant Kumar Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor be put on hold until the CBI completes its probe into the alleged VIP angle

The post Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Delhi Police detained the parents of Ankita Bhandari, the 19-year-old receptionist murdered in Uttarakhand in September 2022, during a pre-dawn crackdown on their overnight protest at India Gate on October 15. The family was demanding that the appointment of senior BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as Governor of Sikkim be put on hold until the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) completes its investigation into allegations surrounding the possible involvement of a “VIP” in Ankita’s murder.

According to ThePrint, the parents were detained at around 3:45 am and released at approximately 5 am. Several Congress leaders who had joined the sit-in were also detained and subsequently released. Reports and videos carried by ANI, PTI and The Times of India documented the police action, which brought the overnight protest to an abrupt end.

 

The detention came hours after Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra met Ankita’s parents at India Gate on Wednesday evening, October 14, and expressed solidarity with their demand for an investigation into the alleged VIP connection. After the Congress leaders left, party MPs, office-bearers and workers continued the sit-in alongside the family and activist Yogita Bhayana.

A 24-hour ultimatum and a demand for accountability

As police moved to detain the protesters, Ankita’s father, Virendra Bhandari, issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the government, demanding that Gautam’s appointment be cancelled or put on hold until the CBI inquiry concludes.

“We give a 24-hour ultimatum to the government for the cancellation of Dushyant’s appointment. Nationwide protests will be launched if the government does not accept our demand,” he told the media, according to PTI.

Ankita’s mother, Soni Devi, also appealed to President Droupadi Murmu to intervene. She warned that if the authorities did not allow the family to continue protesting, they would resort to a hunger strike, including at their home. The parents have also sought an appointment with the President to place their concerns before her directly.

The family has repeatedly insisted that the investigation must examine the alleged VIP angle rather than merely revisit the roles of the three men already convicted of Ankita’s murder. Her father has sought a focused investigation into the alleged motive and the possible involvement of others, as well as judicial oversight by a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge. The family has also demanded the identification of the alleged VIP and access to call-detail records relevant to the investigation.

The demand is not that the existing convictions be disregarded. It is that those convictions should not, by themselves, foreclose questions about whether the circumstances surrounding Ankita’s murder were fully investigated.

The alleged VIP connection remains unresolved

Ankita worked as a receptionist at the Vanantra resort in Uttarakhand’s Pauri Garhwal district, near Rishikesh. She was murdered on September 18, 2022, and her body was recovered from the Chilla canal several days later.

In May 2025, a sessions court convicted resort owner Pulkit Arya, son of former BJP leader Vinod Arya, and two resort employees, Saurabh Bhaskar and Ankit Gupta, of her murder. All three were sentenced to life imprisonment. The investigation and trial established their criminal responsibility for the killing, but the separate allegations concerning a possible VIP have continued to trouble the family and attract public scrutiny.

The alleged VIP angle centres on claims that Ankita was pressured to provide “extra services” or sexual favours to a guest at the resort and resisted those demands. Her family has maintained that the identity and possible role of the person allegedly connected to those demands must be investigated.

The controversy intensified in December 2025 after actor Urmila Sanawar, who has claimed to be the wife of former BJP MLA Suresh Rathore, released audio and video recordings purportedly connected to Rathore. The recordings were alleged to refer to a senior political figure in connection with the case. Sanawar identified Gautam as the alleged VIP, while Rathore subsequently disputed the authenticity of the material and claimed that the clips were fabricated or AI-generated.

Gautam, a former BJP national general secretary who served as the party’s Uttarakhand in-charge, has denied any involvement in Ankita’s murder. He has initiated defamation proceedings against people and political organisations linking him to the crime. The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of certain social media posts connecting him to the murder, observing that the allegations appeared prima facie defamatory, as reported by Hindustan Times. The police Special Investigation Team had earlier stated that it found no evidence establishing the involvement of an influential political leader in the murder, The Indian Express reported.

These facts are material and cannot be ignored. Gautam has not been named as an accused in the murder case based on the information available here, and the allegations against him have not been established. At the same time, the existence of denials and defamation proceedings does not eliminate the need to establish whether the CBI investigation has adequately examined the specific questions raised by the family.

Following renewed protests in Uttarakhand, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami announced that the state government would recommend a CBI investigation. The CBI subsequently registered a case against an unknown person to investigate the allegations surrounding the possible VIP connection. The family wants this inquiry to address the outstanding questions rather than simply reproduce the findings of the earlier investigation.

Political appointment amid an unfinished investigation

Gautam’s appointment as Governor of Sikkim, announced on October 12, has brought the unresolved controversy back into public view. Ankita’s parents are asking that he not assume the office until the CBI completes its investigation into the alleged VIP angle.

The Congress has accused the BJP of rewarding a leader whose name has been raised in connection with the allegations while the family continues to seek answers. Rahul Gandhi wrote on X that Ankita’s family had gone years without justice while an alleged VIP had been rewarded with “protection and a constitutional position”. He said the Congress would stand with the family in its demand for justice.

Congress general secretary K. C. Venugopal has also urged the President to reconsider the appointment. Uttarakhand Congress leaders have argued that proceeding with the appointment before the investigation concludes would deepen the family’s distress and undermine public confidence in accountability.

The BJP has defended the state government’s handling of the murder case. Mahendra Bhatt, Uttarakhand BJP president and Rajya Sabha MP, pointed to the arrests, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, the prosecution and the financial assistance of ₹25 lakh provided to the family. He also said the state government had acted on the family’s demand for a CBI inquiry. Those steps, however, do not answer the family’s central question: has the alleged VIP connection been adequately investigated? The convictions of the three men are significant, but the separate inquiry must be judged on the evidence it examines and the questions it resolves, not merely on the existence of those convictions.

Detaining the family does not resolve the questions they have raised

The pre-dawn detention has shifted attention from the substance of the family’s demands to the conduct of the authorities. According to report by ThePrint, police took Ankita’s parents into custody before releasing them shortly afterwards. Congress leaders, including Pawan Khera, Supriya Shrinate, Imran Pratapgarhi, Jothimani and Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib, were among those reported detained.

Rahul Gandhi condemned the action, writing on X that Ankita’s parents had been taken into custody while sitting quietly at India Gate and demanding that Gautam’s appointment be held back until the CBI investigation was complete. Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate also criticised the treatment of the parents, arguing that a family seeking justice had been met with police action rather than answers.

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke also condemned the detention. In a post on X, he said the treatment of Ankita’s parents should make people ashamed and questioned why the government was treating citizens seeking justice with such cruelty.

 

 

Related:

Uttarakhand: Will the Ankita Bhandari murder case, arrest of journalist, Negi affect the April 19 poll?

Ankita Bhandari Case: Protests for justice enters 7th day, victim’s parents leading the protestors, condemning the arrest of the journalist seeking action in Ankita’s case

The women India continues to ignore

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

 

The post Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation https://sabrangindia.in/mumbai-police-detain-ambedkarite-leaders-demanding-justice-for-sahil-wakode-iit-bombay-refuses-to-hear-delegation/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:44:09 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49654 As Sahil Wakode’s parents continue their hunger strike over his death and allegations of caste discrimination, Mumbai Police barricaded access to IIT Bombay and detained civil society leaders

The post Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Mumbai Police on Wednesday, October 14, detained Ambedkarite leaders and civil society representatives who gathered outside IIT Bombay under the call of ‘Chalo IIT Bombay’, demanding accountability over the death of second-year BTech student Sahil Wakode and an impartial investigation into allegations of caste discrimination. Among those detained were Rahul Sonpimple, Deepali Salve and Sambhaji Bhagat. The protest was organised in solidarity with Sahil’s parents, who have been on hunger strike for nearly two weeks, demanding answers from the institute and a fair investigation into their son’s death.

 

According to The Federal, police detained protesters demonstrating outside IIT Bombay following the call by Sahil’s father, Ravindra Wakode. IANS also reported the detention of demonstrators supporting the family. The police response was striking: a heavy deployment across the campus, restrictions on entry and the detention of people seeking to present their demands to the administration. Instead of facilitating a meeting with the delegation, the authorities prevented the protesters from proceeding.

 

 

The question is unavoidable: if the administration has nothing to hide, why was a delegation seeking a hearing met with police restrictions and detention rather than an opportunity to be heard?

Police refuse entry, even as family seeks answers

Posts put across X by Greeshma Kuthar, an independent journalist, showed that police personnel had spread across IIT Bombay ahead of the march and were refusing entry to the campus. When asked why Sahil’s parents themselves were not being allowed in, a police officer reportedly responded, “Why will they come here?”

 

The reported exchange is particularly disturbing given that Sahil’s parents have been undertaking a hunger strike since the past two weeks to demand accountability following their son’s death. Their struggle has not been met with the institutional engagement they seek. Instead, their supporters were reportedly prevented from entering the campus and approaching its administration.

Dalit-Bahujan students deserve more than institutional assurances

According to Maharashtra Times, student and Ambedkarite organisations have demanded an impartial inquiry committee, a clear response from IIT Bombay’s director and concrete action on alleged caste discrimination and student safety. They have also raised broader concerns about institutional discrimination, including previous disputes involving reservation rosters.

The protesters are asking a question that the institute cannot afford to evade: why do Dalit-Bahujan students continue to raise concerns about discrimination and safety within an institution that is expected to uphold equal opportunity?

An investigation into Sahil’s death must establish the facts independently and fairly. At the same time, the administration has a responsibility to address allegations of discrimination, examine institutional failures where evidence warrants it, and ensure that students’ complaints receive a credible response.

These obligations are not mutually exclusive. Calling for an impartial inquiry does not prejudge its findings. Demanding accountability does not amount to obstructing due process. And raising concerns about caste discrimination cannot reasonably be dismissed merely because they are being voiced through protest.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

 

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

The post Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ https://sabrangindia.in/jantar-mantar-shut-to-protest-cjp-leaders-sent-to-jail-delhi-police-invoke-breach-of-peace/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:39:51 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49651 Denotification of the protest site precedes preventive action against Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who attempted to enter the barricaded area and unfurl the Tricolour

The post Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Two leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, have been remanded to five days of judicial custody by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) in Delhi after attempting to enter Jantar Mantar on October 13, a day after the site was de-notified as a designated protest venue. A third leader, Ajinkya Shinde, has been released on a personal bond.

The three were among 14 CJP members who allegedly climbed over a locked gate and barricades to enter the area, unfurled the national flag and raised slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest was part of the CJP’s continuing agitation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Delhi Police has justified the arrests by citing alleged trespass, obstruction, breach of bond conditions and repeated attempts to disturb public peace. But the sequence of events is significant: after Jantar Mantar was stripped of its designated protest status, activists attempting to demonstrate there were detained, and two were sent to judicial custody under preventive proceedings. The case raises questions about the increasingly coercive response to political mobilisation and dissent in the capital, particularly when the protest concerns the functioning of a constitutional institution and the exercise of a fundamental right.

SEM orders five-day judicial custody

In an order dated October 14, Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena remanded Das and Ranka to five days of judicial custody under preventive proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The order records that notice under Section 130 BNSS was to be issued to the two respondents and that the matter would be listed for further inquiry on October 19.

The order relies on the account presented by Sub-Inspector Mohit Bhati, who alleged that CJP members entered the area through premises associated with the Janata Dal (United) office at around 9 am on October 13, raised slogans and created a disturbance. The police also alleged that the group had used social media to mobilise people to assemble at Jantar Mantar despite its denotification.

The SEM recorded that preventive proceedings had previously been initiated against the leaders following their detention on October 10, when they arrived in Delhi for a proposed protest. They were subsequently released after furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

According to the police, the leaders’ subsequent mobilisation and their October 13 entry into the area violated those undertakings. The SEM accepted the material placed before it as sufficient to proceed with preventive action. The order also cited the absence of what it described as “sound surety” as a reason for remanding Das and Ranka to judicial custody.

Jantar Mantar denotified as protest site

The arrests followed the Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. The order was issued on October 11, following recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as reported by Hindustan Times. The decision came amid denial of permission to protest to left parties, CJP, opposition parties and student groups demanding accountability from the ECI over the SIR exercise. 

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

According to the police account cited in media reports, 14 CJP members entered the area on October 13 by climbing over a locked gate after approaching through premises associated with the JD(U) office. Videos shared by the group show members carrying the Tricolour and raising slogans, including “Inquilab Zindabad” and “Gyanesh Kumar Isteefa Do”, before police personnel detained them.

The police have alleged that the group surveyed the area in advance to identify an entry route and that some members jostled with officers attempting to stop them. These allegations remain distinct from any final determination of criminal liability. As reported by Hindustan Times, the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court that the denotification followed consideration of alternative venues where citizens could exercise their democratic rights without compromising public safety. The authorities have identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative protest locations. However, naming alternative venues does not, by itself, establish that the right to protest remains practically accessible. 

CJP alleges denial of access to lawyers

The Delhi Police has registered two cases in connection with the October 13 incident, according to Hindustan Times. One was registered at Connaught Place police station and the other at Parliament Street police station. Reported allegations include disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant, trespass and criminal conspiracy.  The police described the leaders as having made repeated attempts to disturb public peace and violate the law. It also said their social media activity, which allegedly encouraged others to participate in similar actions, had been taken into consideration.

Before the remand order was passed, CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh alleged that Das, Ranka and Shinde had been denied access to their lawyers until late on Tuesday night. In posts on X, Singh said the leaders had been moved to Parliament Street Police Station during the early hours of October 14 and were expected to be produced before the SEM. Singh further alleged that lawyers and volunteers had been prevented from meeting the detained activists despite repeated attempts. 

Rahul Gandhi backs CJP leaders

The remand has drawn criticism from opposition leaders. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said that waving the national flag during a peaceful protest was not a crime and described jailing young people for doing so as an “act of cowardice”.

“Students. Youth. Journalists. The INDIA bloc. Different banners, one cause. All protests are one: citizens demanding their constitutional rights. Jantar Mantar belongs to the people of India. We will reclaim it,” Gandhi said in a post on X.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke also condemned the remand, questioning whether unfurling the Tricolour had become an offence and accusing the government of using coercive tactics against dissent.

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal questioned whether waving India’s national flag could be treated as a crime, while Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and DMK chief M.K. Stalin also condemned the action.

 

 

 

Related:

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

 

The post Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe https://sabrangindia.in/bihar-custodial-death-six-suspended-after-dilshad-ansaris-death-in-custody-family-demands-high-level-probe/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:07:13 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49648 Dilshad Ansari’s family disputes the police claim that he jumped from a moving vehicle, demanding a thorough probe into his fatal head injury

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Six police personnel, including two sub-inspectors, have been suspended following the death of 25-year-old Dilshad Ansari in police custody in Bihar’s West Champaran district. The suspension comes amid allegations of police assault and demands from Ansari’s family for an independent investigation into the circumstances of his death.

According to a report by The Indian Express, Ansari was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He was allegedly being taken to Sahodra police station when he sustained serious head injuries.

The suspended personnel have been identified as sub-inspectors Ravi Shankar Kumar and Arun Kumar, and constables Saudagar Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Rishi, Kundan Kumar and Suman Kumar. All six were posted at Sahodra police station and have been suspended with immediate effect, police said.

In a statement issued on Monday, Bettiah Police said Ansari had jumped from a moving police vehicle while being taken into custody, resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to a subdivisional hospital in Narkatiaganj and subsequently referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Bettiah, where doctors declared him dead on arrival.

Ansari’s family has rejected the police version of events and alleged that he was assaulted in custody.

 

Family disputes police account

Speaking to the media, his wife, Nagma Khatoon, said a police team took him from their home at around 2 am on October 12. She alleged that the officers assured the family he would be released by morning after questioning. The family later received a call from Banuchhapar police station asking them to reach GMCH in Bettiah, reportedly on the grounds that Ansari had fallen ill. They found him dead on arrival at the hospital, she said. Ansari’s father, Akhbar Ansari, alleged that police personnel had struck his son hard on the head and called for a thorough inquiry into his death. 

Ansari, a resident of Badhayi Tola in Auraiya, under the Banuchhapar police station area, was named as an accused in NDPS case number 65/25, registered on August 8, 2025. Ansari leaves behind his wife and their six-month-old daughter. His family is seeking a high-level investigation into the death.

Calls for accountability

The incident has also drawn criticism from former Rajya Sabha MP Ali Anwar, who heads the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz. In a statement, reported India Today, Anwar urged Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary to take action against the police personnel allegedly responsible for Ansari’s death.

Citing accounts from social activists in West Champaran, Anwar questioned the claim that Ansari had jumped from a moving vehicle, arguing that the reported absence of injuries to his arms and legs warranted further scrutiny. He also urged the National Human Rights Commission to intervene and called for ex gratia compensation for Ansari’s family.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Protect the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How September’s festivals became stages for anti-Muslim hate

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>