For decades, Assam has recorded some of the highest maternal mortality ratios (MMR) in the country, as documented in the special bulletins of the Sample Registration System (SRS). While the state’s overall numbers have improved over the last twenty years, this progress has not trickled down to the tea estates. Here, among the Adivasi communities—descendants of workers brought from central and eastern India in the 19th century to clear land and pluck leaf—mothers are still dying from entirely preventable causes.

When a woman from the labor lines dies in pregnancy or childbirth, the death certificate will list a medical cause. But the true culprits are rarely just medical. They are social, economic, and systemic.

The Silent Killer Beneath the Surface

The immediate medical causes of these deaths are familiar to obstetricians worldwide: postpartum hemorrhage, high blood pressure disorders like pre-eclampsia, infections, and obstructed labor. The World Health Organization notes that most of these are highly preventable.

But in the tea gardens, these acute crises are built upon a chronic foundation: severe anemia.

The National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) found that around two-thirds of women aged 15 to 49 in Assam are anemic, with the numbers even higher among pregnant women. Studies from tea-growing districts reveal the problem is acutely worse among garden workers. Their diets are notoriously low in iron and protein. Worm infestations and malaria compound the blood loss, and the grueling physical work of plucking continues late into pregnancy.

Simply put, an anemic woman has no physiological reserve. The blood loss that a healthy mother’s body would easily survive can be fatal to hers.

This physical vulnerability is compounded by early and closely spaced pregnancies. NFHS-5 shows that child marriage before 18 and teenage childbearing are more common in Assam than the national average. A girl who conceives at 16 or 17, already thin and anemic, and then has a second child within two years, enters each labor weaker than the last.

The Gauntlet of the “Three Delays”

In public health, maternal deaths are analyzed through the “Three Delays” model. In the tea gardens, these delays are not just bureaucratic hurdles; they are a physical gauntlet that can claim a life in a single night.

The first delay begins at home. Danger signs—swelling, severe headaches, fits, or bleeding—may not be recognized as emergencies by the family. Furthermore, a day away from the bushes is a day without wages for the woman, or for the family member who must accompany her. The decision to seek care often rests with a husband or mother-in-law, and the hesitation costs precious time.

The second delay is one of distance. Many estates are located far from a hospital equipped to perform a caesarean section or administer a blood transfusion. The roads inside and around the gardens are poor, turning into impassable slush during the monsoon. An ambulance called in the middle of the night may take hours to navigate the terrain.

The third delay is the hardest to accept, as it happens inside the healthcare system itself. A woman may finally reach a facility, only to find no obstetrician, no anesthetist, or no blood on the shelves. She is referred onward, sometimes more than once, losing time she simply does not have.

Patches on a Torn Fabric

It would be unfair to say Assam is standing still. The proportion of women delivering in hospitals and health centers has risen sharply since the inception of the National Health Mission (NHM). ASHAs (Accredited Social Health Activists), including those specifically appointed for tea-garden areas, are the unsung heroes of this shift. They register pregnancies early, accompany women to check-ups, and are often the first to notice when something is wrong. Free ambulance services and free delivery care under central schemes have removed some of the financial barriers that kept families at home.

The state has also targeted the gardens directly. Mobile medical units visit the estates, and some garden hospitals have been upgraded through partnerships with the health mission. A wage compensation scheme for pregnant women in tea gardens pays them to rest and eat better before and after delivery, conditional on attending check-ups and delivering in a facility. Anemia testing and iron-folic acid supplements are now part of routine antenatal care.

These interventions are lifelines. But they are not reaching everyone equally.

Beyond the Clinic: What Must Change

To truly protect these women, we must look beyond the delivery room.

First, the Plantations Labour Act of 1951 mandates that estates provide medical facilities for workers and their families. On the ground, compliance varies wildly. Some garden hospitals boast doctors, nurses, and functioning labor rooms; others are little more than empty buildings. The government and the tea industry must agree, estate by estate, on clear responsibilities. Inspections must be regular, and their findings made public.

Second, blood must be closer to the bushes. Establishing and maintaining fully staffed, well-stocked blood storage units at first-referral hospitals in the tea districts would save more lives than almost any other single intervention.

Third, we must treat the girl before she becomes a mother. Anemia must be found and treated long before labor begins, starting in adolescence. Handing out iron tablets is useless if no one checks whether they are being taken, or if the patient isn’t tested again. Furthermore, girls need to stay in school and marry later. Couples need reliable access to contraception so that pregnancies can be safely spaced.

Fourth, every maternal death must be reviewed honestly. These audits should be conducted to find out where the system failed, not to assign blame to the family or the ASHA.

Finally, we must mandate respectful care. A woman who is shouted at, ignored, or made to wait on the floor will not return, and she will tell her neighbors not to go either. Care delivered in a language the woman understands, by staff who treat her with basic human dignity, is not a luxury. It is a medical necessity.

A Legacy Worth Saving

For over 150 years, the women of Assam’s tea gardens have carried a massive industry on their backs. That they still face a significantly higher risk of dying in childbirth than most Indian women is a profound failure of policy and attention. But it is a failure that can be corrected. It is time the system that relies on their labor ensures their survival.

—

Dr. Bhimi Daimari, MBBS, MS (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), is an obstetrician-gynaecologist from Assam. Click here about the author

Courtesy: CounterView

The post The bitter cost of the brew: Why mothers in Assam’s tea gardens are still dying appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For 40 days now, the SRFTI campus has been under a siege-like situation, with increasing police presence, and academic activity suspended till 11^th December, 2026. The circumstances have placed students under immense stress, with women and transgender students at the receiving end of sexual harassment and trauma. This is on top of the expulsion of six students on the 15^th October, for a year, on trumped-up charges. Two contractual faculty members and six resource persons were also suspended on 5^th November for the ‘crime’ of standing with their students. Over the past month, life in SRFTI has come to a grinding halt, with the administration hell-bent on treating students as criminals. 

Resistance to Right-Wing Event and Repression at SRFTI

 On 27^th September, an event was organised by the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat (ABGP) in the Main Theatre, without a discussion with the student body. The usual convention has been a prior discussion with the student body, before letting the Main Theatre out for any purpose. When students protested the same, they were chased and beaten up by outsiders. Library staff and faculty members were also hurt. The attacks on the students included targeted harassment of female and transgender students, who were sexually harassed and verbally abused, including being given rape threats.

Female students report being made uncomfortable by the event organisers, even before the altercation began, including an incident where they had interrupted a shoot on campus. Furthermore, a rowdy mob had pelted stones on campus, calling students ‘terrorists’ and ‘anti-nationals’. Their ambulance was attacked. It is also painful to note that two students needed extensive plastic surgery, as a result of this mindless violence. Since then, the administration headed by Mr. Santosh Ajmera, Vice-Chancellor has taken one draconian step after the other.

On 4^th October, a rally organised by the Bangiya Hindu Jagaran Mancha reached the gates of the institution and injured students again by pelting stones and bottles from outside the gates. The administration failed to name the organisation in their police complaint! Between 5^th – 7^th October, students protesting peacefully were physically confronted by the institute’s staff and threatened with ‘career destruction’. The administration’s methods became even more heavy-handed from 12^th October when the students began an indefinite sit-in demanding the removal of the Vice-Chancellor. On 15^th October, the administration installed CCTVs on campus without prior intimation to the students. This happened despite a 2024 pact between the students and the administration, where the administration after a discussion with the Student Union had assured that any CCTV installation and placement will only be done after consultation with student representatives and the department concerned where the CCTV was being installed. Students have expressed extreme discomfort with Mr. Munshi, the Chief Security Officer and his subordinates having access to CCTV footage. This is especially in the light of numerous complaints lodged against Mr. Munshi by female staff in the past, which the administration had not taken any cognizance of.

Notably, the current Vice-Chancellor (VC) made an oral promise to offer 3-days’ notice to the students before the installation of any CCTV; a promise that the students have on record. This was rescinded on the grounds of the alleged vandalization of his office on 14^th October, along with the manhandling of the VC. Campus security has denied the occurrence of any such vandalization to the police. The Vice-Chancellor, has also rusticated six students for a year, on allegations of ‘misdemeanour’ with no specific charges but identical, cyclostyled orders! In yet another repressive measure, on 5^th November, even as the city was gearing up for Deepavali and Kali Pujo celebrations, the administration suspended two contractual faculty members, six resource persons, who merely stood in solidarity and extended academic closure till 11^th December!

The increased police surveillance on campus and outside has given rise to a siege-like situation. Students protesting peacefully have been constantly monitored and photographed. The Vice-Chancellor has hired bouncers for his ‘personal security’, who have been seen going towards the hostel premises that should be out-of-bounds for outsiders. This places students at grave personal risk on campus and hostels, which the administration seems to be oblivious to. Barricades have been set up around the campus, with police officers taking regular photographs and also entering into altercations with students. Reportedly, a young female student was also ‘grilled’ by the police for having the ‘temerity’ to step out for a cup of tea!

Reclaiming SRFTI from the Clutches of the Regressive Administration:

It is indeed tragic and unacceptable that a premier institution like the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute is being converted into a fortress and another ground for the right-wing take over of educational and learning spaces. It has also become abundantly evident that the current VC, Mr. Santosh Ajmera, a PIB official with a history of derogatory comments towards women on X (such as actress Rani Mukherjee), is utterly incapable of managing an institute of learning and is determined to treat students as criminals, going all the way to hire personal bouncers; while neglecting the security, physical and mental health of the students, not to mention their careers and futures.

We therefore support all the legitimate demands of the students, including: 

1. Fair and independent inquiry into the violence on 27^th September, 2026.
2. Prosecution of the attackers including those who sexually harassed women and transgender students and pelted stones.
3. Fair and independent inquiry into the alleged violence on the VC on 14^th October.
4. Immediate recall of rustication orders of students.
5. Complete recall of orders enforcing academic closure until 11^th December.
6. Review of CCTV cameras and hearing students’ concerns regarding Mr. Munshi’s past misconduct.
7. Immediate withdrawal of suspension of two contractual faculty members and six resource persons.
8. Immediate removal of the Vice-Chancellor’s personal bouncers from campus, with a review of his own conduct in putting the security of students at risk.
9. A full-time competent Vice Chancellor, who truly upholds the values and spirit of SRFTI.
10. Removal of police presence on campus and safeguarding the right to protest peacefully.

A film school is a place of practice and study. It is a matter of great shame that Mr. Santosh Ajmera and his administration have subjected students to extreme trauma, throughout the festive season, while operating with complete impunity. We stand in full solidarity with progressive students and faculty of SRFTI, in reclaiming their campus in true spirit of freedom and creativity.

Issued by: All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA – NAPM)          

Contact: narivadinapm@gmail.com

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/

The post SRFTI Under Siege: ALIFA Demands VC’s Removal, Independent Inquiry into Campus Violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post A Prisoner of Conscience: Dr Kafeel Khan on Two Terms in Prison I Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a gynaecologist, I find this hard to defend on medical grounds. The simpler and safer operation is the one we almost never perform.

Two operations, compared

A tubectomy closes the fallopian tubes so that the egg and sperm cannot meet. To reach the tubes, the surgeon has to enter the abdomen. In a minilaparotomy (“minilap”) this is done through a small cut in the lower abdomen, usually under local anaesthesia with sedation. In laparoscopic sterilisation a thin telescope is passed through a small cut near the navel after the abdomen is filled with gas, and a ring or clip is placed on each tube. Both are short and safe in trained hands, but they are –still—an abdominal surgery. The risks, though uncommon, include infection, bleeding, injury to the bowel or bladder, and problems with anaesthesia.

A vasectomy closes the two thin tubes that carry sperm. These lie just under the skin of the scrotum. In no-scalpel vasectomy the doctor reaches them through a single tiny puncture, under local anaesthesia. There is no entry into the abdomen and usually no stitch. The man walks home and can return to light work within a couple of days. Complications are mostly minor, such as bruising, swelling or a small infection. It does not affect erections, sexual desire or physical strength. One point needs honest counselling: a vasectomy does not work at once, and the couple needs another method (of contraception) for about three months afterwards.

Both operations are highly effective. The World Health Organisation (WHO)-supported family planning handbook puts first-year failure at about 0.5 per 100 for female sterilisation and about 0.15 per 100 for vasectomy. Both should be treated as permanent.

On every count, vasectomy is the lighter procedure. Yet the heavier one is done over a hundred times more often.

Camps, Targets and Bilaspur

This did not happen by accident. For decades the programme was run on numerical targets. After the coercive vasectomy drives of the Emergency in the mid-1970s, sterilising men became politically untouchable, and the targets shifted to women. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo moved the world from population control towards reproductive rights, and in 1996 India announced a Target Free Approach. On paper, targets ended. In practice “expected levels of achievement”, incentive payments to acceptors and motivators, and pressure on frontline workers kept much of the old logic going.

Its cost became impossible to ignore in November 2014. At a sterilisation camp in Takhatpur, in Bilaspur district of Chhattisgarh, 83 women were sterilised at a single camp. Thirteen of them died in the days that followed.

In September 2016, in Devika Biswas v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that what was happening in such camps violated women’s right to health and reproductive freedom. The court directed the Union government to phase out sterilisation camps within three years and to strengthen regular health facilities instead. It also said states must not set even informal targets, that consent must be explained in a language the woman understands, that deaths and failures must be audited and reported, and that compensation should be raised.

The standards were already there. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare publishes manuals on standards and quality assurance in sterilisation services, covering screening, asepsis, the number of cases a team may do in a day, and follow-up. The Family Planning Indemnity Scheme provides compensation for death, complications and failure after sterilisation. What has been missing is consistent practice.

Why the gap persists

Myths come first. Many men, and many families, believe vasectomy causes weakness, ends a man’s capacity for hard labour or damages his sexual life. None of this is true, but families who depend on his wages often share the fear. NFHS-5 found that about 35% of men agreed that contraception is women’s business and a man should not have to worry about it.

Then there is timing. A woman meets the health system at delivery, and sterilisation is often offered soon after childbirth or with a caesarean section. That suits the system, but it is not always a good moment for a permanent decision. NFHS-5 gives the median age at sterilisation as 25.7 years. A decision made at 25, sometimes within days of a birth, has to last a lifetime.

Counselling is thin. Among sterilised women in NFHS-5, only about 65% said they had been told about other methods, and about 59% had been told about possible side effects. The public sector now offers a wider range: the intrauterine device (IUCD), including after delivery; the injectable contraceptive MPA under the Antara programme; the non-hormonal weekly pill Chhaya; condoms and daily pills. A woman who has never been offered these has not really chosen sterilisation.

Every year from November 21 to December 4, the government observes a Vasectomy Fortnight to encourage men to come forward. It is welcome, but a fortnight cannot undo a year of silence.

What needs to Change

Counselling must be real: unhurried, in the woman’s own language, without the husband or the motivator answering for her, and never in the labour room. Reversible methods should be offered first to young couples, with steady supplies so that a missed injection does not become an unwanted pregnancy.

Quality standards must apply in every facility, with follow-up visits that actually take place. States should publish what the Supreme Court asked for: how many procedures, how many complications, how many deaths, how many failures, and what was done about each.

Men need to be reached directly. ASHAs and ANMs speak mostly to women. We need male health workers, satisfied vasectomy users and trained no-scalpel vasectomy providers at district level, speaking to men where they work.

Finally, a woman must be free to say no, to sterilisation or to any method, without losing a benefit or the goodwill of the health worker she will need again. Family planning was meant to give women control over their bodies. A programme where one sex does nearly all the bleeding has not yet done that.

(The author holds a degree in medicine, an MBBS, MS [Obstetrics and Gynaecology], is an obstetrician-gynaecologist from Assam and is also a medical reviewer at abortion-riyadh.com)

Sources

1. NFHS-5 (2019–21), India Fact Sheet, IIPS and MoHFW: https://rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-5_FCTS/India.pdf
   2. NFHS-5 (2019–21), India National Report, IIPS and ICF: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR375/FR375.pdf
   3. Devika Biswas v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 95 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, judgment of 14 September 2016 (summary, Human Rights Law Network): https://www.hrln.org/litigation/devika-biswas-versus-union-of-india-and-ors-writ-petition-c-no-95-of-2012-the-supreme-court-of-india
   4. National Health Mission, MoHFW, Family Planning programme, guidelines and manuals: https://nhm.gov.in/index1.php?lang=1&level=2&sublinkid=821&lid=222
   5. WHO, Family planning/contraception methods fact sheet: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception
   6. WHO/Johns Hopkins, Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers, contraceptive effectiveness: https://fphandbook.org/sites/default/files/legacy/book/fph_appendix_a/index.shtml
   7. Centre for Economic Data and Analysis, Ashoka University, “Female sterilisation in India: prevalence, informed choice and regret” (2024): https://ceda.ashoka.edu.in/female-sterilisation-in-india-prevalence-informed-choice-and-regret/
   8. UNFPA, International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994): https://www.unfpa.org/icpd

Related:

Menstrual health of women in shambles: Surveys highlight need for inclusive and accessible healthcare services

Human rights of Women in mental health institutions violated: SC

India’s Poorest Women Benefit Less From Public Health, Nutrition Services

The post Health: Why do women in India still carry the burden of sterilisation? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While these statements emerged from Christian and philosophical contexts, they raise a question that Muslims should not dismiss too quickly: What happens when we confuse God with our own social arrangements? More specifically, what happens when patriarchal culture becomes so deeply embedded in religious interpretation that divine reality itself begins to appear male?

The irony is striking. Islam’s central theological principle, tawhid, insists that God is utterly unlike creation. “There is nothing whatever like unto Him” (Q. 42:11). Yet Muslims frequently imagine and speak of God through overwhelmingly masculine imagery. Even when acknowledging that God’s essence transcends gender, religious discourse often unconsciously associates divine authority, power, judgment, and leadership with masculinity.

Hartshorne’s observation remains devastatingly relevant. If God is neither male nor female, then privileging masculine imagery as somehow closer to divine reality is not theological sophistication. It is anthropomorphism. It is projecting human social structures onto the divine.

Islamic theology, at its best, has always recognized this danger. The Qur’an relentlessly critiques idolatry not merely as the worship of statues but as the tendency to fashion God according to human desires and assumptions. Idolatry begins not only when we worship false gods but when we create God in our own image.

This is why the divine names matter.

Among Allah’s ninety-nine names are al-Rahman and al-Rahim, typically translated as “The Most Compassionate” and “The Most Merciful.” What is often forgotten is that both are linguistically linked to the Arabic word rahm, meaning womb. Classical Muslim scholars frequently noted this connection. The most frequently invoked attributes of God in the Qur’an are rooted in imagery associated with nurturing, care, protection, and life-giving relationality.

The significance of this cannot be overstated.

The Qur’an could have foregrounded sovereignty alone. It could have emphasized divine domination and power above all else. Yet the first words Muslims encounter before almost every chapter are “In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.” Divine mercy precedes divine judgment. Compassion grounds authority. Relationship comes before command.

These are not exclusively feminine qualities, of course. But neither are they traditionally masculine. They point beyond rigid gender binaries toward a richer understanding of the divine.

Indeed, Muslim mystics often grasped this more clearly than legalists and theologians. The great Persian tradition of madhhab-i ‘ishq, the “school of love,” found in figures such as Farid al-Din Attar and Hafez, understood that God is encountered not primarily through domination or hierarchy but through intimacy, beauty, longing, and love. The lover-beloved relationship became a powerful metaphor for humanity’s relationship with the Divine.

Love dissolves hierarchy.

One cannot meaningfully speak of being over, above, or superior to another while simultaneously speaking the language of genuine love. Love draws persons into communion rather than domination. It creates reciprocity without erasing difference.

This insight carries profound implications for Muslim discussions about gender.

Too often contemporary debates about women in Islam become trapped between two unsatisfactory choices. On one side stand defenders of traditional patriarchy who assume that male leadership reflects some eternal divine order. On the other stand secular critics who conclude that religion itself is inherently patriarchal and therefore irredeemable.

Both positions miss something important.

The deeper question is not whether particular historical Muslim societies were patriarchal. Most were. The real question is whether patriarchy is intrinsic to Islam’s vision of God and humanity.

The Qur’an’s theological trajectory suggests otherwise.

Human beings, male and female, are described as originating from a single soul (nafs wahida). Moral worth is measured not by gender but by taqwa, God-consciousness. The believing men and believing women are repeatedly mentioned together as equal participants in the spiritual project. The creation narrative lacks the notion that woman is somehow a derivative or secondary being whose existence serves male purposes.

When these principles are taken seriously, patriarchy begins to look less like a theological necessity and more like a historical accommodation.

This is where Hartshorne’s critique becomes particularly useful. If God is the supreme exemplar of relationality, love, responsiveness, and care rather than unilateral domination, then our religious communities should mirror those attributes. Authority becomes service rather than control. Leadership becomes empowerment rather than hierarchy. Strength becomes the capacity to nurture flourishing rather than to command obedience.

Such a vision resonates deeply with the Qur’anic conception of divine mercy encompassing all things.

For Muslims today, the challenge is not simply to include more women in religious institutions, important though that is. The challenge is theological. It is to recover aspects of the Islamic tradition that have been obscured by centuries of patriarchal assumptions and to reimagine God not as a cosmic patriarch but as the source of boundless mercy, beauty, creativity, and love.

Patriarchy, after all, narrows both women and men. It restricts human potential by confining people within rigid expectations of what masculinity and femininity should be. The God of the Qur’an is far greater than such limitations.

To affirm that God transcends gender is not merely a doctrinal statement. It is a spiritual and ethical commitment. It means refusing to sanctify social hierarchies simply because they are old. It means measuring our communities against divine compassion rather than inherited power structures.

And perhaps it means taking seriously the possibility that Hartshorne and Bessey, each in their own way, were pointing toward a truth that the Islamic tradition has always contained but has not always fully embraced: that the closer we draw to God, the less convincing patriarchy becomes. For a God whose mercy is womb-like, whose love exceeds every category, and whose reality transcends every human projection can never be reduced to the image of a celestial patriarch. The God of tawhid is infinitely more beautiful, more relational, and more liberating than that.

Adis Duderija is an Associate Professor in Islam and Society and Griffith University and a book series editor of a new book series on Islam and Process-Relational Thought (Routledge).

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post God Beyond Patriarchy: Recovering the Feminine in the Islamic Imagination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After allegedly receiving no effective action at the police station, Ali submitted yet another complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, on August 29. The complaint was received on August 31, the order recorded. However, the court noted that despite the complaints, no FIR had been registered and no effective investigative action had been taken, prompting Ali to approach the magistrate. In its order, the court examined the police report sought in the matter as is required under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.[1]

Advocate Manish Kumar Pandey, represents complainant, Ikram Ali, a resident of Indiranagar in Banbhulpura. While rejecting the stay application, the court scheduled the next hearing on the revision petition for December 7, 2026, noting that the non-registration of an FIR to date is also a serious matter.

Judicial Magistrate First Class Shubhangi Gupta, in an order dated October 6, accepted a petition filed by Ikram Ali, a resident of Ward No. 31 in Haldwani, under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court directed the officer in charge of Banbhoolpura police station to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint received on August 24 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

The Magistrate’s order relates to serious illegalities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Ali, the petitioner and original complainant before the police, has reportedly told the court that he was working as a BLA-2 during the revision process when he learnt on August 20 that Form-7 applications had been submitted online in his name on August 12, seeking the deletion of 28 voters from Part No. 134 of the electoral roll. According to the petition, Ali denied submitting any such applications, either for himself or on behalf of any other voter. He also denied authorising anyone to file them in his name.

In the petition, Ali alleged that unidentified persons had misused his identity to prepare and submit the applications, purportedly presenting themselves as him before the election office. Ali has also contended that he informed the concerned election officials in writing after learning about the applications. He subsequently sent a written complaint to Banbhoolpura police station by speed post on August 24, which was received by the police on August 27, according to the court order.

It was only after he reportedly received no effective action at the police station, that Ali submitted another complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, on August 29. The complaint was received on August 31, the order stated. The court observed that despite the complaints, no FIR had been registered and no effective investigative action had been taken, prompting Ali to approach the magistrate.

In the first instance, as observed by the court in its order, the court examined the police report sought in the matter. The report stated that the complaint concerned alleged forgery and identity theft in connection with SIR Form-7 applications. It also suggested that the complainant could raise his objection before the relevant Assistant Returning Officer under the existing procedure.

According to available media reports, Ikram Ali, the BLA-2 in question has stated that he reached Delhi on October 30, where he met senior Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and P. Chidambaram. In addition, he met with more than 20 MPs and senior leaders of the INDIA alliance, including a representative of SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti. Ikram informed all the leaders about the misuse of portal IDs and the deletion of voters’ names from the list using fake identities in Haldwani’s Indiranagar area. According to Ikram, all the leaders assured him that they are keeping a close watch on the matter and will take the issue forward.

The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is no longer limited to concerns about voters being asked to prove their eligibility or submit forms to remain on the rolls. The conscious and deliberate misuse of Form 7 for third party deletions, that too by dominant political actors, has been a recurring aspect of the controversial SIR process.

Widely reported investigations by The Hindu, both in Delhi and Karnataka have raised another serious question: who can or should initiate the process for deletion of voters, on what basis, and how effectively are such deletion processes being checked?

Detailed directions by the Court

In the Order dated October 6, the magistrate held that the availability of an alternative remedy before the election authorities was not sufficient grounds to reject the plea seeking a police investigation.

“The remedy available before the Assistant Returning Officer and the relief sought by the applicant operate in different fields and are not alternatives to each other,” the court observed.

The court noted that the election authority’s role was limited to matters such as correction and maintenance of electoral rolls, whereas the complaint concerned an alleged offence committed by unidentified persons.

The order of the court further observes that the relevant election authority did not have the power to investigate the criminal offence or obtain electronic records such as user IDs and login details, registered mobile numbers and email addresses, OTP and authentication information, IP addresses, and device-related records that could help identify those responsible.

The court said the mere availability of an alternative remedy was not sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition.

The magistrate referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments in *Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh* (2014) 2 SCC 1 and *Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.* (2015) 6 SCC 287 while examining the requirements for directing police action.

Referring to *Lalita Kumari*, the court noted that where information prima facie discloses a cognisable offence, registration of an FIR is a legal duty of the police, followed by an investigation in accordance with law.

The court also observed that the police report had not rejected the complainant’s allegations or stated that no cognisable offence was made out. Nor did it refer to any investigation conducted at the police-station level.

The magistrate said that, at first glance, the alleged submission of applications in the complainant’s name by concealing his actual identity and impersonating him in official proceedings appeared to fall within the scope of a suspected criminal offence.

The court clarified, however, that it was not expressing a final opinion on the offences involved, which would have to be determined during the investigation.

Allowing the petition, the court directed the officer in charge of Banbhoolpura police station to register an FIR on the basis of Ali’s complaint dated August 24, 2026, and investigate the case in accordance with law.

It also ordered that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the concerned police station.

The order does not establish who submitted the disputed Form-7 applications or whether the 28 voters were ultimately removed from the electoral rolls. Those issues remain subject to investigation.

[1] Unlike its predecessor, Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure this section—175 (3) has controversially added “several procedural” steps ostensibly to prevent misuse of magisterial powers. These include submission of the said complaint to the Superintendant of Police (SP), accompanied by an affidavit as also recording of the police version.

Related:

SIR: Form 7 controversies raise fresh questions about the continued power to delete voters

The post Vote Chori: Fake Applications to Delete 28 Voters; Uttarakhand court directs police to register FIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On November 8, at 10 pm, the city’s overall AQI stood at 371, while 20 monitoring stations were in the “severe” category. Smoke hung over roads and residential neighbourhoods, visibility dropped and residents reported difficulty breathing. The manner and method of India’s recording of pollution levels (AQI) is controversial. Independent platforms like AQI.in and IQAir reported morning readings between 600 and 610 (“hazardous”). The numbers differ because of Indian authorities/government playing around with statistics: India’s official National Air Quality Index (NAQI) caps its scale at 500 and averages data over 24 hours. Private trackers typically use the US EPA standard—which has stricter thresholds for fine particulate matter (\ (PM_ {2.5}\)) and no upper cap—and report real-time hourly spikes rather than 24-hour averages! So, in reality air quality in Delhi was worse than what was propagated.

Restrictions were ostensibly already in place, with green firecrackers permitted only during prescribed hours. Yet crackers continued to be burst in several parts of the city, and pollution continued to rise through the night. The following morning, Delhi recorded some of its worst pollution readings in years, with PM[1] 2.5 concentrations crossing 2,000 micrograms per cubic metre at several locations. At Mundka, the reading reached 3,744 µg/m³, while other stations recorded concentrations above 3,000.

The national 24-hour standard for PM 2.5 is 60 µg/m³[2].

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Lung Care Foundation (@lungcarefoundation)

These are not marginal departures from permissible levels. They clearly show the scale of pollution produced when a city already struggling with winter air quality enters a night of widespread firecracker bursting. AQI can be checked here: Link: https://www.aqi.in/in

When the monitors went silent

The pollution issue also raised serious questions about monitoring and public information. According to the Indian Express, on Diwali night, 45 of Delhi’s 59 monitoring stations had missing hourly readings for at least one pollutant. By midnight, 29 stations were not reporting some readings, and by 1 am the number had risen to 36. This was also the period when particulate pollution was peaking.

Data later released by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee showed that several of the missing periods coincided with extremely high concentrations. An analysis found that all 125 station-hour readings missing from the Central Pollution Control Board’s records were above 1,000 µg/m³ in the corresponding DPCC data, the Times of India reported.

The gaps matter because people cannot protect themselves from a danger whose extent is not being clearly recorded or publicly reflected during the period when exposure is at its highest.

Stubble burning cannot explain away everything

The issue of Delhi’s air pollution has often been reduced to one familiar explanation: farm fires and stubble burning. Crop-residue burning remains a serious source of pollution across the wider northern air shed. On Diwali day, Punjab recorded 1,152 farm fires, the highest single-day figure of the season, sharply increasing the state’s cumulative tally.

But acknowledging the contribution of stubble burning cannot explain away what happened within Delhi as evening celebrations intensified. The pollution surge followed sunset and continued through the night, with experts pointing to stagnant winter conditions combined with substantial firecracker emissions. At several locations, pollution levels rose sharply during the hours when crackers were being burst.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The News Man (@thenews.man)

Mumbai also recorded sharp localised spikes after nightfall, while several inland cities in Maharashtra reported poor and very poor air quality. Pune, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Nagpur, Malegaon and other cities recorded serious deterioration.

Post-Diwali revelry left Pune’s Camp area blanketed in a hazardous smog corridor on Sunday night, as rampant firecracker bursting triggered near-zero visibility and acute breathing distress across arterial roads. Motorists navigating key thoroughfares struggled with glaring smoke clouds and low sightlines, creating extreme road safety risks alongside the environmental hazard. The severe air deterioration has sparked widespread outrage among local residents, who have directed sharp questions at the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), and the Pune City Police regarding the apparent collapse of ground-level enforcement. Citizens have demanded transparency over real-time monitoring disclosures, strict accountability for unregulated cracker usage, and a clear operational plan rather than customary post-facto advisories.

#PunePollution #PuneCamp #PuneAirQuality #MPCB #PunePolice

— Pune Mirror (@ThePuneMirror) November 9, 2026

Mumbai’s AQI Stays Moderate During Diwali As Pimpri-Chinchwad Records Worst Pollution In Maharashtra
#Mumbai #MumbaiAQI #DiwaliPollution #AirQuality #Maharashtra #CPCB #PimpriChinchwad #FirecrackerPollution #BMC #DevendraFadnavis
https://t.co/QN3V0yMPku

— Free Press Journal (@fpjindia) November 11, 2026

The available evidence does not require a choice between farm fires and firecrackers. Both can contribute. The problem arises when one source is repeatedly invoked to minimise or divert attention from another.

Mumbai’s averages and the air people actually breathed

Mumbai initially appeared to have had a better Diwali, with its citywide AQI lower than during the corresponding period last year. But citywide averages concealed what was happening in individual neighbourhoods.

In Andheri, PM2.5 stood at 42 at 8 pm. Within two hours, it had surged to nearly 500 in one set of readings and even higher on private monitoring platforms.

Two-thirds of air quality monitoring stations stopped working on Diwali night as cancer-causing PM 2.5 levels hit maximum limits. Government meters hide toxic air in Mundka and Dwarka to manipulate average AQI while citizens breathe pure poison. https://t.co/Z1rDcSKWTE

— VIZHPUNEET (@vizhpuneet) November 9, 2026

Malad recorded similarly extreme levels, while Chembur saw PM10 concentrations of around 480. Other parts of the city also recorded sharp spikes after dark.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Free Press Journal (@freepressjournal)

A citywide average may suggest improvement, but a resident does not breathe the city’s average. People breathe the air immediately around their homes, workplaces and neighbourhoods.

This is particularly important for children, elderly people and those already affected by respiratory or other health conditions.

The morning after Diwali brought little relief to several areas. Eight monitoring locations in Mumbai entered the “poor” category, with Bandra East among the worst affected.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Aamchi Mumbai | Rutvik Redkar (@_aamchi_mumbai_)

Even the upper floors are not an escape

A study in Mumbai added another dimension to the problem of urban pollution. There is often an assumption that living high above the street means living above the worst of the city’s polluted air. The findings suggested otherwise.

According to a study by the Mumbai Ecological Research and Analysis Group (MERAG), across residential complexes in Wadala, upper floors of high-rises could be up to 40 per cent more polluted than lower levels. Researchers found a persistent increase in pollution with height in the buildings examined. Smoke and fine particles do not necessarily remain at street level. Air currents, distant emissions and complicated wind patterns created by clusters of high-rise buildings can carry and trap pollutants at higher elevations. For residents of increasingly vertical cities, moving higher may not always mean moving away from pollution.

Less noise, but still too much

There was one limited positive trend. Mumbai’s peak firecracker noise levels were reported to have fallen sharply compared with levels recorded two decades ago. A recent study found peak readings significantly lower than those recorded in 2006. \

But lower does not necessarily mean acceptable or safe.

A peak reading of around 93 decibels was still above permissible ambient noise limits for residential areas. Mumbai has notified silence zones where firecrackers are prohibited and restrictions also exist on bursting crackers late at night.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by माझी Mumbai, आपली BMC (@my_bmc)

The purpose of these restrictions is not difficult to understand. An elderly person, a patient, an infant or someone seriously ill cannot simply choose to stop hearing explosions outside the home.

The issue is therefore not merely whether some people enjoy loud celebrations. It is whether others have any right to peace, rest and safety within their own homes.

That question lies at the heart of the larger problem.

Are appeals and restrictions enough?

For years, the response has largely followed a familiar pattern. Courts issue directions. Authorities prescribe timings. Green crackers are promoted. Silence zones are notified. Appeals are made for restraint.

Yet every year there are reports of violations.

Supreme Court Rules Out Complete Firecracker Ban, Proposes Approach Balancing Sentiments & Health |@AmishaShriv

#SupremeCourt

https://t.co/gZgeUVk15t

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 30, 2026

But later, allowed certified green crackers in Delhi-NCR for two Diwali days.

#BREAKING | Supreme Court allows certified green crackers in Delhi-NCR for two Diwali days, restores full ban from November 9.

#SupremeCourt

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 2, 2026

On October 15, Bombay High Court had extended the total ban on bursting firecrackers on public streets, lanes, and footpaths to apply throughout the year and across all festivals, including Navratri, Diwali, and Christmas.

Bombay High Court extends the total ban on bursting firecrackers on public streets, lanes, and footpaths to apply throughout the year and across all festivals, including Navratri, Diwali, and Christmas.

Order passed by a bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale.

Bench notes that toxic pollution makes life impossible after Diwali, particularly impacting senior citizens and children.

“We have neither banned any manufacturing nor are we concerned with any sale… What we have restricted is what was prevailing for all these times,” the bench clarified.

#BombayHighCourt #Firecrackers

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 15, 2026

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by माझी Mumbai, आपली BMC (@my_bmc)

The question that now needs to be asked more directly is whether limited permissions and appeals to voluntary compliance can actually be enforced at the scale required in large Indian cities.

If the answer is repeatedly no, then the debate over stronger restrictions or prohibitions cannot simply be dismissed as hostility towards a festival.

A ban or prohibition is not automatically the answer. But if existing regulation repeatedly produces toxic air, excessive noise, injuries and deaths, the effectiveness of the present system must be honestly examined.

The question is whether India can have a Diwali that is celebratory without turning into a night when the elderly and sick live in dread of the next explosion.

A ten-year-old and a firecracker

In Delhi’s Narela, a ten-year-old boy died after a firecracker burst in his hands. He had reportedly been holding a flower-pot firecracker outside his home when it exploded.

The flames burned his chest, and his family initially believed the injury might be minor. He later fainted, was taken to hospital and declared dead. On the same Diwali, the Delhi Fire Services received 281 calls, with at least 24 related to fires caused by bursting crackers.

VIDEO | Delhi: Chief Fire Officer AK Malik on fire incidents reported during Diwali, says, “We received a total of 257 calls on November 8, of which 214 were fire-related and 24 were cracker-related fires. We also received one outstation fire call in the morning, for which we sent three fire tenders to Sonipat. There was one medium-category call and two calls in the ‘make-4’ category. Regarding casualties, one fatality was reported, but it was not fire-related. A decomposed body was found. There were also six non-fatal casualties. Around five of our personnel sustained minor injuries while firefighting; none suffered major injuries. These figures are for November 8, from midnight to next midnight. If we look at the Diwali night period, from 6 pm to 6 am, we received around 281 calls. Of these, 178 came in by midnight and another 103 between midnight and 6 am. Overall, we received 24 cracker-related fire calls and 257 calls on November 8.”

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) November 9, 2026

The danger is known. The repeated injuries are known. The risks of allowing children to handle firecrackers are known. Yet the question remains whether the knowledge of these dangers is reflected in how people actually behave.

Fires across the Mumbai region

In Mumbai, firecrackers were linked to 137 of the 142 fire calls received on Diwali. In Thane, all 44 fire calls received by Sunday night were reportedly caused by firecrackers.

Across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, more than 500 fire incidents were reported over the weekend.

it is a matter of shame, collective shame @sohitmishra99

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) November 10, 2026

A day after Diwali, authorities in Mumbai, Nagpur and Thane imposed restrictions on rockets and similar aerial firecrackers following the surge in fire incidents.

#Nagpur Municipal Corporation has imposed a ban on sky rockets, rocket shots, aerial shells and other flying #firecrackers across the city from Nov 9 (4 PM) to Nov 30 (11:59 PM), 2026, following 42 fire incidents reported during Lakshmi Puja celebrations on Nov 8. https://t.co/tjtLYj3z7G

— Lokmat Times Nagpur (@LokmatTimes_ngp) November 9, 2026

But who will implement? BMC Squads? Police ?

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) November 9, 2026

In Mumbai, a lift operator died after being trapped as smoke spread through a high-rise building.

Forty-six-year-old liftman Dhanpat Mahatu died of suffocation after getting trapped inside an elevator when a fire broke out in a 17th-floor flat at Andheri’s Runwal Elegante towers on Saturday night. Mahatu had worked at the 33-storey complex for nine years and was rushed to Cooper Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

The blaze was reported at 9.50 pm and extinguished by 10.37 pm. The building was evacuated as a precaution, while residents said the fire brigade had to climb the stairs to reach the affected floor as its ladder could extend only up to the seventh or eighth floor.

: Ranjeet Jadhav

Read more: https://t.co/gyoUQ6vJGW

— Mid Day (@mid_day) November 9, 2026

Other fires were also reported in residential and commercial structures.

Multiple Fire Incidents Reported Across Mumbai During Diwali; Concerns Raised Over Unsafe Firecracker Use
#MumbaiNews #MumbaiFire #Vidyavihar #Dongri #Jogeshwari #DiwaliSafety #FirecrackerSafety #MaharashtraNews #FireSafety #MumbaiUpdates https://t.co/iJw85YIREi

— NewsDotz (@newsdotz) November 9, 2026

MUMBAI’S DIWALI NIGHT MARRED BY MULTIPLE FIRE INCIDENTS.

Mumbai recorded multiple fire incidents in two days, 28 linked to firecrackers. A major Level II blaze erupted at Haji Kasam Chawl in Dongri, spreading to shops. Other fires were reported in Marol, Powai, Virar, Mulund, Andheri West and Thane’s Raheja Garden Society, where firecrackers on upper floors trapped residents.

— The Lie Lamaa (@TweetsOfLamaa__) November 8, 2026

The pattern again raises a question about regulation. Why do additional restrictions so often follow major incidents rather than preventing them?

Fifty people rescued in Thane

In Thane, a major fire engulfed a residential building during the Diwali night. Residents fled through smoke-filled passages, while some took shelter in balconies and utility ducts.

Four fires in #Thane during #Diwali… people in panic

Fires broke out in four areas of Thane on Sunday night. A major fire engulfed the 40-storey building in Kalwa, as well as the Raje Karline Building on LBS Road.

There are suspicions that some people are trapped in the Raje Karline Building opposite Eternity Mall. There is no official clarity on how many people are trapped or on which floors. Rescue operations are ongoing.

Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, MP Naresh Mhaske and MLA Sanjay Kelkar arrived at the scene and reviewed the situation. Amid initial suspicions that the use of rockets and large firecrackers may have caused the fires, officials are assessing the causes and the extent of the damage.

— Siraj Noorani (@sirajnoorani) November 8, 2026

Around 50 people were rescued as the fire spread through several floors of the 17-storey building. An elderly resident described being trapped as flames and smoke spread, while others sheltered with ageing parents.

Four fires in #Thane during #Diwali… people in panic

Fires broke out in four areas of Thane on Sunday night. A major fire engulfed the 40-storey building in Kalwa, as well as the Raje Karline Building on LBS Road.

There are suspicions that some people are trapped in the Raje Karline Building opposite Eternity Mall. There is no official clarity on how many people are trapped or on which floors. Rescue operations are ongoing.

Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, MP Naresh Mhaske and MLA Sanjay Kelkar arrived at the scene and reviewed the situation. Amid initial suspicions that the use of rockets and large firecrackers may have caused the fires, officials are assessing the causes and the extent of the damage.

— Siraj Noorani (@sirajnoorani) November 8, 2026

Firefighters worked through the night, while the exact cause was examined. The episode again demonstrated how vulnerable densely populated vertical cities can become when fire spreads through a residential building.

Thane’s fire services were also reportedly facing a serious manpower shortage, and firefighters from Mumbai had to be called in.

Cities have grown taller and more densely populated. The risks associated with fire have grown with them.

Two families, twelve deaths

In Madhya Pradesh, the scale of tragedy was even greater. Six members of a family were killed in a fire in Katni, including three children and a two-month-old infant.

Six members of a family, including three children and a two-month-old infant, were killed after a massive fire engulfed a three-storey residential-cum-commercial building in Barhi town of Madhya Pradesh’s Katni district on Diwali night.

“Despite four fire brigade vehicles being at the spot, the six lives could not be saved. I apologise for it. Despite the fire tenders and rescue teams being on the ground, due to some reasons, the lives could not be saved,” Katni Collector Ashish Tiwari said

Read: https://t.co/tDhCsvnb9Y

— The Indian Express (@IndianExpress) November 9, 2026

The fire broke out in a residential-cum-commercial building, and the family was trapped upstairs as the blaze spread. A preliminary inquiry pointed to an earthen lamp as a possible source. The fire was fuelled by highly inflammable material stored below, while rescue teams struggled for hours to save those trapped inside. The district collector later apologised to families and residents, acknowledging that six lives could not be saved despite the deployment of fire tenders.

On the same night, another fire in Seoni killed six members of another family. In both cases, families were asleep when the fires spread.

#Seoni : Six members of a family are killed after a fire breaks out at their house in Chhapara town between 4 am and 4:30 am, a day after Diwali, police say.
#MadhyaPradesh #Seoni #FireIncident #BreakingNews https://t.co/fBK6ccLZ0Q

— Lokmat Times Nagpur (@LokmatTimes_ngp) November 9, 2026

Twelve people from two families were dead, including children, elderly people and members of different generations.

The other problem: how do we live with one another?

The pollution and fires are one part of the story. The other is the increasingly visible absence of civic restraint. Firecrackers are burst inside housing societies, near parked vehicles, beneath balconies and beside buildings occupied by hundreds of residents.

Today, a flat in our Mumbai housing society where i am staying caught fire due to firecrackers being burst by children and their parents within the society premises. By God’s grace, the flat owners and those bursting crackers managed to bring the fire under control. But what if they hadn’t? One moment of negligence could have resulted in an irreversible tragedy!

The most important principle is that the safety of residents must NEVER depend on a majority vote. The Government must establish enforceable fire-safety standards for ALL cooperative housing societies. Even if a majority wishes to burst firecrackers, it cannot override the fundamental right of other residents to safety and protection of their lives and property.

I strongly urge the Government of Maharashtra and BMC to introduce strict, legally enforceable regulations PROHIBITING firecrackers within cooperative housing society premises, with stringent penalties for violations & jail for the people who breach the rules. Simultaneously, the Government should designate specific, legally approved, safe locations for bursting firecrackers, ensuring public safety, environmental protection and pollution control.

Celebrations are a matter of choice, but SAFETY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. No majority, tradition or celebration should ever put another person’s life at risk. Let us act BEFORE an avoidable accident becomes a devastating tragedy. Prevention must be a legal obligation, not merely a matter of individual discretion ! Has human life become so cheap in Maharashtra ? Enforce strict firecracker laws NOW ! Stop preventable fires before innocent lives are lost. Again SAFETY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE!

@Dev_Fadnavis @CMOMaharashtra @mieknathshinde @SunetraA_Pawar @mybmc @MumbaiPolice @MahaPolice @Pankajamunde @babasahebpati1 @mpcb_official @MahaDGIPR @ShelarAshish @AshwiniBhide

— Dr. Bharat Balvalli (@Swaradhish) November 8, 2026

Those who do not wish to participate have little control over what happens around them.

An elderly person cannot prevent smoke from entering the home. A family with an infant cannot control where a rocket will land. A patient cannot necessarily escape a night of explosions by simply closing a window.

The issue is not whether people have a right to celebrate. It is whether celebration gives anyone the right to disregard the safety and peace of those living around them.

This is a question of civic sense and shared urban life.

One argument, one death

In Mumbai, a dispute connected with firecrackers ended in the death of a 19-year-old. Shubhankar Mukhiya and his friends were heading towards Juhu beach when crackers were burst near a parked motorcycle.

A 19-year-old, Nanu alias Shubhankar Jagdev Mukhiya, died after an argument over bursting firecrackers near a parked motorcycle in Juhu, Mumbai. The dispute reportedly escalated into a physical assault.

Read more: https://t.co/SX2P8f6iGh https://t.co/QxqNwxLyrl

— Mid Day (@mid_day) November 10, 2026

An argument followed. According to police, the motorcycle belonged to one of the accused, and the confrontation initially appeared to have ended.

Police alleged that the accused later returned with two others and that Mukhiya and his friends were attacked with kicks and punches. Mukhiya fell, suffered a severe head injury and later died.

A disagreement over firecrackers had escalated into an alleged fatal assault.

The question is not simply what caused the argument. It is why an increasingly ordinary disagreement in public life can so quickly become an occasion for violence.

Violence around the celebration

In Delhi, another teenager did not return home from a Diwali outing. Sixteen-year-old Devansh had reportedly gone out with friends to buy crackers.

#WATCH | Delhi: A 16-year-old boy was allegedly stabbed to death by a group of men after he resisted a mobile phone snatching attempt in North Delhi’s Wazirabad area on Saturday. (08.11)

(Visuals from his home) https://t.co/Bb7KneABxj

— ANI (@ANI) November 9, 2026

Police said that a group of men allegedly tried to snatch his money and phone. When he resisted, he was stabbed and later died after being taken to hospital. The circumstances were different from the Mumbai case, but both the incidents form part of a larger and troubling picture of aggression in public spaces. Diwali is meant to be a festival of homes, families and communities. Yet the night also produced fights, assaults and confrontations.

When those enforcing the rules are attacked

There is another dimension to the problem. Rules are meaningful only if someone can enforce them. When police personnel or other officials attempt to enforce restrictions on firecrackers, noise or public safety, they can themselves become targets of hostility or violence.

The image of a lone policeman attempting to enforce a rule, while facing an aggressive crowd or being attacked, raises a basic question about civic conduct. What does it say about respect for law when a person performing a public duty becomes the object of anger merely for attempting to enforce regulations?

The issue cannot be reduced to firecrackers alone. It concerns a wider relationship between citizens, public authority and shared rules.

Are we becoming an insensate and uncivil society?

This is the more difficult question raised by the events surrounding Diwali. Are Indians becoming increasingly insensitive to the effect of their actions on those living around them? Are we becoming more aggressive, less restrained and less willing to accept even the most basic rules of shared civic life?

The evidence of one festival cannot answer such a large question by itself. But it can expose a pattern.

Smoke is treated as someone else’s problem. Noise is treated as a neighbour’s problem. A falling rocket is treated as an accident waiting to happen somewhere else.

Rules are often accepted in principle but resented when they are enforced against us. And when a disagreement arises, too often the response is not restraint but aggression.

The old, the sick and the very young have little power in this situation. They cannot negotiate with the person bursting crackers outside their home. The person who chooses silence cannot impose it on the person who chooses noise.

The family that follows the rules cannot guarantee that its neighbours will do the same.

Urban life requires restraint

Living in a crowded city necessarily requires limits.

A person living in a high-rise, an apartment block or a densely populated neighbourhood does not live in isolation. Every action takes place close to someone else.

That is why urban life requires civic restraint.

It requires recognising that a celebration in one flat can become a disturbance in another, and that an act carried out for pleasure can impose danger or suffering on someone who has not chosen to participate.

This is not an argument against celebration.

It is an argument against the belief that celebration means freedom from responsibility.

The question before the next Diwali

The Diwali of 2026 again demonstrated the limits of relying only on appeals, partial restrictions and voluntary compliance.

Court directions and institutional controls remain important, but they are meaningful only when they can be implemented and enforced.

The debate must therefore move beyond the familiar argument between those who want unrestricted celebrations and those who seek restrictions.

The more practical question is what actually works.

Can limited permissions, prescribed timings and appeals to civic sense deliver a genuinely safer and less polluted Diwali?

If they cannot, should authorities consider stronger restrictions, clearer prohibitions and designated spaces where activities involving serious risks can be more effectively controlled?

A saner Diwali should not be impossible to imagine.

It should not be a night when elderly people and patients dread the next explosion, when children lose their lives, when homes and high-rises catch fire, or when those attempting to enforce the rules face violence.

What the Diwali night left behind

A ten-year-old died after a firecracker burst in his hands. A 19-year-old died after an argument connected with crackers escalated into an alleged assault, while another teenager was stabbed after going out to buy Diwali crackers.

Hundreds of fire calls were received across the Mumbai region, around 50 people were rescued from a burning high-rise in Thane, and twelve members of two families died in separate fires in Madhya Pradesh.

Delhi’s pollution monitors developed gaps as particulate levels surged, while corresponding data later showed some readings in the thousands.

Mumbai’s overall air quality appeared better in aggregate, but individual neighbourhoods recorded dramatic spikes after dark. Noise levels may have fallen over the years, but they continued to exceed permissible limits.

The festival has passed, but the questions remain.

What kind of institutional controls can actually ensure compliance? Is a stronger prohibition necessary where limited regulation repeatedly fails? And what does our conduct during these celebrations say about our capacity to live with consideration for others?

These are not questions about whether people should celebrate their festivals.

They are questions about how they celebrate them, and whether celebration can coexist with civic responsibility, public safety and respect for the people living around us.

A festival cannot become an occasion when the old and sick live in dread, young lives are lost, public spaces turn violent and even those attempting to enforce the law face aggression.

The smoke, noise, fires and violence of this Diwali should force a more serious conversation before the next one arrives.

[1] PM means Particulate Matter (also known as particle pollution), which is a mix of microscopic solid particles and liquid droplets suspended in the air).

[2] µg/m³ stands for micrograms per cubic meter and measures the mass concentration of a pollutant in a specific volume of air.

Related:

Diwali has been celebrated by Muslims for centuries

Toxic Air To Blame For Lung Cancer; No Longer Just A Smoker’s Disease

The post Diwali 2026: Smoke, noise, fires and the failure of restraint appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tens of thousands of farmers of Kolhapur and areas around —a sea of humanity —angrily joined a rally led by led by Congress MLC Satej Patil in Kolhapur on Monday, November 9, to protest the promulgation of an ordinance that allows the state government to nominate five directors to the boards of large federal cooperative societies, of whom four get voting rights. Dairy farmers from Thane, Sangli, Satara, Pune and Dharashiv participated in the protest march, titled Sangharsh Morcha, over 1.5km, alleging that the government move undermined democratic principles and the autonomy of the cooperative sector. These were visuals on social media that reflected rural Maharashtra’s outrage against the brazen attempt by the Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government to seize control over this dairy that has 5.5 lakh farmers associated with it (with at least five-and-half-thousand minor cooperatives linked to Gokul).

Monday’s rally had participants, which included women farmers, arrived in bullock carts and brought buffaloes, horses and other animals. Banners alleging “vote and power theft” were erected at multiple locations. Former MP Raju Shetti, Kolhapur MP Shahu Chhatrapati, Sangli MP Vishal Patil, MP Dhairyasheel Mohite-Patil, MLAs Jayant Patil and Vishwajeet Kadam, and MPSC student activist Vivekanand Patil joined the march. Many elected representatives from local bodies and cooperative institutions were also present.

However, the very next day, a controversial decision of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, that had first directed elections of the 25 members later (vacation bench) refused to stay the hastily changed rules dated November 4 that granted the MahaYuti the majority! Later this month, the Bombay high court is slated to hear a petition by the Congress-led panel for quashing the controversial amendment. As mentioned above, in its hearing on November 9, the court had refused to stay the election. However, the court has said that the results of the elections would be subject to the court’s final decision on the matter and had asked Gokul officials to keep the ballots of the elected directors and the government-nominated directors separate.

Former legislator from the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) Rajesh Patil, representing a Mahayuti-backed panel, was elected as the chairperson, defeating the Congress-led panel’s Shashikant Patil-Chuyekar. Thereafter, the newly elected chairman of the Kolhapur District Milk Producers’ Union (Gokul) and former MLA Rajesh Patil pays floral tribute to the statue of Gokul founder Anandrao Patil-Chuyekar, in Kolhapur on November 10, 2026. The board of Gokul, Maharashtra’s largest milk-producing co-operative, saw a Mahayuti-backed member being elected its chairperson on Tuesday (November 10), days after the Maharashtra government allowed four nominated members to vote, thereby upturning a Congress-led panel’s victory in elections held last month. Rajesh Patil bagged 16 votes, whereas Patil-Chuyekar bagged 13 votes.

The dairy is Maharashtra’s largest milk co-operative – with a turnover of over Rs 5,000 crore – and works with more than 8,400 milk societies and nearly five and a half lakh milk producers in the crucial western Maharashtra region. Control over Gokul allows political leaders to be in direct contact with lakhs of families, and also allows them to wield considerable financial influence over their lives through the disbursal of payments to them.

The election to the 25-member board of directors was held on October 19 and saw the Congress-led panel, led by Congress MLC Satej Patil, bagging a narrow victory over the Mahayuti panel, bagging 13 votes to the Mahayuti panel’s 12 votes.

However, two weeks after the elections, the Devendra Fadnavis government on November 4 promulgated an ordinance nominating five members to the boards of major co-operative institutions like Gokul and giving four of the five nominated members the right to vote in the chairperson’s election.

The move garnered heavy flak – Congress leader and Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi said the move was a “theft of milk producers’ votes”, whereas Cockroach Janta Party chief Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Fadnavis was attempting a “hostile takeover” of Gokul. Satej Patil criticised the decision and said it would make elections redundant.

“If the government’s policy is to disregard the people’s mandate and take decisions according to its own wishes, then there is no point in holding elections. It would be better to cancel all elections, appoint government nominees and let them run sugar factories, spinning mills and municipal corporations,” he had said. Reported the Indian Express.

Satej Patil had also organised a protest in Kolhapur on Monday (November 9), which saw tens of thousands of protesters march on the streets of the city.

The move for this brazen change of rules had even been opposed even by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai who, in a legal opinion offered to the Congress-led panel’s advocate Shrikrishna Ganbavale, reportedly said such a move was not “sustainable on the ground that such an action would be hit by the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness and would amount to colourable exercise of powers.”

Ganbavale submitted Gavai’s opinion to the Fadnavis government. Despite this, the very next day, the Fadnavis government approved an amendment in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, allowing government-nominated and designated directors to vote in the elections of a chairperson or other members.

It was this hastily crafter move that tilted the scales in favour of the Mahayuti panel’s candidate and, as was widely expected, Tuesday’s election saw Patil bagging 16 votes and registering a victory, even though the original election results had seen the Congress-panel emerging victorious. Fadnavis had defended the amendment, pointing to the lack of a quorum in a meeting held on October 29 to elect a chairperson. The Mahayuti directors had abstained from the meeting, thereby preventing the meeting from reaching the quorum of 14 directors.

“One side had won 13 seats and the other 12 seats. Therefore, the quorum required for the meeting was not being met. The meeting had to be cancelled twice due to a lack of quorum. If the meeting had been cancelled for the third time due to a lack of quorum, the election itself would have been cancelled. That is why the government took the decision,” Fadnavis had posted on ‘X’, in response to Gandhi’s criticism.

However, Congress leaders have rejected Fadnavis’s explanation, pointing to the fact that the Mahayuti directors could have been asked to remain present for the board meeting, instead of abstaining. This, they said, would have ensured adequate quorum for the meeting to take place.

Why Gokul maters and could be a predecessor in other ‘take-overs’

Every day, twice a day, they together collect and distribute milk that results in come worth Rs 1 crore approximately every eight days and close to Rs 5,000 crores annually. This attempt by Fadnavis to seize control is being viewed as a devious route to capturing control of both this sector and its rich earnings. The entire economy of Kolhapur rests on this and is at the centre of the economic structure of the district.

Critiques recall how prior to 2023 state elections in Karnataka and a crude bid to “replace” the popular local dairy brand of Nandini (also a cooperative structure) by the Gujarat-run Amul (National Dairy Development Board, Anand).

Watch this 2023 Video on the issue here

As senior journalist, Niranjan Takle –also an independent youtuber states (at 28.40 minutes) in this interview with Bushra Khanam, it is only under the Narendra Modi government that a ‘Co-Operative Minustry’ was created or brought into the Union Ministry and Amit Shah, Home Minister given the portfolio. Takle also points out that Gyanesh Kumar, the controversial Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) was previously Secretary under Shah to this Ministry and, during this tenure worked with the Gujarat (Anand)-based NDDB to “expand rural dairy infrastructure” across states. For critiques including Takle this is a sign that the move of the MahaYuti government is first to gain control over a lucrative economic base that currently is “owned” by farmers of Kolhapur and second, to give economic control and advantage (away from Maharashtra’s farmers) to Gujarat!

As senior journalist, Niranjan Takle –also an independent youtuber states (at 28.40 minutes) in this interview with Bushra Khanam, it is only under the Narendra Modi government that a ‘Co-Operative Minustry’ was created or brought into the Union Ministry and Amit Shah, Home Minister given the portfolio. Takle also points out that Gyanesh Kumar, the controversial Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) was previously Secretary under Shah to this Ministry and, during this tenure worked with the Gujarat (Anand)-based NDDB to “expand rural dairy infrastructure” across states. For critiques including Takle this is a sign that the move of the MahaYuti government is first to gain control over a lucrative economic base that currently is “owned” by farmers of Kolhapur and second, to give economic control and advantage (away from Maharashtra’s farmers) to Gujarat!

The Video (in Hindi) may be viewed here.

Why Gokul is key

Gokul dairy is the state’s largest milk producers’ co-operative, and collects over 17 lakh litres of milk from nearly five lakh milk producers every day. While most of the producers are based in and around Kolhapur district, Gokul’s distribution is spread across Maharashtra, as well as parts of Karnataka and Goa.

Controlling Gokul allows political leaders to exert influence over lakhs of families across western Maharashtra. The region has traditionally been a stronghold of the Congress and the NCP. Control over Gokul will also allow the BJP to fledge its wings in the region.

Related:

Failure of BJP-led Mahayuti Government in management of fertilisers & procurement

Maharashtra SIR: Over 2 crore names left off draft rolls; report finds uneven burden across regions and groups

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

The post Maharashtra Gokul Controversy: Mahayuti’s bid to seize control of the state’s largest milk cooperative? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Widely reported investigations by The Hindu, both in Delhi and Karnataka have raised another serious question: who can or should initiate the process for deletion of voters, on what basis, and how effectively are such deletion processes being checked?

Incidentally, the obduracy within the existing Election Commission of India (ECI) –despite the reported “dissent” from two Commissioners, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu –is evident from the September 26 “clarificatory press note” issues by the Commission. This followed the sensational and important expose by The Indian Express on September 23. Even after the storm of protests that followed, the ECI continued to “allow” as many as 50 deletions per BLA (Booth Level Agent) of political parties, which is a misnomer for motivated mass deletions!

In Delhi’s Mustafabad Assembly constituency, hundreds of Form 7 applications seeking the deletion of Muslim voters have been linked to BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs), many of whom have reportedly denied filing or signing them. One BLA, however, claimed to have filed more than 500 such applications despite the Election Commission later imposing restrictions on the number of Form 7 applications an individual could file.

#Watch | An investigation has uncovered major questions surrounding voter deletion applications filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi’s Mustafabad. Public records show hundreds of Form 7 applications were filed in the names of BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs). However, many of those individuals told The Hindu that they never submitted the applications or were unaware that forms had been filed using their names.

Reports: @suruchiarchives
Script: @Shikhaaaakarn
Edit: Mojan Raj E
https://t.co/xtenDPQzjS

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) November 6, 2026

Meanwhile, in Karnataka, where SIR was also meant to identify and remove duplicate or ineligible entries, the final electoral rolls have continued to show serious errors. The Hindu found that in Mahadevapura Assembly constituency alone, 803 voter IDs were linked to just 397 people. There were also cases involving the same EPIC number appearing in two different constituencies and hundreds of instances of individuals having multiple voter IDs.

Together, the two developments raise serious questions about the claim that the SIR process is meant to ensure cleaner and more reliable electoral rolls.

What the Election Commission held on September 26

The Election Commission’s Press Note issued after its meeting on September 26, 2026 dealt directly with some of the concerns arising during the ongoing SIR process.

The September 26 Press Note does not alter or restrict the existing role of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) in relation to objections or applications for deletion through Form 7. Its directions primarily concern the handling of notices issued during the SIR and the facilitation of inclusion of persons whose names were left out. The Press Note does not address the powers or role of BLAs in filing or pursuing Form 7 objections against entries in the electoral roll, leaving that underlying process unaffected.

ECI caps individual Form 7 applications

In October, the ECI capped the number of Form 7 applications that an individual elector can file at 10 during the claims and objections period and five per month during continuous updation of electoral rolls. The Commission said bulk objections filed on unsubstantiated grounds could inconvenience the elector whose name is challenged and increase the workload of field-level officials. The limits apply to both online and physical submissions, while recognised political parties’ BLAs remain governed by separately prescribed limits.

Form 7: the route through which names can be challenged

Form 7 is used to seek the deletion of an existing elector’s name from the electoral roll or to object to the inclusion of a name.

During the continuing SIR process in Delhi, The Hindu reported that 1,021 deletion applications had been filed in Mustafabad. Of these, 787 applications — or about 77% of the total — named 20 BJP-appointed BLAs as the objectors.

All 787 applications were directed against Muslim electors.

The scale becomes even more significant when third-party applications alone are considered. According to the publicly available list of Form 7 applications on the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer’s website, 787 of the 837 deletion applications filed by third parties — around 94% — were linked to these 20 BJP BLAs. But when contacted by The Hindu, 16 of the 20 BLAs denied filing or signing the applications attributed to them. Many reportedly said they had no knowledge that forms had been submitted using their names.

The controversy is therefore not merely about whether deletion applications should ultimately succeed. It raises a prior and fundamental question: who actually filed the applications seeking the removal of these voters?

Applications allegedly filed in other people’s names

One of the BLAs named as an objector in 32 Form 7 applications, Ankit Yadav, reportedly denied filing any of them. According to The Hindu’s report, he said he discovered that his details had allegedly been used to seek the deletion of Muslim voters living in his own neighbourhood. He subsequently submitted a complaint and formally resigned as a BLA to party representatives.

The newspaper reported that, with the assistance of the local Booth Level Officer, the electors concerned were found living at their registered addresses.

The BLO also reportedly said that he had not received physical copies of the relevant Form 7 applications.

Another person, Nitin Kumar, was named as an objector in applications relating to an area which, according to him, was not even his area. He too denied filing the forms, although he had received messages relating to their verification. The report also identified several other BJP BLAs who were named as objectors in dozens of deletion applications but denied filing them. The forms reportedly cited reasons such as “absent/permanently shifted”, “already enrolled” and “death” for seeking the deletion of names. The question is therefore not simply whether a voter ultimately remains on or is removed from the roll. The controversy concerns the ability of applications for deletion to enter the official system in the first place, including allegations that individuals’ names and details may have been used without their knowledge.

One BLA says he filed ‘over 500’ applications

Among the 20 BLAs named in the applications, one person stood apart.

BJP BLA Robin Singh Dhama, named as an objector in 57 cases in the publicly available records cited by The Hindu, acknowledged filing Form 7 applications and claimed that he had submitted “500 of those”. His claim became particularly significant because the Election Commission had introduced restrictions on the number of Form 7 applications that could be filed by an individual elector.

On October 9, 2026, the ECI imposed a cap of 10 Form 7 applications from an individual elector during the entire claims and objections period.

BLAs are permitted to submit applications in bulk under a separate procedure, but this involves applications filled by other electors and submitted along with the prescribed undertaking.

Senior ECI officials had earlier told The Hindu that a BLA filing Form 7 applications in his own name as an objector, without the prescribed undertaking for bulk submissions, would be covered by the restriction. The newspaper further reported that the forms naming the 20 BLAs as objectors had been filed without the prescribed BLA undertaking or the prescribed format for such submissions.

The Delhi District Election Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer and the ECI did not respond to questions from The Hindu, according to the report. Earlier, the District Election Officer had stated that deletion claims would be physically verified by the BLO and the ERO or Assistant ERO, and that action would be taken against applications found to be false or “mischievous”.

What September 26 did not change

The September 26 order laid down procedures for voters who had received notices during SIR because they were “unmapped” or had “logical discrepancies”, and for those left out of the rolls. It provided for BLO visits, collection and uploading of documents, and routes for inclusion through continuous updation and a special enrolment drive.

However, it did not remove the wider statutory and administrative process through which objections to existing voters can be raised and deletion proceedings initiated. The Mustafabad controversy demonstrates why this remains significant: where hundreds of deletion applications are generated and persons named as objectors deny filing them, serious questions arise about the integrity, traceability and safeguards of the deletion mechanism.

SIR removes voters, yet duplicate entries remain

The developments in Delhi come alongside findings from Karnataka that raise a different question about the effectiveness of SIR. In Mahadevapura Assembly constituency, The Hindu found that 803 voter IDs were linked to just 397 people after the exercise, including cases of individuals having multiple voter IDs and the same EPIC number appearing in different constituencies.

The report also identified more than 500 cases of persons having multiple voter IDs within polling stations and around 300 cases across different polling stations. These findings are significant because SIR has been justified as a means of removing duplicate and ineligible entries and improving the accuracy of electoral rolls. Yet serious duplication and inconsistencies reportedly remained even after the process.

The problem is not only duplication — it is exclusion

These developments point to a larger contradiction. In Delhi, hundreds of voters could simultaneously become the subject of deletion proceedings, while in Karnataka, an intensive revision intended to improve accuracy still left substantial duplication and other errors in the rolls.

The issue, therefore, cannot be addressed only by providing procedures after voters receive notices or are left out of the rolls. A system that subjects existing voters to large-scale scrutiny and potential deletion must also demonstrate that it can prevent erroneous exclusion and ensure accuracy. Once a genuine voter is deleted, the burden of discovering the deletion and seeking restoration can fall on the voter.

Why the demands from the Online Assembly remain relevant

The continuing controversies surrounding SIR, Form 7 applications and errors in revised electoral rolls reinforce the demands adopted in the resolution of the Online Assembly.

The concerns raised across States show that the issues with SIR are not isolated errors but raise wider questions about scrutiny, exclusion and verification. The demand to scrap SIR therefore remains central.

The resolution also calls for institutional accountability, including disbanding the present Election Commission and repealing the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, to protect the independence and credibility of the electoral process.

Finally, it calls for reverting to the 2024 electoral rolls while ensuring the inclusion of all genuinely eligible new voters through a public audit process as is mandated. Electoral revision should expand participation and facilitate inclusion—not place existing voters at risk of exclusion or make the process of restoring their names unnecessarily difficult.

Related:

Public Hearing on Sewer Workers – Hearing the victims and their families

Does the ECI’s Nov 6 communication signal a step-back on re-enrolment in the ASSD list?

The post SIR: Form 7 controversies raise fresh questions about the continued power to delete voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India, a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar examined the scope of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which requires every arrested and detained person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding only the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.

The judgment is significant not only for clarifying when this constitutional deadline begins, but also for reinforcing the role of judicial oversight in preventing arbitrary detention and custodial abuse. It rejects the creation of an intermediate category of detention in which a person is deprived of their liberty but is not treated as arrested for the purpose of constitutional protection. The Court has also clarified that compliance with the 24-hour ceiling does not, by itself, make detention lawful: the period of detention must also be reasonable in the circumstances.

“the magistrate shall also examine at the time of production whether the detention of the person produced, though is within the time frame of 24 hours, has exceeded the period which can be construed to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he is satisfied that detention in custody has been for a longer period than what is reasonable, he may decline remand” (Para 69 (vii))

The case: Detained on September 29, formally arrested the following day

The case arose from an NDPS investigation in Tripura. On September 29, 2025, officers of the Customs Division intercepted a truck travelling towards Agartala on the basis of information that it was carrying narcotic substances concealed in a consignment of ginger. The persons travelling in the vehicle were intercepted at approximately 2 pm at Shanitala Noabadi.

The search resulted in the recovery of narcotic substances. It continued at the Customs Division office in Agartala, where further contraband was recovered from trolley bags concealed beneath the ginger consignment. The total quantity seized was 60.79 kg. The search and seizure procedure was completed at approximately 5 pm on September 29.

However, the appellants were formally shown as arrested only on September 30, at 11 am and 11.15 am. They were produced before a Judicial Magistrate at 4.45 pm that day and remanded to judicial custody.

Their bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge and subsequently by the Tripura High Court. The High Court relied, among other considerations, on Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in specified NDPS cases.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised a separate and fundamental constitutional objection. They argued that their liberty had been curtailed when they were intercepted and brought under the control of the investigating team at 2 pm on September 29. If that was the point from which the 24-hour period began, they should have been produced before a Magistrate by 2 pm on September 30. Their production at 4.45 pm was therefore beyond the constitutionally permitted period.

The investigating agency disputed this interpretation. It maintained that the appellants had merely been intercepted on September 29 and were not detained until their formal arrests the following morning. It argued that the intervening period was required to complete the procedures prescribed under the NDPS Act, including search and seizure, weighing and testing the seized substances, preparing seizure documents and carrying out other investigative formalities.

The agency also relied on Rule 3(4) of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which prescribes procedures for the classification, weighing, packaging and numbering of seized substances in the presence of witnesses and the person from whose possession they were recovered.

The Supreme Court directed the investigating officer to explain the period between the interception, completion of the search and seizure, formal arrest and production before the Magistrate. The central question was whether the investigating agency could treat the period during which the appellants were under its control as something other than detention for the purposes of Article 22(2).

The constitutional meaning of arrest cannot depend on the investigating agency’s paperwork

The Court approached the question by examining the language and purpose of Article 22(2). It noted that the provision refers to a person who is “arrested and detained in custody”. The expressions are used conjunctively, and the Court rejected the attempt to treat them as two separate events so that the constitutional deadline could be postponed until formal arrest.

It held that the Constitution does not recognise detention dehors arrest. In other words, a person cannot be deprived of their liberty and kept under the control of investigating authorities while being placed in a legally indeterminate category of detention that falls outside the protection of Article 22(2).

“ Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ would dilute or negate the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution under clause (2) of Article 22. Such an endeavour should be avoided. We must adopt that interpretation which enhances and furthers the constitutional objective.” (Para 58)

The Court explained that the relevant consideration is whether the person has been deprived of their personal liberty and is no longer free to leave. It referred to its earlier decisions, including Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, to examine the meaning of arrest and custody. These decisions recognise that the question of custody depends on the actual restraint imposed on an individual, rather than merely the terminology used by the authorities.

Applying this understanding, the Court held that the 24-hour period begins when a person is taken under the control of an investigating authority and their liberty is effectively curtailed. The formal arrest memo cannot determine the commencement of the constitutional deadline.

The Court also rejected the proposition that statutory procedures under the NDPS Act could justify a period of detention outside Article 22(2). It acknowledged the requirements governing search and seizure but held that these procedures cannot be used to postpone constitutional safeguards. Once a person’s liberty has been curtailed, the time spent on investigative or administrative procedures cannot be excluded from the 24-hour calculation. The only period that can be excluded is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court, as expressly provided under Article 22(2).

“Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for enquiry and investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Article 22(2) does not sanction creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigating purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such buffer zone is unconstitutional.” (Para 43)

In reaching this conclusion, the Bench disapproved the approach adopted by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattnayak, the Madras High Court in Kannan and the Kerala High Court in Arun K. Thomas. These decisions had drawn a distinction between detention during investigation and formal arrest. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation adopted by the High Courts was inconsistent with the constitutional protection of personal liberty.

The judgment is therefore an important clarification for investigations conducted under special statutes. It establishes that the existence of statutory powers to search, seize or question a person does not create an exception to the constitutional requirement of timely production before a Magistrate.

“Therefore, the declaration that the period of 24 hours for the purposes of Article 22(2) commences from the completion of such search and seizure and only from the time of arrest recorded by the arresting authority is not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional.” (Para 43)

The 24-hour limit is not an automatic licence to detain

A further important aspect of the judgment concerns Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court identified two distinct safeguards under Section 58. First, a person cannot be detained by the police without a warrant for more than 24 hours, excluding the necessary journey time, without being produced before a Magistrate. Second, even within that period, detention must not exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The second requirement is particularly significant. The Court clarified that the 24-hour period should not be understood as an automatic entitlement for investigating agencies to detain a person for the entire duration. A person may be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours and yet have been detained for longer than was reasonable.

In such circumstances, the Magistrate is not required to authorise further detention merely because the outer time limit has not been breached. The Magistrate must independently examine the circumstances and may decline to authorise remand if the detention was unreasonable.

“Therefore, Section 57 CrPC (58 BNSS) mandates two limitations: firstly, the constitutional limitation of 24 hours; and secondly, within that 24 hours, the detention should not exceed what is considered to be a reasonable period in the facts of that case. This additional but salutary limitation should be borne in mind not only by the detaining authorities but also by the magistrates considering remand. In a given case, even though technically there may not be any breach of the 24 hours timeline, yet if the magistrate is satisfied that detention was for a period longer than what was reasonable, he or she may decline remand.” (Para 60)

The Court also placed a specific responsibility on Magistrates to ascertain and record the actual date and time at which the person’s liberty was curtailed. They cannot mechanically rely on the time of formal arrest recorded by the investigating agency. They must examine when the person was actually brought under official control, calculate the 24-hour period from that point and assess whether the detention was reasonable.

This direction strengthens the remand process as a substantive safeguard against arbitrary detention, rather than allowing it to become a procedural exercise in which the investigating agency’s account is accepted without scrutiny.

Connecting delayed formal arrest with the risk of custodial violence

The Court’s reasoning is rooted in the wider constitutional concern surrounding custodial violence and the abuse of investigative powers. It referred to earlier decisions, including Khatri v. State of Bihar, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljeet Singh, to underline the importance of timely judicial oversight and safeguards against custodial abuse.

The Court recognised that the period between the actual deprivation of liberty and the formal recording of arrest can be particularly vulnerable to misuse. If investigating agencies are permitted to postpone the formal recording of arrest, individuals may remain under their control without the immediate protection that Article 22(2) is intended to provide. The judgment thus treats the 24-hour requirement as more than a procedural deadline. It is a constitutional mechanism intended to ensure that executive power over an individual’s liberty is brought under judicial scrutiny at the earliest opportunity.

This is particularly relevant in the Indian context, where allegations of custodial violence, coercive interrogation and unlawful detention have repeatedly raised concerns about the exercise of police and investigative powers. The ruling strengthens the legal basis for challenging practices in which a person’s actual detention is obscured by the terminology of questioning, enquiry or investigative custody.

Article 21 cannot be lightly subordinated to restrictive provisions under special laws

The judgment also contains important observations on the relationship between fundamental rights under Article 21 and the restrictive bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Tripura High Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026), which considered the relationship between the right to speedy trial and the restrictions imposed by Section 37. In that case, the Supreme Court had set aside a grant of bail where the High Court had not recorded satisfaction regarding the statutory twin conditions.

In Sujit Das, the Bench expressed reservations about the observations in Sukhwinder Singh suggesting that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot, solely on the ground of delay, override that provision.

The Court reiterated that Article 21 protects fundamental rights that lie at the core of constitutional jurisprudence and cannot be lightly restricted, even under special statutes. It referred to decisions including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ankur Chadha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, among others, to support the proposition that violations of Article 21 may require the rigours of Section 37 or comparable statutory restrictions to give way.

The Bench noted that it could be argued that the relevant observations in Sukhwinder Singh were per incuriam in view of the three-Judge Bench decision in K.A. Najeeb. However, it expressly refrained from making a final pronouncement because Sukhwinder Singh was also a decision of a coordinate Bench. It further clarified that Article 22(2) had not been an issue before the Bench in that case.

“We have our reservation on the aforesaid observations made by the Bench. First and foremost, the rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India are not only constitutional rights. These are fundamental rights. Right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 are at the core of our constitutional jurisprudence. These fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under the special statutes.” (Para 49)

These observations are important for future litigation concerning prolonged pre-trial detention and restrictive bail provisions. However, they should not be read as overruling Sukhwinder Singh or as finally settling the relationship between Article 21 and Section 37. The Court’s binding ruling in Sujit Das concerns the commencement of the 24-hour period under Article 22(2), the reasonableness of detention under Section 58 BNSS and the responsibility of Magistrates to scrutinise the actual period of custody.

A significant safeguard, but its enforcement will depend on judicial scrutiny

The human rights significance of the judgment lies in its recognition that constitutional protection must follow the actual experience of deprivation of liberty. A person cannot be kept under the control of the state while the state decides when to formally acknowledge that person’s arrest.

This approach is important for people detained during investigations under special legislation, where extensive powers of search, seizure and interrogation can create situations in which the distinction between questioning and custody becomes contested. By focusing on the actual restriction of liberty, the Court has provided a basis for challenging informal detention and attempts to delay judicial oversight.

The ruling also strengthens the role of Magistrates. Its insistence that they record the actual time of detention and independently assess reasonableness can help prevent routine remand orders from legitimising detention that has already violated constitutional or statutory safeguards.

At the same time, the judgment’s practical impact will depend on how these requirements are implemented. Determining the exact moment at which liberty was curtailed may involve factual disputes. Investigating agencies may contend that a person was merely asked to cooperate, was present voluntarily or was not prevented from leaving. The Court’s test will therefore require Magistrates to examine the surrounding circumstances rather than rely on labels or formal records.

Similarly, the requirement that detention be reasonable within 24 hours leaves room for fact-specific judicial assessment. The judgment establishes the principle, but its effectiveness will depend on Magistrates recording reasons and scrutinising the circumstances of detention instead of treating the 24-hour limit as a routine period available to investigating agencies.

Implications for future litigation and human rights advocacy

The ruling provides an important basis for challenging unlawful detention, delayed formal arrests and remand orders that fail to account for the actual period during which an individual was under state control. In bail proceedings, particularly those arising under the NDPS Act, defence lawyers can rely on the judgment where the available facts indicate that an accused person was intercepted, restrained or otherwise prevented from leaving before the formal arrest was recorded. The relevant records may include interception and seizure documents, CCTV footage, station or office registers, statements of witnesses, interrogation records and the arrest memo itself. These can help establish the point at which liberty was effectively curtailed and whether production before the Magistrate took place within the constitutionally permitted period.

The judgment may also be relevant in habeas corpus petitions and proceedings challenging unlawful detention, particularly where investigating authorities deny that a person has been arrested despite exercising effective control over their movements. Its reasoning can be invoked to argue that constitutional safeguards cannot be postponed through the use of alternative descriptions such as questioning, enquiry or temporary investigative detention.

For Magistrates, the judgment provides a clear direction to examine the actual circumstances of detention at the remand stage. For lawyers and human rights organisations, it offers a basis to seek greater transparency in arrest records, challenge unexplained gaps between interception and formal arrest, and demand accountability where individuals are kept in custody without timely judicial scrutiny.

It may also inform advocacy for stronger institutional safeguards against custodial violence, including effective implementation of existing arrest and detention requirements, preservation of relevant records and meaningful compliance with judicial directions concerning custodial accountability.

The Supreme Court’s directions

Applying its interpretation to the facts, the Court found that the appellants’ liberty had been curtailed when they were intercepted at approximately 2 pm on September 29, 2025. They were therefore required to be produced before a Magistrate by 2 pm on September 30, excluding only the necessary journey time. Their production at 4.45 pm on September 30 meant that they had been produced 2 hours and 45 minutes beyond the constitutional deadline. The Court held that their continued detention beyond 2 pm on September 30 was illegal and unconstitutional.

The Court also found the unexplained interval of approximately 18 hours between the completion of the search and seizure at 5 pm on September 29 and the formal recording of arrest the following morning to be unreasonable under Section 58 of the BNSS.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Tripura High Court’s order dated April 29, 2026. It directed that the appellants be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within a maximum period of seven days from the date of the judgment, after which they were to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special Court considered appropriate. The Court also directed that the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, the Registrars General of the High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

SC: Article 142, Mass Amnesties, and the Panchayatisation of the Rule of Law

Goa SIR: Bombay High Court orders ECI to restore names of six voters deleted from final electoral roll

After 22 years under suspicion, Assam’s Kashem Ali declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal

From treating Adivasi communities to being branded an instigator: Odisha jails doctor Randall Sequeira

2020 Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court upholds seven-year sentence for five men in 22-year old Muslim migrant worker’s death

Bombay High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation for man illegally arrested, slams police-developer collusion

The post Supreme Court rejects ‘informal detention’, strengthens safeguards against arbitrary arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.