The current football World Cup is the most expansive in history. It is also the most exclusionary. International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the governing body of world football, has expanded this World Cup (WC) to 48 teams and a total of 104 matches, the most ever.

The post How FIFA is Asphyxiating the Beautiful Game appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, I received a message from someone I had known since my Gandhinagar days, when I represented the Times of India from 1997 to 2012. He wanted to send me the English translation of a memoir he had written: “Homes Without Windows“. Thin, short, and darker in complexion than me, he would occasionally come down to my office in Akhbar Bhawan. His name is Chandu Maheria.

Seen through a middle-class lens, Maheria had an unimpressive personality. But that didn’t concern me. I knew little about his background, except what he had told me — that he worked in the state education department, and if I am not mistaken, in its midday meal section. Whenever I met someone new, I would try to find out whether there was a story in them. Education interested me: that was my selfish reason for talking to him.

Once, speaking on the phone, I asked Maheria to stop by my office on his way home to Gandhinagar, as he said he had a story. I was momentarily hesitant: he would have to arrange a drop to my office and back, since he did not drive a scooter. So I decided to meet him instead in the canteen of the Old Sachivalaya, where he had his office. Meeting him there directly, I felt, was also a better idea than going to his office, which might have exposed his closeness to a journalist.

Much later, after my retirement, I discovered that he was regarded quite a buff — a respected one at that — in Dalit circles: an intellectual and a committed writer, one who could speak extensively on Dalit issues. I saw him speak at meetings at Dalit Shakti Kendra, an empowerment-cum-technical school for teenagers founded by the well-known human rights leader Martin Macwan, located off Ahmedabad. I found him very sharp.

Until I received the book, all I knew about it was that it had been praised by the eminent historian of modern India, Ramachandra Guha, who called it a “truly remarkable and compellingly readable memoir” — a comment that had appeared on Facebook. With the book in hand, I began to randomly glance through it.

But contrary to the anti-Gandhi views prevalent among most Dalit intellectuals across India, this is what I found him stating: “Gandhi might have been anything — call him whatever names — but one thing he was certainly not was anti-Dalit. Oh no, never. Alas!”

This made me take a deeper look at the book and see what Maheria, a Dalit and a firm follower of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, thinks about Gandhi. Though a very reluctant reader, I read through its approximately 230 pages in a couple of sittings.

Largely a personal account, the memoir describes how Maheria spent his early life in extreme poverty, growing up in a working-class chawl of Ahmedabad as the son of a mill worker — until he shifted to Gandhinagar on securing a government job. They lived in what he describes as “the squalid, tumble-down, cheek-by-jowl dwellings in the backstreets of the city, dubbed as the heart of the state.”

Maheria describes how Dalits from different parts of Gujarat had settled in the chawls: “Our chawl was inhabited by the Rohits, people of the tanner caste, who had migrated from Charotar, a large swathe of fertile land covering districts like Kheda and Anand in central Gujarat”, and “the Vankars, people of the weaver caste, from Mehsana, a district in north Gujarat.”

Belonging to different Dalit sub-castes, all of them would daily queue up for the dirty common toilet. He underlines, “A strange thing to say, but it was in these queues that I learnt my first lessons in social inequality.”

According to him, “All these people were extremely beleaguered, a harried lot that had come here to escape poverty, untouchability, oppression and exploitation, and yet they saw hierarchy and hatred as natural ways of being, such that even the slightest breach in the set order resulted in exchanges of expletives and blows.”

Pointing out that “all this cheek was for toilets that were no better than hellholes”, he states, “Though not untouchability in its conventional sense, these practices were rooted in direct discrimination, in an ordained difference between the high and the low, that had seeped right up to the bottom of the caste order.”

Offering an example of intra-Dalit casteism, he gives the example of Neno Ma’raj, a man of the priestly Garoda caste, considered the highest among the Dalits. “A mill worker of no consequence, Ma’raj would, in a blatant exhibition of his caste pride, lay his string cot out on the footpath every evening and lounge there like a maharaja, a veritable badshah holding his royal court.”

He explains, “In his exhaustive, eye-opening study of the forms of untouchability practised by non-Dalits and Dalits (among themselves) in Gujarat, my friend Martin Macwan has pegged the numbers at ninety-eight and ninety-nine, respectively.”

Explaining caste discrimination and related issues through personal anecdotes, Maheria reveals why he believes a section of Dalit intellectuals’ anti-Gandhi stance has gone overboard. None of them, he feels, will admit that no other leader fought untouchability like Gandhiji. Indeed, the book’s chapter “That Fellow, Gandhido” particularly excited me.

Maheria starts by stating that he likes wearing khadi as it suits his “short body and slim build”, and explains why his mother didn’t like it. The fabric was anathema to her. She would take a dig at him, saying, “You look like a ditto Gandhiyo in this pair.” An unlettered woman who had picked up the Gandhi-Ambedkar debate through household conversations, her “pet peeve was, ‘None but that fellow, Gandhiyo is responsible for erecting these caste enclosures’.”

Yet Maheria graphically describes how, growing up in the working-class chawls, much of his early education happened in the suburb’s Municipal School No. 3-4, whose principal was a man called Balawantbhai Parmar. “A Dalit by birth, he was a thorough Gandhian. Clad in khadi kurta and khadi dhoti, with a topping of Gandhi cap, when he moved around, the earth shook. Such a disciplinarian the man was.”

Stating that his “formative years were spent among Gandhian, Ambedkarite and communist activists and their respective liberal-radical activism”, Maheria reminisces about the Gandhians’ “prolific welfare activities and women-centric programmes” of Majoor Mahajan Sangh and Jyoti Sangh, respectively.

He says, “Our lonesome chawls received substantial footfall of Gandhian leaders and activists on an almost daily basis. As a result, the atmosphere in the chawls in general remained electric. I received my pre-primary education in a wonderful, Jyoti Sangh-supported Anganwadi, a childcare centre unlike its present-day, state-funded counterparts that are mired in corruption and inefficiency.”

He continues, “The service-oriented women of the Jyoti Sangh made repeated rounds of the chawls during summer vacations, unbothered about the baking sun overhead or the squalor all around, to persuade Dalit mothers to send their children to the Anganwadi. Little wonder that the image of Jasubehn, our loving Anganwadi teacher, in her signature white khadi saree and a winsome smile about her eyes, has survived intact in my mind after all these years…”

He adds, “It was she who first held my hand and helped me trace the lines of Gujarati alphabets and numerals. It was from her that I first learnt the sarvadharma prarthana, the all-religion prayer so close to Gandhi’s heart.”

Further: “Those ‘sisters’, from posh families and in swank white sarees, plodding the narrow, labyrinthine chawls and selflessly working for the welfare of women and children, had won people’s hearts; the chawlwallahs acknowledged and appreciated their single-minded devotion to service no end.”

One of them, Shantabehn Patel, a senior sister of the Sangh, had made a small-time mill worker her sworn brother, just to rid him of the habit of drinking. “Tying a rakhi on his wrist in the presence of the chawl residents, she had made him promise, placing the life and love of a sister at stake, never to touch liquor again.”

“Today”, he regrets, “when I see small children sell liquor and lurch around in drunken stupor in Rajpur — where Maheria’s chawl stood — a mix of painful realisation and profound remorse weighs me down, that now no upper-caste woman worth her salt will come forward to swear the addicts as her brothers or sons and wean them off the bane of booze.”

Maheria describes how, despite being a consistent topper, he was never given an opportunity to speak publicly at school events, including the school’s prayer assembly. However, he adds, his inborn talent was first spotted and then “lovingly nurtured by those Gandhi pathshalas” that imparted him with “informal, but life-transforming, education.”

“Back then”, he notes, “the Majoor Mahajan Sangh celebrated Gandhi’s birth anniversary and other programmes only in working-class suburbs and with great fanfare… As a part of these celebrations, huge public meetings were held where various competitions for mill workers’ children were organised. True to my temperament and expertise, I participated in elocution and essay-writing competitions…”

During those competitions, he would “win household essentials like hankies, towels and bedsheets.” The “precious lesson” in public speaking and discursive writing he received in the Gandhian institution later made him represent his school in an interschool elocution competition, where he received a copy of ‘The Story of My Experiments with Truth‘ as a prize from Babubhai Patel, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat.

According to Maheria, “Majoor Mahajan Sangh, in those days, was a name to reckon with; it held sway over a large chunk of the public imagination. Leaders of the Sangh like Arvind

According to Maheria, “Majoor Mahajan Sangh, in those days, was a name to reckon with; it held sway over a large chunk of the public imagination. Leaders of the Sangh like Arvind Buch, Shantilal Shah, Manhar Shukla, Navinchandra Barot, and others showed up in the chawls every other day and held public meetings.”

Maheria further recalls, “Those were not the days, unlike today, of every house having a dedicated toilet. The chawlwallahs used public toilets whose squalid condition, in a way, reflected the destiny of those Dalit suburbs. I vividly remember Bhailal Patel, the Gandhian chairman of the municipal corporation’s Health Committee, who was often seen in Rajpur at seven sharp in the morning, literally breathing down the neck of the sanitary worker on duty to clean every single corner and cranny of those reeky, soiled toilets.”

He comments, “I don’t recall if he ever recoiled in disgust or involuntarily curled up his nose while overseeing the execution of that dirty, dishonourable job.” Yet he regrets, “As I grew up, the frequency of the Gandhians’ rounds to our chawls appreciably tapered off.” He points out, “The last time I saw a Gandhian activist pace up and down Dalit chawls was during the anti-reservation riots of 1981; it was Babal Mehta, the last of the thorough Gandhians whose heart was lacerated by the torn social fabric of his city.”

“To put it bluntly”, he comments, “the dicey, dithering position of the Gandhians on the idea of and the movement for reservation became the root cause of their retreat — not only from Rajpur but from emergent Dalit political discourse altogether. It was a turning point in history. A point of departure, more accurately.”

According to Maheria, “In contemporary Dalit discourse, it is a taboo to utter even a few words in favour of Gandhi — for a lay Dalit individual, to say nothing of a Dalit karmashila or writer — so dominant and pervasive is the climate of Gandhi-bashing among Dalits.”

He underlines, “There are some legitimate reasons for it; no one can deny that. But I refuse to be smothered by them. I have criticised Gandhi in no uncertain terms whenever the context justly demanded it, but at the same time I have not turned tail whenever I felt that Gandhi needed to be defended from trumped-up charges.”

Believes Maheria, “The role of the Gandhians in Gujarat during the anti-reservation riots of 1981 morphed the Dalit bitterness towards Gandhiji into deep hatred… Today, things have come to such a pass that one rarely encounters Gandhi’s photograph in a Dalit household, especially in cities… The Gandhians have played no small part in bringing about this sorry situation.”

Yet he firmly believes that it was Gandhiji who “helped place the Dalit question at the centre stage of India’s social and political life”. Indeed, Gandhi “courageously allowed a ‘Harijan’ family to take residence in Kochrab Ashram at the risk of outraging many of his associates and endangering the financial security of the ashram.”

Gandhi’s fight against, suggests Maheria, has had its social impact. Ahead of his retirement in the second half of the 2010s, Maheria was transferred to Dhoraji, a town near Junagadh, which he agreed to accept as it came with a promotion. Here, he writes, “I must confess that none of the people who knew about my being a ‘Harijan’ ever practised untouchability with me. Every day, I took lunch with my non-Dalit colleagues as their equal.”

And yet, he underlines, “The attitude of the upper castes wasn’t above board all the time. For I didn’t even realise when and how my initial residential address in Jamanavad, a non-Dalit area, got changed to Baharpura. In weddings and other social ceremonies, non-Dalit staff invited their Dalit colleagues — but they wouldn’t attend similar events that their Dalit colleagues organised.”

Further, while he was greatly impressed to learn of a common crematorium in the town serving the entire Hindu community, he was shocked to discover that a separate space was earmarked for Dalits to bury their dead. “Thus, though the crematorium was common, it was partitioned along the logic of caste.”

Courtesy: counterview.in

The post The khadi he wore, the Gandhi he kept: A Dalit memoir that refuses easy answers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a judgment that may become an important reference point in India’s continuing debate over liberty and national security, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be indefinitely subordinated to statutory restrictions on bail.

“The appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India need to be balanced and may even trump the restriction imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA,” the Court observed, as per LiveLaw, while setting aside a December 2024 order of the Special NIA Court that had refused bail.

The ruling, however, does not immediately secure Parvez’s freedom. He continues to remain in custody because he is also an accused in a separate NIA case registered in 2020 relating to alleged terror-funding networks in Jammu and Kashmir, where his bail plea remains pending.

The case against Khurram Parvez

Parvez, one of Kashmir’s most internationally recognised human rights defenders, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on November 22, 2021, during an investigation into what the agency described as a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) over ground worker network allegedly operated by a Pakistan-based handler known as Hyder alias Ali alias Yusuf.

Significantly, Parvez was not named in the original FIR registered by the NIA on November 6, 2021. His name emerged during the course of the investigation.

The NIA’s case is that Parvez, while functioning as Programme Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and Chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), was allegedly involved in terrorist conspiracy “in the guise of human rights activism.”

According to the prosecution, Parvez recruited Muneer Ahmad Kataria as an overground worker for Lashkar-e-Taiba and facilitated his introduction to Pakistani handler Hyder. Kataria allegedly recruited another accused, Arshid Ahmad Tonch, creating a chain of operatives linked to the militant organisation.

The agency further alleged that Parvez was involved in gathering sensitive information regarding Indian security installations, army camps, troop movements, road conditions near the Line of Control, and details of military and paramilitary structures. Investigators claimed that information about officers involved in counter-insurgency operations was compiled into dossiers described as “High-Ranking Perpetrators.”

The NIA also relied upon emails allegedly showing contact between Parvez and Pakistani journalists who sought footage of Indian military deployment in Kashmir.

The prosecution further pointed to Parvez’s visits to Pakistan in 2007 and 2015, where he allegedly met Syed Salahuddin, chief of the Hizbul Mujahideen and a designated terrorist. Visiting cards of Hizbul functionaries recovered from JKCCS offices were also cited as incriminating material.

Additionally, the agency alleged that Parvez played an active role during the 2016 protests that followed the killing of militant commander Burhan Wani, accusing him of making speeches including slogans such as “Burhan tere janissar, beyshumaar beyshumaar“, “Go Back India“, and “India go away from Kashmir“. According to the prosecution, these activities promoted separatist sentiment and encouraged unrest.

A separate strand of the prosecution case concerns allegations that Parvez attempted to secure the release of electronic devices seized by investigators through illegal payments routed via Muneer Ahmad Kataria to former NIA Superintendent of Police Arvind Digvijay Negi, who was later arrested in a separate corruption scandal.

The approver at the centre of the case

A critical feature of the High Court’s analysis was the centrality of Muneer Ahmad Kataria, who has since turned approver. In a supplementary chargesheet filed in July 2025, Kataria claimed that he had worked as an NIA informer since 2019 and had known Parvez since 2015. He alleged that Parvez introduced him to Hyder, described him as the “Chief Operating Commander” of the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Jammu and Kashmir module, and facilitated financial and operational links.

Kataria also alleged that Parvez paid him Rs 1.5 lakh to be passed on as a bribe to NIA officer Arvind Digvijay Negi. The High Court acknowledged that these allegations were serious. However, it emphasised that they rested substantially on the testimony of a co-accused who had become an approver and who himself claimed to have been working as an NIA informer.

“While the above statement raises serious allegations against the appellant, these allegations are based on the statement of a co-accused who has since turned approver and who himself claims to be an NIA informer. His evidence is yet to be tested in trial,” the Bench observed in Para 66 of the judgment. That observation became one of the most significant aspects of the judgment.

The Defence: Human rights work, not terrorism

Parvez’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, argued that the prosecution had systematically criminalised legitimate human rights documentation. The defence pointed out that many of the documents cited by investigators—including the “Structure of Violence” report and the “Alleged Perpetrators” report—were publicly available publications that had been released years earlier and remained accessible on the JKCCS website.

The “Structure of Violence” report, published in 2015, documented military and paramilitary structures in Kashmir as part of human rights research. The “Alleged Perpetrators” report, published in 2012, compiled information about officers allegedly implicated in human rights violations, much of it obtained through Right to Information requests.

The Court noted an important fact: the prosecution did not dispute that these documents had been publicly available for years. It further recorded that the “Alleged Perpetrators” report had even been shared with the Indian Army, which publicly responded to it in 2012.

The defence also argued that Parvez’s visits to Pakistan in 2007 and 2015 were undertaken openly, with valid visas, and were part of public advocacy efforts that had long been documented in the public domain.

On the allegations relating to slogans and participation in protests, the defence argued that expressions of political dissent or advocacy of self-determination cannot automatically attract anti-terror provisions unless they cross the threshold into incitement of violence or active involvement in terrorist activity.

The constitutional question

At the heart of the case lay a broader constitutional question that has increasingly confronted Indian courts: can a person accused under UAPA be kept in prison indefinitely while waiting for trial?

Section 43D (5) of the UAPA creates one of India’s toughest bail standards. Courts are ordinarily prohibited from granting bail if the accusations appear prima facie true on the basis of the chargesheet and case diary.

The High Court devoted substantial attention to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on this issue. The Bench revisited and relied upon the landmark decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where the Supreme Court held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail when prolonged incarceration threatens fundamental rights.

Quoting extensively from Najeeb, the High Court reiterated that statutory restrictions “will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.” (Para 52)

The Court also examined the Supreme Court’s more recent judgment in Gulfisha Fatimav, which cautioned that delay alone cannot automatically justify bail in every UAPA case and that courts must conduct a contextual assessment that takes into account the nature of allegations, stage of proceedings, causes of delay and risks associated with release.

Yet the Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s subsequent observations in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, where a three-judge bench strongly reaffirmed the constitutional foundations of bail.

The Supreme Court had observed in Andrabi: “‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is not merely an empty statutory slogan. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.”

Detailed analysis of Andrabi judgment may be read here.

The High Court further noted that although the broader question regarding the relationship between Article 21 and Section 43D (5) has now been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, existing precedent continues to bind constitutional courts.

Four-and-a-half years without trial

The factor that ultimately proved decisive was the extraordinary delay in the proceedings. The Court recorded that Parvez had been incarcerated since November 22, 2021. Despite spending almost four-and-a-half years in prison, the case had not even crossed the stage of arguments on framing charges.

The prosecution proposed to examine 197 witnesses if charges were eventually framed. The Court observed that there was “no likelihood” of the trial concluding in the foreseeable future. The judges therefore considered the allegations, the stage of proceedings, the constitutional guarantee of liberty, and the reality of the judicial process together.

” We have taken note of the above allegations and the defence of the appellant, only to highlight that they must be tested against the long period of incarceration of the appellant and the fact that there is no likelihood of the trial ending soon as also against the yardstick of bail being the rule, while denial thereof being an exception. The appellant‟s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India need to be balanced and may even trump the restriction imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.” (Para 71)

The Court added that continued incarceration under these circumstances raised serious Article 21 concerns.

Disability as an additional ground

The Bench also gave weight to Parvez’s physical disability. Parvez lost his leg in a landmine explosion in Kupwara in 2004 while participating in election-monitoring work and has used a prosthetic limb ever since. Although the NIA argued that his disability had not prevented him from engaging in extensive travel and activism, the Court concluded that his condition nevertheless entitled him to special consideration.

“We are also to keep in mind that the appellant is infirm. Though the learned SPP has emphasised that his infirmity has not deterred the appellant from still indulging in activities, which he describes as being anti-national, the fact remains that the appellant is infirm and deserves that special consideration,” the Bench held in Para 73.

Bail granted, but under strict conditions

Having balanced the seriousness of the allegations against constitutional concerns arising from prolonged incarceration, the Court granted bail. The conditions imposed are extensive.

Parvez must furnish a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two sureties, surrender his passport, remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi unless granted permission to travel, appear before the trial court whenever required, and report periodically to investigators.

He is prohibited from contacting witnesses, tampering with evidence, making public statements about the merits of the case, or engaging in activities that could prejudice the trial. Among the more notable conditions is a prohibition on uploading, sharing, disseminating or circulating any “anti-national material” through social media or other platforms. The Court also clarified that any violation of the conditions could result in cancellation of bail.

A significant UAPA bail ruling

The judgment arrives at a moment when courts across India are grappling with a growing tension between national-security legislation and constitutional guarantees of liberty. Rather than deciding whether the allegations against Parvez are true or false, the Delhi High Court repeatedly emphasised that such questions must ultimately be resolved at trial.

Its focus was narrower but constitutionally significant: whether an individual can remain imprisoned for years while a trial remains nowhere near completion.

The Court’s answer was clear.

Even in prosecutions involving terrorism allegations, constitutional courts cannot ignore prolonged incarceration. While the allegations against Parvez remain serious and continue to be contested, the Bench concluded that constitutional guarantees of liberty, speedy trial, and due process cannot become casualties of an endlessly delayed prosecution. As the Court put it, Article 21 may, in appropriate cases, “even trump” the restrictions imposed by the UAPA.

The complete judgement may be read below:

Previous reports on the cases against Khurram Parvez may be read here.

Related:

50 HR groups appeal for unconditional release of Khurram Parvez, Irfan Meraj

MEA lashes out against OHCHR comment on Khurram Parvez’s arrest

Kashmir based human rights activist Khurram Parvez arrested

Khurram Parvez is still in jail despite court’s release order due to ‘minor clerical error’

The post Article 21 May Trump UAPA Bail Bar: Delhi High Court grants bail to Kashmiri rights defender Khurram Parvez after 4½ years in jail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The government presents the exercise as a necessary response to illegal immigration, demographic change and national security concerns. Yet mounting evidence from court proceedings, media investigations, government directives and testimonies from affected families raises a more troubling picture: one in which due process protections appear increasingly fragile, citizenship verification procedures are often opaque, and Bengali-speaking Muslims bear the overwhelming burden of suspicion.

Detailed report may be read here.

At the heart of the controversy, lies a fundamental constitutional question: can the Indian state pursue such detention and immigration enforcement while bypassing the procedural safeguards that protect individuals from arbitrary detention, wrongful deportation and statelessness? Two, without this due process of either established legal norms or procedures not enquiries/investigations into who these illegal immigrants are, is such action not arbitrary and without foundation?

The missing data and the transparency deficit

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current deportation drive is not merely the scale of the exercise but the extraordinary lack of transparency surrounding it. Across Assam, West Bengal, Gujarat and other states, governments have announced deportations, detention drives and large-scale verification exercises. Yet even today, there is no publicly available dataset identifying who has been classified as an undocumented migrant, from which districts they were picked up, what evidence was relied upon, whether nationality was independently verified, how many individuals challenged those determinations, how many continue to remain in detention centres, and how many have ultimately been deported.

This absence of information is particularly striking because the consequences of these decisions are so severe. Deportation is among the most coercive powers exercised by the state. It can separate families, extinguish livelihoods, result in prolonged detention and, in some cases, leave individuals stranded in a country they insist is not their own. Yet the public is being asked to accept the legitimacy of the process without access to even the most basic information about how it is being carried out.

The opacity is all the more difficult to justify because the Union governments own deportation policy appears to contemplate extensive record keeping and reporting requirements. The policy submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs before the Supreme Court requires state governments to maintain records of individuals handed over for deportation, submit mandatory reports to the Union government, and provides that the Bureau of Immigration shall publish information relating to deported Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingyas on a public portal for verification purposes.

Yet little of this information is publicly accessible. Speaking to Al Jazeera, civil rights activist and CJP Secretary Teesta Setalvad argued that the present campaign appears to be driven more by political rhetoric than publicly available evidence. “Even today the authorities have not made available exactly who, which families, from which locations have been identified as illegal immigrants, on what basis and assessment and then sent back,” she said. “There is also an element of targeting specific sections, particular communities.”

Her criticism points to a fundamental problem: In the absence of publicly available data, independent scrutiny becomes nearly impossible. It is impossible to assess whether those being detained and deported are in fact undocumented migrants, whether particular communities are being disproportionately targeted, whether established procedures are being followed, or whether wrongful deportations are taking place.

The demand for transparency is therefore not a procedural technicality. It lies at the heart of democratic accountability. If governments are confident that deportations are being carried out lawfully, after proper verification and in accordance with due process, then there is a compelling public interest in releasing comprehensive data regarding those detained, those housed in holding centres, those whose nationality has been verified, and those who have ultimately been deported.

Until such information is made available, one of the most far-reaching citizenship and deportation exercises in recent Indian history will continue to operate largely beyond meaningful public scrutiny.

From political slogan to state policy

For decades, the BJP has built its political narrative in eastern India around the issue of “illegal infiltration” from Bangladesh. The party has repeatedly argued that large-scale migration has altered the demographic composition of border states, strained public resources and created security vulnerabilities.

The issue has occupied a central place in BJP campaigns in Assam, West Bengal and Tripura. Senior BJP leaders, including Union Home Minister Amit Shah, have frequently described undocumented migrants from Bangladesh as a threat to national security and demographic stability. During previous election campaigns, Shah famously referred to illegal migrants as “termites“, a phrase that drew widespread criticism from civil society groups and human rights organisations. Report in The Hindu.

Following the BJP’s victory in West Bengal, these political commitments quickly evolved into administrative action. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari announced the implementation of a “detect, delete and deport” framework under which individuals identified as illegal migrants would be detained by state authorities and transferred directly to the Border Security Force (BSF) for deportation, as per Hindustan Times. The announcement was accompanied by instructions to establish holding centres across districts and create a streamlined mechanism for identifying and removing alleged infiltrators. What was once campaign rhetoric had become state policy.

The creation of a national deportation architecture

The developments in West Bengal are not occurring in isolation. According to documents reported by The Hindu, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has formulated a comprehensive deportation policy requiring states to establish district-level special task forces for the identification, detention and deportation of alleged illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. However, before the Supreme Court of India, in the ongoing Rajubala Das v. Union of India case, the deportation policy submitted before the Courts hays down more tested procedures. The same has been explained below.

The policy directs states to:

• Create dedicated holding centres or camps for undocumented migrants awaiting deportation.
• Establish a time-bound mechanism for identification and nationality verification.
• Upload biometric information and demographic data onto the Foreigners Identification Portal.
• Cancel government-issued identity documents obtained by individuals determined to be illegal migrants.
• Maintain monthly reports regarding foreigners who are untraceable, detained or awaiting deportation.
• Coordinate with central agencies to facilitate removals.

The guidelines envision a nationwide infrastructure capable of processing large numbers of suspected migrants. Holding centres are to be enclosed by ten-foot boundary walls and barbed-wire fencing. Detainees are to remain confined pending verification of nationality and completion of deportation procedures.

Although the policy states that these facilities should provide humane living conditions, medical care, educational facilities for children, communication access and recreational space, rights groups argue that the rapid expansion of detention infrastructure signals a shift towards normalising large-scale administrative detention.

A policy contradiction at the heart of the deportation drive

One of the most striking aspects of the current deportation campaign is the apparent tension between the procedures explained above and the deportation framework that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs itself placed on record before the Supreme Court.

In the Rajubala Das v. Union of India proceedings before the Supreme Court, the MHA submitted an affidavit setting out a detailed deportation policy governing the treatment of alleged undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingyas. That policy envisages a structured process involving coordination between state governments, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, foreign missions and designated border-guarding forces. Crucially, it recognises that nationality cannot be assumed unilaterally and that nationality verification is a necessary component of the deportation process.

The policy specifically provides that where an alleged undocumented Bangladeshi national or Rohingya is arrested, their details are to be furnished to the Ministry of External Affairs so that the matter can be taken up with the Bangladesh High Commission or the Myanmar Embassy for nationality verification. The stated purpose is to enable the foreign government concerned to process and verify the individual’s nationality before deportation is carried out.

The same policy also requires state governments to maintain records of all individuals handed over for deportation and submit mandatory monthly reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs. It further provides that the Bureau of Immigration shall publish a list of deported Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingyas on a public portal for verification purposes.

This raises a serious question: If the deportation policy submitted before the Supreme Court contemplates nationality verification through diplomatic channels, maintenance of detailed records, mandatory reporting and publication of deportation data, how do these safeguards square with reports of alleged pushbacks, summary removals and immediate send-backs at the border?

The question becomes even more pressing in light of report that Bangladeshi and Myanmar nationals intercepted at land or maritime borders may be “immediately sent back” after their biometrics are recorded. The apparent gap between the procedures described before the Supreme Court and practices now being reported on the ground deserves far greater public scrutiny.

Detailed report on the Rajubala case may be read here.

Holding centres become operational

The practical implementation of this framework is already underway. Malda became the first district in West Bengal to operationalise a holding centre under the new policy. The facility initially housed nine individuals identified as suspected Bangladeshi nationals, including women and children.

Officials, as per The Indian Express, described the centre as a temporary facility where detainees would remain while their nationality and immigration status were verified.

However, rights advocates point out that detention itself can become punitive when individuals are confined before citizenship disputes are conclusively resolved. This concern is especially significant in border regions where documentation is often incomplete, where migration has historically occurred across fluid borders, and where linguistic and cultural similarities between Indians and Bangladeshis complicate nationality determinations.

West Bengal

West Bengal is the epicentre of the current drive. According to Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, the state has already deported 4,800 alleged undocumented Bangladeshi migrants through newly established holding centres in border districts. Another 836 people were reportedly being held awaiting deportation as of early June 2026, as per The Times of India.

The government has also established an expanding network of detention facilities. Initial reports indicated that 11 holding centres had been created across the state and were housing at least 335 detainees, while later reports from Malda alone suggested more than 150 detainees had already been transferred there from North 24 Parganas district.

Government officials have presented these numbers as evidence of successful enforcement. However, the figures raise significant questions. If nearly 5,000 people have been removed within weeks of the BJP assuming office, it remains unclear how many cases involved completed nationality verification by Bangladesh, how many individuals received access to legal representation, and how many removals were subject to judicial scrutiny.

Gujarat

The largest publicly reported operation outside eastern India occurred in Gujarat. Under “Operation Delta Hunt”, authorities investigated approximately 6,200 individuals and identified 362 people as alleged illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, as per The Hindu. Of these, 166 were identified in Ahmedabad alone, including women and children. Authorities also stated that investigations into hundreds of additional cases were continuing.

The Gujarat government has further indicated that it intends to prosecute employers and landlords accused of sheltering undocumented migrants.

Assam

Unlike West Bengal and Gujarat, the Assam story is not primarily reflected through new numerical announcements but through litigation. Throughout 2025 and 2026, several habeas corpus petitions before the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court challenged alleged “pushback” operations involving Bengali-speaking Muslims who claimed Indian citizenship. The significance of Assam lies not merely in the number of people detained but in the emergence of documented allegations that Indian citizens were wrongly identified as foreigners and transported towards the Bangladesh border.

Citizens for Justice and Peace provides legal aid in some cases, details may be read here, here and here.

The Assam cases effectively became the warning sign for what now may happen on a larger scale in West Bengal.

The May 2025 Assam crisis report may be read here.

National figures

At the national level, according to The Hindu, the Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed that India has asked Bangladesh to verify the nationality of more than 2,860 individuals whom Indian authorities believe to be Bangladeshi nationals residing illegally in India.

Simultaneously, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has directed states to establish district-level mechanisms for the identification, detention and deportation of alleged undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar, suggesting that the campaign is being institutionalised nationwide rather than remaining confined to border states.

The human cost of wrongful deportation

Few cases illustrate the dangers of inadequate verification more clearly than that of Sunali Khatun. Reported extensively by BBC News, Khatun, a Bengali-speaking Muslim woman from West Bengal, was detained in Delhi alongside her husband and young son on suspicion of being an undocumented migrant. Authorities alleged that she lacked proof of lawful residence and initiated deportation proceedings. According to her account, officials failed to properly verify her claim that she was an Indian citizen from West Bengal. She, her husband and child were subsequently transported to Bangladesh. Once there, Bangladeshi authorities treated them as illegal entrants and imprisoned them. The family spent months in detention.

Detailed report on this case may be read here.

Only after intervention by the Supreme Court was Sunali permitted to return to India on humanitarian grounds while her citizenship claims continue to be examined. Her husband remains stranded in Bangladesh.  The case exposed the potentially catastrophic consequences of administrative errors in citizenship determination. A mistaken deportation is not simply an immigration decision. It can separate families, result in imprisonment in another country and effectively strip individuals of their nationality.

Due process concerns

The central criticism of the current deportation campaign is not that states lack authority to remove foreign nationals. Every sovereign state possesses the power to regulate immigration and deport individuals who are unlawfully present. The issue instead concerns the process by which such determinations are being made.

Under established principles of administrative fairness and constitutional governance, individuals facing deportation should ordinarily have:

• Notice of the allegations against them.
• Access to documentary evidence.
• An opportunity to challenge adverse findings.
• Legal representation.
• Independent verification of nationality.
• Judicial oversight where fundamental rights are implicated.

The recent practices, however, often fall short of these standards. Reports from Assam and West Bengal suggest that detention frequently precedes verification rather than following it. In several cases, families have alleged that individuals were forced to prove citizenship after already being taken into custody. Such an approach effectively reverses the burden of proof and creates significant risks of wrongful exclusion.

Detailed report on deportation process may be read here.

Religious selectivity and the Citizenship Amendment Act

The controversy is further complicated by the interaction between deportation policy and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The CAA provides a pathway to citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India before the prescribed cut-off date. Muslims are excluded.

Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has repeatedly emphasised that communities covered by the CAA will not face action under the deportation framework. Those outside its protection, however, remain vulnerable to detention and deportation. Two individuals entering India under similar circumstances may face radically different legal consequences depending upon their religious identity.

This concern is particularly acute because the overwhelming majority of those targeted by current deportation drives are Bengali-speaking Muslims.

Bangladesh pushes back

The crackdown has also generated significant diplomatic friction. Bangladesh has repeatedly objected to what it describes as attempts by Indian authorities to push individuals across the border without completing formal nationality verification procedures.

As per The Indian Express, Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) officials have publicly stated that they blocked numerous attempts by Indian authorities to send individuals into Bangladesh without prior verification.

Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser, Shama Obaid, has stated that Dhaka has repeatedly communicated its concerns to New Delhi and insisted that existing bilateral mechanisms must be followed. The position of Bangladesh is straightforward: no person should be accepted unless their nationality has first been verified. India officially maintains that deportations occur only through established procedures.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal has stated that India has submitted details of more than 2,860 suspected Bangladeshi nationals to Dhaka for verification. Yet the persistence of Bangladeshi objections suggests continuing disagreements regarding implementation.

The demography committee

The deportation drive is now being supplemented by a broader effort to study demographic change. The Union Government recently established a high-level committee chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar to examine demographic shifts allegedly caused by illegal migration and other factors. The committee’s mandate extends beyond research.

It has been tasked with recommending systems for identifying, detaining and deporting undocumented migrants and proposing mechanisms for strengthening border management and population monitoring. Its creation fulfils a commitment made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and reflects the growing centrality of demographic concerns within government policy.

However, the language surrounding the committee has generated concern. Government statements describe demographic change arising from migration as an “unnatural” phenomenon and a “monumental challenge”. Such framing risks treating entire communities as demographic threats rather than as individuals possessing rights and legal protections.

Detailed report may be read here.

A constitutional test

India unquestionably has the authority to regulate immigration and remove foreign nationals who have entered or remained unlawfully. But citizenship determination is among the most consequential exercises of state power.

A mistaken arrest can be corrected. A mistaken deportation can leave a person stateless, imprisoned in a foreign country or permanently separated from family members. The experiences documented in Assam, the wrongful deportation allegations, Bangladesh’s repeated protests over alleged pushbacks, the establishment of detention infrastructure across West Bengal and the government’s push towards a nationwide deportation architecture collectively point to a deeper concern. The issue is no longer merely immigration enforcement.

It is whether the Indian state can pursue that objective while respecting the constitutional guarantees of fairness, equality and due process. As detention centres multiply, deportations accelerate and citizenship verification becomes increasingly securitised, the challenge confronting India is not simply identifying who belongs. It is ensuring that, in the process of deciding who does not, the state does not abandon the rule of law itself.

Related:

India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims

Gauhati HC orders clarity after state cites deportation of ‘Wrong Doyjan’ in alleged ‘pushback’ case, demands specific reply on her whereabouts

SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order

Contradictory Calls: SC halts one Tamil refugee’s deportation, denies another citing ‘not a Dharamshala’

Gauhati HC directs State to confirm custody or deportation of two men detained in midnight police action in Assam

Assam govt to SC: 33/63 of those marked for ‘deportation’ are contesting ‘foreigner’ status in courts

The post Who decides who belongs? Detention, deportation and the crisis of due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Signed by the superintending archaeologist, ASI Vadodara Circle, the letter dated June 10 (Wednesday), accessed by the newspaper, is addressed to the Bharuch collector and district magistrate, and requests that “necessary steps” be taken to safeguard the Jami Masjid, a centrally protected monument, ahead of a large “gathering” planned by a right-wing organisation named Rashtriya Dharohar Sanrakshan Samiti (RDSS). The RDSS has been coordinating signature drives and public events in Bharuch since May 18, as part of a “campaign to reclaim” the centuries-old Sunni mosque as a Jain religious site.

ASI letter

The letter, describes Bharuch Jami Masjid as a living Monument of National Importance, listed under the Gazette Notification dated May 26, 1909. The ASI letter refers to information it has received from Maulana Qureshi Gulam Mustafa, President of the Jami Masjid, and notes that videos and messages circulating on social media platforms were calling on people to assemble in large numbers at the protected monument, and flagged the possibility of an untoward incident given the sensitive nature of the site.

The letter states, “…there is a possibility of a large gathering at the protected monument on June 15 and videos are getting viral in the social media platforms… As the monument is sensitive in nature, there is a likelihood of an untoward incident. Such gatherings may also pose a risk to the communal harmony and physical damage to the monument.”

Citing Article 49 of the Constitution of India, which places a direct obligation on the State to protect every monument or place of artistic or historic interest declared by Parliament to be of national importance, the letter also states Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958, which requires the Collector to make due provision for the protection of such a monument from pollution or desecration.

Pirana Durgah, Gujarat

This is not the only site under attack and challenge by the majoritarian right-wing. Gujarat’s 600 year old Pirana Dargah has seen a similar aggressive attack and the matter is contested. Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Jami Masjid trustees

On Thursday, multiple representations were filed by the trustees of Jami Masjid with the Bharuch district administration and the police, citing serious apprehension about public order ahead of the June 15 gathering. In the representation, the trustees have pointed out that the Jami Masjid has functioned as an active Muslim place of worship for several generations and is also a registered Waqf. The trustees have submitted that “a campaign disputing the religious character of the monument has been gaining traction on social media over the past several months,” and flagged specific incidents, such as the March 3, 2026, incident of an alleged attempt to perform non-Muslim religious rituals within the monument premises.

The ASI had already requested adequate security arrangements and preventive measures from district authorities following that incident. The ASI has now also asked the district collector to unlock the exit gate of the monument on Fridays, to permit the continuance of religious observances by the Muslim community, referring to a September 2025 letter in this regard.

Bharuch District Collector N K Gavhane told this newspaper that the district administration is coordinating with all relevant agencies and that the situation remains under control. He said, “The monument is managed and protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. There is no law-and-order situation. Bharuch Superintendent of Police (SP) office, Sub-Divisional Magistrate office, and the ASI are maintaining it. We have appealed to people to refrain from making any generalised comments about the monument or believing in rumours and misunderstandings. ASI is a competent authority to decide about the monument.”

On Thursday, June 11, the trustees requested that the administration immediately prohibit all rallies, assemblies, and processions near the monument, enforce existing notifications under the Gujarat Police Act, deploy adequate police personnel, and initiate criminal proceedings against those spreading inflammatory content on social media. “If timely action is not taken and any untoward incident occurs the full responsibility will rest with the administrative and police machinery concerned,” the representation stated.

Related:

Sambhal, UP: ASI has no records to prove that Shahi Jama Masjid was built after demolishing earlier structure

Faiz-e-Ilahi Masjid, Turkman Gate: A court-ordered demolition, midnight policing, stone-pelting, arrests, and the ongoing legal battle

The post ASI, Gujarat: Will Bharuch’s 700 year old Jama Masjid be the next target of right-wing saffron grab and terror? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The idea of a UCC in India has been debated for decades including within the Constituent Assembly itself, but its recent passage in BJP-governed states has reignited the question of whether this reform is genuinely about protecting women’s rights across communities, or is it primarily a political tool aimed at communalising what is, at its core, a secular problem of gender justice. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has openly linked the passage of the UCC to the BJP-RSS ideological project, stating that, “Had I not been a BJP CM and a swayamsevak of RSS, probably I would not have been able to bring the UCC to the assembly.” Interestingly Sarma currently serving as the 15th Chief Minister of Assam was a former member of the Indian National Congress (INC) who joined the BJP only on August 23, 2015!

‘Uniform Civil Code or Gender Justice?’ was the question raised around thirty-two years ago by the 1994 cover story of Communalism Combat. Teesta Seetalvad wrote:

“Through its constant argument that enacting a uniform civil code will bring about national integration, the Sangh Parivar has succeeded in making many Hindus believe that, one, only “separatist-minded” Muslims are opposed to a uniform law, and, two, the uniform civil code will only affect Muslims.”

Remarkably, that observation remains just as germane today. What this narrative however ignores is one, the call to do away with several practices, including polygamy, have come from Muslim women themselves (all while the BJP has adopted this issue as one of its own), and, two, all personal laws irrespective of religion have an-anti woman bias. Reported the Hindustan Times. Practices such as restitution of conjugal rights and the absence of no-fault divorce have existed in many religious communities. The broad powers granted to testators to will away property have long enabled the disinheritance of vulnerable family members across many faiths. The 2018 Law Commission report suggested that the legislature first consider guaranteeing equality within communities‘ between men and women, rather than equality between communities while suggesting that personal law reform over a UCC is recommended.

“Various aspects of prevailing personal laws disprivilege women. This Commission is of the view that it is discrimination and not difference which lies at the root of inequality,” the report read.

What the Bill changes 

The Bill aims to unify all personal family laws, including issues related to marriage, divorce, intestate and testamentary succession, and live-in relationships within the State of Assam. It applies to all residents of the state; including those living outside its territories, but it specifically excludes members of any Scheduled Tribes.

It sets uniform conditions for a valid marriage, including a minimum age of 21 for men and 18 for women, replacing the varying thresholds that existed under some personal laws. The religious ceremony through which a marriage is solemnised (whether a Saptapadi, Nikah, Holy Union, Anand Karaj, or any other recognised rite) remains valid and untouched.

The Bill explicitly prohibits polygamy; however, this is not a novel change as only last year, Assam had passed a law banning polygamy across the state. The UCC also standardises the list of prohibited relationships. This has an impact on Muslim personal law, which permitted marriage between first cousins.

Compulsory registration of all marriages within sixty days of the ceremony is introduced for the first time as a uniform requirement though several states, notably Maharashtra had introduced a separate law for this in 1999 while retaining personal laws (Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998). Failure to register attracts penalties, though importantly the UCC clarifies that non-registration does not by itself render a marriage invalid. The Bill also establishes procedures for judicial separation and the restitution of conjugal rights. The framework provides standardised grounds for divorce (such as cruelty, desertion, or mutual consent) and extrajudicial methods of dissolving a marriage or unilateral divorce are no longer legally recognised for any community. Maintenance during the pendency of proceedings and permanent alimony after a decree are available to either spouse, again, without any community-specific distinction.

The UCC’s most far-reaching provisions concern succession, where it departs most sharply from the existing personal laws of several communities. It defines a clear ‘Order of Preference’ for how property is distributed when a person dies without a Will. Class-1 heirs (including the spouse, children, and parents) generally succeed simultaneously and take equal shares. For a detailed understanding of this, read a previous analysis by Citizens for Justice and Peace here

Lack of stakeholder consultation 

Hasina Khan and Mridul Kaintura writing for Sabrang India in 2024 noted that conservative and orthodox religious leaders had failed their community as they sought to control their bodies under the guise of protecting the religion. However, they also wrote, “Despite spearheading the movement to bring reforms within our own communities, including the formulation of Nikah-Nama, protesting against fatwas and advocating reforms in discriminatory personal laws, the state has never taken any steps to hear our concerns and protect our rights effectively,” they added.

The UCC Bill was cleared without con­sult­ing any minor­ity organ­isa­tions who had demanded further consultations before the Bill was passed. Beyond the absence of consultations, even the text of the Bill was not placed in the public domain, despite the 2014 circular mandating that draft legislation be made publicly available for at least thirty days to invite comments and feedback. The Bill was vetted by the Assam Cabinet only May 12 before it was introduced on May 25 in the State Assembly and passed on May 27 after about five hours of discussion and debate. As per reports in both The Hindu and The Shillong Times.

The manner in which the Assam government pushed through the UCC Bill is not an isolated instance but reflective of a growing pattern across India where major legislative changes are introduced with little transparency and minimal consultation with those most affected. Similar criticisms accompanied the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, and the Delimitation Bill.

CM Sarma in fact went on record to say that Congress’s opposition does not matter because except one Congress MLA, rest of the 18 MLAs represent a particular religion.  He was referring to eighteen of the 19 MLAs of Congress, the largest opposition party, who are Muslims. This brazen vocal exclusion and segregation of elected representatives of the religious minorities bodes ill for any representative and participative democracy. Reported in The Times of India.

Dr Noorjehan Safia Niaz, co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, had said last December that her organisation had twenty-five points specifically relating to Muslims that must be included in any UCC, among them the preservation of mehr (the compulsory payment by the husband to the wife upon marriage, which provides a measure of financial security). The Bill does not incorporate any of the positive and progressive aspects of Muslim personal law. The mehr, nikahnama (which allows spouses to negotiate mutually agreed and legally enforceable conditions in the marriage contract) have completely omitted or left out, as has the one-third limit rule on willing away property for the first spouse and children, which served as a protection against complete disinheritance. The practice of khula, through which a Muslim woman may initiate divorce on grounds such as irreconcilable differences, neglect, or lack of financial support, has not been codified and extended to all women representing a missed opportunity to give every woman a meaningful right to exit a marriage independently. Such legislative exclusion is reflective of a majoritarian bias through exclusion that fails to introduce or include cultural-religious norms from varied communities that are or maybe progressive. As per a report in reddif.com.

The restitution of conjugal rights, which legally compels an unwilling spouse to return to cohabitation, and in the case of a wife could expose her to the risk of rape and forcible pregnancy, has also been retained at a time when its constitutional validity is actively challenged before the Supreme Court and the 21st Law Commission Report recommended its removal. The Bill is entirely silent on custody, and guardianship which are the areas in which Hindu law and Mohammedan law (after seven years of age) gender-based discrimination has been extensively commented upon as the guardianship of a minor boy or unmarried girl vests in the father before the mother.

Had the government followed stakeholder consultations and the Law Commission’s recommendations, would a Bill ostensibly rooted in gender justice have overlooked such regressive practices?

“Instead of maintaining a silence on all these anti-women and pro-men or pro-Hindu provisions of family laws, should not the debate on reforms in family laws be re-framed by secularists incorporating all these arguments with a correct perspective?” had asked Setalvad in 1994.

Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes

In a report in The Times of India, the most glaring contradiction in a supposedly uniform code is the blanket exemption granted to Scheduled Tribes. As per the last census (which was over 15 years ago!), 12.4 per cent of Assam’s population constitute of scheduled tribes meaning their exclusion removes a significant section of the state’s residents from the scope of legislation. When asked to justify this, CM Sarma reportedly stated that,

“Medicine will be given where there is illness… UCC will give radiotherapy, chemotherapy where there is cancer. Where there is no cancer, there is no necessity of giving radiotherapy.”

“Whether we bring UCC or not, our tribal people never accept polygamy … Our tribal people give equal rights to girls, they do not accept live-in relations. Self regulation is the best regulation. If Hindu and Muslim societies also had customary rights like tribals and our society would have been tied together with equal rights like them, maybe a UCC would not have been required for anyone,” he added.

In his speech in the House, he also stated that the society rarely sees distressed or neglected women within tribal societies, like that of the Shah Bano case because through their customary rights and customary courts, these communities had already been regulating their social systems.

This stance is perhaps ignorant of first, the socio-economic status of tribal women and how that could affect their access to courts and second, the available data and judicial record! Were consultations with tribal women held for the State to arrive at this conclusion?

According to the International Institute for Population Sciences, compared to the national average of 1.4 per cent (NFHS-5), the rate of polygamy was 2.4 among STs. Tribal communities have also historically opposed women’s inheritance rights on the grounds that recognising such rights would result in land being alienated to non-tribals through inter-community marriage. As per reports in The Print and the Hindustan Times.

There are also cases where tribal women have knocked on the doors of courts! In Gopal Singh Bhumij v. Giribala Bhumij (1990), a ST woman who sought the partition of her father’s property, was denied the same by the Patna High Court as she was bound by tribal custom, which excluded daughters from inheritance. In Smt. Butaki Bai v. Sukhbati (2005), a daughter of the Halba tribe similarly failed to obtain inheritance rights because she could not provide sufficient evidence of Hinduisation. In Ram Dev Ram v. Dhani Ram (2016), a daughter of the Uraon tribe was denied inheritance rights because she did not follow the tribal custom. All of this demonstrates that customary tribal law is neither beyond scrutiny nor inherently gender-just.

“What does uniform mean?… The content of this large Bill does not align with its title. Because to be uniform, it has to be the same for everyone staying in this state. I have no objection with someone being left out from it, I respect all tribes and communities, but the name should be changed… The CM and the other MLAs have been talking about ‘rights’ being secured by the Bill, but in that case, aren’t the women of those who are being left out being deprived of their rights?” said MLA Jakir Sikdar. As per a report in the Indian Express.

Mandatory registration of live-in relationships

One of the most controversial features of the recent UCC framework is its mandatory registration framework for live-in relationships which is a significant expansion of state and community oversight into intimate relationships. This applies even if the partners are residents of Assam living outside the state territories. Partners in such a relationship are obligated to submit a statement to the Sub-Registrar; who then conducts a summary inquiry, and must either register the relationship and issue a certificate or refuse to register with written reasons within thirty days. If either partner is below twenty-one years of age, the Sub-Registrar is legally obligated to inform their parents or guardians. In all cases, a copy of the statement is forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the local police station. Third parties are also permitted to provide information or file complaints regarding unregistered live-in relationships.

This means that a woman may marry at eighteen without parental consent, but must wait until twenty-one to enter a live-in relationship without triggering mandatory parental notification. This inconsistency is difficult to justify on any coherent principle of personal autonomy, nor has the State done its bit to explain the reason behind it.

“These are also matters concerning Muslim women, who may once again find themselves subjected to suffering at the hands of the institution of family, the state, and third parties. Here, the third party could be the involvement of any institution, from community Khaps, Jamaats to even Fatwa-judgements. The punitive measures after being unable to register the live-in relationships are in no way a protective measure but to further surveil the relationships that challenge the institution of marriage,” wrote Khan and Kaintura for Sabrang.

The Uttarakhand UCC Rules also require individuals seeking registration of a live-in relationship to furnish certification from a religious leader or community representative. In January 2025, CJP raised concerns that such rules “make it practically impossible for interfaith or inter–caste individuals to be in a live-in relationship. The requirement of religious sanction for two consenting adults to enter a live-in relationship defeats the principle of secularism provided in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.”

The UCC Rules for Assam are expected to be formulated within six months of Presidential assent. One will have to wait and see whether such draconian provisions are a part of the Assam UCC Rules too. On his X, Biswa has already linked the UCC as a panacea from ‘Love Jihad’ signaling the intent to regulate and restrict inter-faith relationships.

This is consistent with a rising trend across India where anti-conversion laws along with the mandatory public notice provisions of the Special Marriage Act, and now the UCC, create records that right-wing and Hindutva vigilante groups use to track and harass interfaith couples. Reports of young couples being attacked, or forcibly separated have become disturbingly common. Read weaponisation of laws to prevent interfaith marriages in Uttrakhand here. Stated a report in The Polis Project.

This was precisely what CJP tried to address when it challenged the constitutional validity of various State enactments regulating religious conversion. Read detailed reports here and here. By forwarding relationship data directly to police stations and permitting third-party complaints, has arguably created a fresh infrastructure for exactly this kind of extra-legal intimidation.

The Bill also maintains a complete silence on the rights of queer and transgender persons within the family, their rights to marry, and their inheritance and succession rights. In a country where the legal recognition of same-sex relationships remains contested and transgender persons continue to face pervasive discrimination, the UCC’s failure to even acknowledge their existence within the family law framework is a profound omission that no claim to progressiveness can easily paper over.

Conclusion

Women across every community have demanded reforms in personal law for decades. That is not the contention here. The concern, however, is that the UCC in name of reform is plausibly being deployed as a selective intervention that leaves comparable inequalities untouched and exempts a portion of the population on grounds it refuses to apply consistently. By introducing registration of live-in relationships, surveillance mechanisms are introduced that go against the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution and judgments by the Supreme Court.

Reports indicate that Madhya Pradesh is next in line and consultations have already begun. A law that is serious about gender justice would incorporate the best practices from every community and also address the silences around queer persons, HUFs, guardianship, and resist the temptation to use intimate relationships as a theatre for communal politics. By these measures, the Assam, Gujarat and Uttrakhand UCCs as passed have already fallen significantly short. Reported The Hindu.

The full draft of The Uniform Civil Code, Assam, 2026 can be accessed here

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Tanishka Shah)

Related:

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of Uttarakhand: Advancement in gender justice or violating individual liberties?

Calls for Uniform Civil Code, Population Control Bill by Right-Wing groups amplified with divisive rhetoric

Destroying the basic standards of legislation- the Uttarakhand Model of UCC

The post Assam Becomes Third State to Adopt UCC: Reform for Gender Justice or Communal Politics? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on May 29, 2026, represents a comprehensive rejection of the allegations that formed the basis of nearly six years of investigation into the news portal’s foreign investment transactions. The Court not only found that the allegations failed to disclose the commission of any cognisable offence but went considerably further, characterising the proceedings as mala fide, arbitrary and an abuse of investigative powers directed against independent journalism.

The Court observed:

“Not only are the present proceedings only mala fide, but also an arbitrary attack and abuse of powers on the free and impartial journalism of the Petitioners.” (Para 121)

The finding is remarkable both for its breadth and for the language employed by the Court. While courts frequently examine the legality of investigations, it is comparatively rare for a constitutional court to explicitly connect the exercise of investigative powers with concerns regarding press freedom and the functioning of independent media.

The Background: Foreign investment, criminal allegations and ED action

The case arose out of an investment received by PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., the company operating NewsClick, from US-based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC.

According to the allegations, NewsClick received approximately USD 1.5 million, amounting to around ₹9.59 crore, in April 2018 through a share subscription arrangement. The EOW alleged that the shares had been deliberately overvalued in order to circumvent restrictions governing foreign direct investment in news media entities. It was further alleged that the funds received through the investment were siphoned away through salaries, consultancy fees, rent and other operational expenditures.

Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered in August 2020 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Shortly thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), treating the offences alleged in the FIR as scheduled offences capable of triggering a money laundering investigation.

The ED subsequently conducted extensive searches and seizures, raided NewsClick’s offices and the residences of journalists associated with the platform, and repeatedly summoned Purkayastha and other employees for questioning.

However, after examining the factual and legal basis of the allegations, the High Court concluded that the prosecution’s case suffered from fundamental defects at every stage.

No FDI restriction existed in 2018

The central allegation underlying the prosecution’s case was that NewsClick had received foreign investment in violation of restrictions applicable to news media organisations.

The Court found that this allegation was fundamentally misconceived. The judgment records that before receiving the investment, NewsClick had sought clarification from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting regarding the applicability of foreign investment restrictions to online news platforms. In response, the Ministry clarified on January 5, 2018 that online publication through websites and web portals did not fall within the ambit of print media.

Relying on this clarification, the Court observed that there was no cap on foreign investment in digital news platforms at the time the investment was received.

The Court held:

” From the response received from the Ministry in respect of FDI Policy, it was clearly evident that there was no cap on the online publication of news and thus, the Agreement between the Petitioner and M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC and, therefore, the Investment Agreement dated 20.03.2018 cannot be said to be in violation of any law or disclosing any criminal offence. The receiving of 1.5Million USD that were remitted on 11.04.2018 in exchange of 7.69% shares of the Petitioner Company.” (Para 70)

Consequently, the Investment Agreement dated March 20, 2018 and the remittance received on April 11, 2018 could not be said to violate any law or disclose any criminal offence. This finding strikes at the heart of the prosecution’s case. The allegation that NewsClick structured the investment to evade foreign investment restrictions necessarily depended on the existence of such restrictions. Once the Court concluded that no cap existed at the relevant time, the principal basis of the investigation effectively collapsed.

The Court rejects the share overvaluation theory

The investigating agencies also alleged that NewsClick had deliberately overvalued its shares in order to facilitate the foreign investment transaction. The Court found no substance in this allegation.

The judgment records that the company had obtained a valuation certificate from BGJC Associates LLP, which assessed the fair value of the shares at ₹9,188 per share in accordance with FEMA requirements. The Court noted that there was no allegation of manipulation or illegality in the valuation exercise itself.

The final investment was made at a higher value after negotiations between the investor and the company. The Court observed that the share price was mutually agreed upon after considering the prospects and growth potential of the company. Significantly, the Court refused to criminalise what was essentially a commercial decision.

Justice Krishna observed:

“It is an economic decision which does not spell out any criminal offence.” (Para 73)

The Court further accepted the company’s explanation that the valuation had been undertaken through the Discounted Cash Flow method, an internationally recognised valuation methodology accepted under Indian regulatory frameworks.

The judgment therefore draws a clear distinction between commercial valuation disputes and criminal wrongdoing, holding that the former cannot automatically be transformed into the latter in the absence of evidence of fraud or deception.

The allegation of siphoning funds was found untenable

Another major plank of the prosecution’s case was the allegation that foreign investment received by NewsClick had been siphoned away through salaries, consultancy fees, rent and other operational expenditures. The Court rejected this allegation outright.

Justice Krishna observed that these expenditures were entirely consistent with the functioning of a digital media organisation and represented ordinary business expenses incurred in the course of running the company. The Court held that even if one were to assume that excessive expenditure had been incurred, that fact alone would not disclose the commission of a criminal offence.

The judgment states:

“Even if it is accepted that there were over payments and excessive expenditure incurred by the Petitioner, then too it does not disclose any criminal offence. The allegation of siphoning is, therefore, not tenable.” (Para 76)

This finding effectively dismantled the prosecution’s attempt to portray routine operational expenditure as evidence of criminal activity.

The RBI’s findings undermined the investigation

One of the more significant aspects of the judgment concerns the Court’s treatment of material received from the Reserve Bank of India. The Court noted that an earlier status report prepared during the investigation recorded that the RBI had informed investigators that the foreign remittance had been received through the automatic route and that there had been no delay in the issuance of shares or compliance with reporting requirements under FEMA.

According to the judgment, the RBI had stated that:

” Significantly, one Status Report dated 26.07.2021, copy of which was forwarded to the Petitioner as an advance copy, though not placed on record, clearly stated that during the course of investigation a Reply from RBI had been received wherein it was mentioned that as per the Form FCGPR, the foreign inward remittance was under automatic route and there was no delay in issue of shares as well as reporting, as per the extant FEMA regulations in case of the Petitioner.” (Para 77)

The Court noted that this material was subsequently withdrawn from later status reports. Nevertheless, it held that the correspondence was sufficient to indicate that no FEMA violations had been established against the company. The observation significantly weakened the prosecution’s attempt to portray the investment as unlawful.

The allegation that the investor was non-existent failed

The State had also alleged that Worldwide Media Holdings LLC did not legally exist and that the transaction was therefore fraudulent. The Court found that the allegation was unsupported by the material on record.

The company explained that although an earlier entity bearing the same name had been dissolved under Delaware law, a new company with the same name had subsequently been incorporated. The Court noted that nothing had emerged during the investigation to establish that the entity which invested in NewsClick was non-existent. Indeed, the status reports filed by the investigating agencies were largely silent on this aspect. The allegation therefore failed to withstand judicial scrutiny.

No offence of cheating was made out

Having examined the factual allegations, the Court proceeded to analyse whether the offences alleged in the FIR were legally sustainable. With respect to Section 420 IPC, the Court observed that the offence of cheating requires the existence of a person who has been deceived and dishonestly induced to part with property.

In the present case, the investor itself had never alleged that it had been cheated. Worldwide Media Holdings LLC had not lodged any complaint against NewsClick and no material emerged during the investigation suggesting that any person had been deceived.

The Court observed:

” For the offence of cheating, it is necessary that there must be an aggrieved person who has been cheated out of his valuable property. In this case, M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC is the entity which had forwarded 1.5 Million USD to the Petitioner. However, there is no Complaint whatsoever, by the Company about having been cheated by the Petitioner. Pertinently, the Complaint had been made by one Shoban Singh, who was merely an informant and was not the aggrieved person. There is nothing which has emerged even during the investigations as reflected in the Status Report, that there was any person who was aggrieved or who was cheated by the Petitioner. The offence of cheating even if all the allegations made are admitted, is not established.” (Para 83)

Accordingly, the essential ingredients of cheating were absent.

No criminal breach of trust either

The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding the allegation under Section 406 IPC. Justice Krishna observed that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property and its subsequent misappropriation. Neither requirement was satisfied in the present case.

The transaction between NewsClick and Worldwide Media Holdings LLC was an investment in exchange for shares. The Court held that such a transaction could not, “by no stretch of interpretation,” be characterised as entrustment or misappropriation. Consequently, the offence under Section 406 IPC was also found to be absent.

The Court concluded:

” Even if all the allegations are accepted, no offence under 406 or 420 IPC is disclosed in the FIR and in the subsequent investigations that have been undertaken.” (Para 85)

The Court rejects the ED’s conspiracy argument

Recognising the weakness of the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the Enforcement Directorate sought to rely on Section 120B IPC, arguing that the investment transaction itself constituted a criminal conspiracy involving Purkayastha and the foreign investors.

The Court was unconvinced. It noted that criminal conspiracy requires an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act through illegal means. The material placed before the Court disclosed neither. The allegations of conspiracy were unsupported by evidence and amounted to little more than assertions.

Justice Krishna therefore held:

“ From the reply of ED, it is evident that the allegation that there is a clear-cut existence of a scheduled offence, is totally misconceived and baseless.” (Para 117)

This finding proved fatal to the ED’s case because the existence of a scheduled offence is a jurisdictional prerequisite for invoking the PMLA.

A “fishing and roving exercise” without any offence

Perhaps the most severe criticism in the judgment should be directed at the manner in which the investigation was conducted. The Court noted that years had passed since the registration of the ECIR. Numerous summons had been issued. Purkayastha and various employees had repeatedly joined the investigation. Searches had been conducted and extensive inquiries had been undertaken. Yet no material establishing the commission of a criminal offence had emerged.

The Court concluded:

“ Two years have passed since the registration of impugned ECIR in 2022. The Petitioner No. 2 and various employees of Petitioner number one have joined investigations on numerous occasions in 2021, after which they have not been summoned even once between September 2021 to June 2022. The manner in which the investigations have been conducted clearly show that the same is a fishing and roving exercise in the financial affairs of the Petitioners without the existence of any offence.” (Para 119)

The observation goes beyond a criticism of investigative shortcomings. It reflects the Court’s conclusion that the investigation itself lacked a legally sustainable foundation.

Quashing the FIR and the ECIR

Having found that the FIR disclosed no offence under Sections 406, 420 or 120B IPC, the Court held that its continuation amounted to a “gross abuse of the process of law.” The FIR was accordingly quashed.

Once the FIR fell, the ECIR could not survive. The Court reiterated the settled principle that where the predicate offence is quashed, the corresponding money laundering proceedings must also fall. The ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate was therefore quashed in its entirety.

Why the judgment matters

The significance of the judgment extends well beyond the immediate relief granted to NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha. The Court did not merely find gaps in the evidence. It found that the allegations themselves failed to disclose criminal offences. It rejected the factual premises underlying the investigation, dismantled the legal basis for the offences invoked, and questioned the very foundation of the ED’s exercise of jurisdiction under the PMLA.

Most significantly, the Court linked the proceedings to broader concerns regarding press freedom, concluding that the case represented not only a legally unsustainable prosecution but also a misuse of investigative powers against independent journalism.

In doing so, the judgment stands as a significant reaffirmation of a basic constitutional principle: that criminal law cannot be invoked merely on suspicion, and that the extraordinary powers of investigation available to the State must remain anchored to an identifiable offence supported by law and evidence.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Detailed reports on cases against Prabir Purkayastha may be read here and here.

Related:

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

J & K: Attempt to muzzle FoE, Media? Police summons to media, journalists

“This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit” — Ipsa Shatakshi on her jailed husband, journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh

How the noose tightened: understanding modus operandi of killers who took the life of journalist-activist, Gauri Lankesh

Assam: Journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar detained for 12 hours, arrested after covering protest against an alleged recruitment scam involving key BJP leaders

The post No Crime, No Predicate Offence, No ED Case: Delhi High Court quashes proceedings against NewsClick appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) 2026 was conducted on May 3, 2026, however, it is set to be re-conducted in June. Let’s look at the timeline of events that led to this redo.

Before the May 3 exam, the NTA said the exam was conducted under “full security protocol”, including GPS-tracked paper transport, biometric verification, AI-assisted CCTV monitoring, and 5G jammers at centres. The test was conducted across 551 Indian cities and at 14 overseas centres, with nearly 23 lakh candidates having registered. On the night of May 3, when Suthar (a chemistry teacher from Sikar, Rajasthan) was discussing the NEET questions with his students, he came across a PDF document that went viral a day before the exam. That document had all the chemistry questions that appeared in the actual exam. It further contained ninety of the biology questions that were asked in the exam. Following this discovery, Suthar informed the Rajasthan police and the NTA.

Now, the probe starts. One of the first breakthroughs in the investigation came when Rajasthan Police’s Special Operations Group arrested the alleged mastermind from Dehradun on May 7. A day later, four more persons, all NEET aspirants from Dehradun, were arrested and brought to Sikar for further interrogation. Among the five, the police said that the counsellor is accused of selling the leaked question paper to aspirants as a “Guess Paper.” He had allegedly received it from someone in Kerala, and it was suspected he managed to obtain probable questions of the examination paper even before it was sent for printing. The NTA escalated the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for “independent verification and necessary action.”

The Rajasthan Police inquiry linked the suspected document to an MBBS student from Churu who was at the time studying at a medical college in Kerala. It was quickly spread through NEET aspirants who shared it with each other. The probe also revealed that the material was widely shared through encrypted messaging apps and social media, with some recovered chats reportedly carrying the “forwarded many times” label, suggesting that the questions may have reached a large number of students before the exam. The guess paper was sold to students at rates between Rs 20,000 and Rs 2 lakh, with some media reports indicating charges as high as Rs 5 lakh. By the night before the exam, copies were allegedly circulating for around Rs 30,000 each.

On May 12, nine days after the conduct of the examination, the NTA officially cancelled NEET UG 2026 “in the interest of students” and to protect the credibility of the national examination system. However, the probe continued.

In order to understand how structural and rooted the corruption in the national examination system is, it is imperative to look at the findings that followed the probe. On May 13, the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) moved the Supreme Court challenging the “systemic failure” of the NTA in conducting NEET-UG 2026. The petition sought directions to replace or fundamentally restructure the NTA and to conduct a fresh NEET-UG 2026 examination under judicial supervision, including digital encryption and locking of question papers, a transition to a digital test model, and publication of centre-wise results for detection of statistical anomalies and organised malpractice.

Prahlad Vittal Rao Kulkarni, identified as the alleged kingpin and a domain expert in chemistry from Latur who had for years served on panels involved in setting the NEET question paper, was arrested on May 15, for allegedly exploiting his access to confidential material. He allegedly hosted special coaching classes at his house in the last week of April and dictated questions to a select students. On May 16, the CBI arrested Manisha Gurunath Mandhare, a biology lecturer who was part of the NTA’s paper-setting committee for the NEET exam held on May 3. The arrest was made on the basis of questioning of P V Kulkarni and other accused in the paper leak case. She was allegedly involved in the examination process and appointed by the NTA as an expert with complete access to the Botany and Zoology question papers. Mandhare is alleged to have mobilised prospective NEET examination candidates in April 2026 through Manisha Wagmare of Pune (she was arrested on May 14) and conducted special coaching classes for students at her home, dictating leaked questions and collecting lakhs of rupees as fee. Most of these questions tallied with the questions that appeared in the examination on May 3. The CBI on May 22 arrested Manisha Sanjay Havaldar. She had been appointed by the NTA as an expert to set the question paper for the physics section. Investigators found that she allegedly shared several Physics questions with co-accused Manisha Mandhare in April 2026.

There were several other arrests made by the CBI in relation to this from States such as Rajasthan, Delhi, Haryana.

On May 21, NTA Director General Abhishek Singh appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports. Singh told the committee that the agency does not view the NEET exam as having been “leaked.” Even when Opposition members pressed for answers, NTA officials stuck to their position that the CBI is investigating, and they would only call it a leak if the CBI finished its probe and confirmed it. On questions from MPs about how the NEET paper was leaked, Singh said it was “not leaked through their system“. Several MPs asked him then how did the paper get leaked and what was the need to cancel the exam and hold a re-test. He had no answer and insisted that CBI was looking into the matter. Some opposition MPs demanded that the probe report be presented before the panel, but BJP members objected, saying the CBI is an independent body and should be allowed to do its work.

On May 29, the NTA informed the Supreme Court that it was all set to conduct NEET UG in digital testing mode from the next year instead of the pen and paper mode. The NTA’s affidavit stated to the Supreme Court in relation to the several petitions (including the aforesaid FAIMA petition) that the transition will be implemented from the next examination cycle in consultation with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare thereby bringing all major NTA examinations onto the digital testing platform. Regarding the June 21 re-examination, the NTA told the Court that the re-examination scheduled on June 21, will be conducted under a further strengthened SOP framework and with multi-layer authentication.

This paper leak saga shows how deeply percolated corruption is in Indian educational system is. Students who work tirelessly for months and even years are failed by the system consistently. It erodes the faith public has in the government in conducting something as rudimentary as exams. The repercussions of such failures are tragic and extremely disheartening. The next section shall deal with the distress such failures cause to the students and the extreme steps that they are forced to take.

Aftermath, Young Lives lost

NEET is the biggest exam in terms of number of applicants in India, and is mandatory for anyone who aims to take admission in medical courses. In the hope of becoming doctors, students spend years preparing for the exam in extremely competitive and burdensome environments. Therefore, when the news of its cancellation was out, the consequences were tragic.

Pradeep, 21, had taken the exam twice before but failed to secure the needed marks. This time, the moment he walked out of the examination hall, he hugged his father and said, “Papa, this time I have become a doctor.” He had spent lakhs of rupees and countless hours preparing for the exam. As per the answer key of the exam conducted on May 3, Pradeep was securing a seat in a government medical college with ease. However, the news of cancellation put him in so much despair that he died by suicide. Pradeep Manich, 23, was a labourer’s son who had been living in a rented accommodation in Sikar away from his home. Reportedly, his family had sold their land and taken loans to fund his coaching and expenses for NEET. After his third attempt, the news of the paper leak and re-examination left him hopeless and disillusioned. He was devastated and he hanged himself days after the exam. Akanksha Chaturvedi had been preparing for the medical entrance exam in Nagpur and reportedly suffered from severe depression triggered by the cancellation, and ultimately, died by suicide. Her suicide note said, ” I no longer have the courage to take the NEET exam again. I was scoring good marks in my first attempt, but now there is no guarantee that I will perform well again.” Her father, a farmer, worked as a cook in Nagpur, and also put himself in financial debt to support her dreams of becoming a doctor. In Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri, 21 years old Ritik Mishra died by suicide after reportedly distressed by the cancellation of the examination. Further, a 17 years old boy from Goa district took his life after the cancellation owing to academic stress and concerns over balancing studies with his passion for hockey.

19 years old Divyansh Sharma from Sikar tells how impactful such re-examinations are psychologically. Sharma says that when students spend one or two years preparing and the paper gets leaked, it feels devastating. He made it clear that beyond financial loss, the greatest cost is time. Talking about his own experience, he said Sikar (a hub for competitive exams preparation) as an emotionally draining environment, filled with overcrowded hostels, endless classes, and routines built entirely around mock tests and revision. The competition is so intense that students study throughout the entire day. When news breaks that an exam will be held again due to a leak, it kills motivation. He also points out that the psychological challenge is significant, as students begin to doubt whether they can replicate their previous level of performance. Devadrita Dam, an 18 years old aspirant from Gurgaon, had been genuinely hopeful after the exam because the paper seemed easier compared to previous years. In the week following the exam, she was finally reconnecting with friends after months of social isolation that the exam forces under the guise of rigour of preparation. Then her best friend sent her a message saying the paper had been cancelled. She initially assumed it was a joke, but her uncle called to confirm the news. She broke down crying at the thought of having to go through the entire process again. According to Dam, the leak has seriously shaken students’ faith in the system.

These heart-breaking stories show how disproportionately the cancellation of exams affected students who came from lower income families. And how, the system failed the students by not being able to conduct an exam of such importance with honesty and transparency.

Owing to these incidents in light of systemic failure of the education system towards its students, there were protests as legitimate expression of anguish by students. On May 12, National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) staged a massive protest at Shastri Bhawan. Protestors were seen climbing the barricades at Shastri Bhawan to show their disappointment and anger. Characteristically Delhi Police detained several protestors. This was the same day the NTA officially confirmed the exam’s cancellation showing that the students were in the streets within hours of the announcement. A couple of days later on May 16, NSUI staged a massive protest outside the NTA headquarters in Delhi under the banner of the “NTA Halla Bol” campaign. The protestors rightly pointed out the suicides that took place owing to NTA’s failure that led to the re-examination.

Further, IYC activists took out a protest march from Teen Murti Circle towards the Education Minister’s residence holding posters and banners. However, they were stopped by police barricades and some protestors had been detained as well. Members of the All India Students’ Association (AISA) staged a demonstration demanding accountability for recurring examination irregularities outside the Ministry of Education on June 1. These protestors were also later detained by Police. On May 31 in Bhopal and on June 1 in Bhubaneswar, torchlight marches were organised outside the residence of Dharmendra Pradhan demanding his resignation over the paper leak issue. Moreover, On June 6, IYC President Uday Bhanu Chib led thousands in a protest in Haryana. Protesters faced water cannons and even barricades and police lathis. Despite of such protests the mainstream media has remained silent on both the fronts, raising voice against the government that allowed such a leak to happen, and it has remained silent on these protests by not covering their plight, anguish and courage to protest against such failures. And whenever such protests are shown, the lens is partisan— a political battle between Congress and BJP. Instead of putting the plight of the students at the centre of its coverage, the narrative is completely shifted to party politics. The response by the State that included, barricading, detention, shooting water guns, reflect how the state has increasingly collapsed the distinction between disruption and dissent. A detailed report on the mainstream media’s cold shoulder and on the protests that happened nationwide can be read here.

Repeated Leaks

It is imperative to note that the NEET exam was earlier leaked just two years ago! The 2024 NEET examination had an unusually high number of top rankers. Further, many students received scores that appeared mathematically impossible. This raised the concerns of paper being leaked. The CBI in pursuance of these allegations of paper leak arrested 40 individuals. The government’s initial posture was flat denial. When Dharmendra Pradhan took charge as Education Minister in June 2024, he told reporters that “there is no corruption or paper leak in NEET-UG 2024.” This position was maintained even as police in multiple states were making arrests and producing evidence to the contrary.

Subsequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court said there would be no re-examination, ruling that the data on record was not enough to show a systematic leak. However, the Court stated that there was a paper leak, though it found it localised to the areas of Hazaribagh and Patna. It simultaneously acknowledged serious weaknesses within the NTA and insisted on structural reform to prevent such instances from repeating. Following this, a committee namely Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Committee was setup. The Court specifically directed the committee to examine the viability of comprehensive CCTV surveillance, surprise inspections, secure transportation systems, digital tracking, and stricter identity verification mechanisms. The court also directed the Ministry of Education to monitor implementation through a Steering Committee. The Radhakrishnan committee submitted its report in October 2024 to the central government, that contained several recommendations to prevent future leaks. These included a shift to digital testing to eliminate the vulnerabilities of physical paper handling, biometric verification, AI-based surveillance, encrypted digital question delivery, and multi-stage examination formats. In January 2025, the Centre told the Supreme Court that it would implement all these corrective measures as suggested by the committee.

Now, the question that crops up is, what did the government do? Unsurprisingly, the answer is nothing. Despite recommendations by the K. Radhakrishnan committee after the 2024 controversy, the examination continued under the same manner as before. The NTA has immense structural problems that facilitates such leaks and other issues commonly faced by students (some problems are left unaddressed by the committee itself). The National Testing Agency was established in 2017 without parliamentary debate, public consultation, or a statutory foundation. It operates as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 rather than as a body created by legislation. Its memorandum of association (a basic charter that any registered organisation is expected to publish) has never appeared on its website, unlike comparable bodies such as the CBSE. The agency’s financial workings are equally opaque. While institutions like the UPSC and AIIMS publish detailed annual reports with budget allocations and expenditure data, the NTA has simply stated on its website that because the number of exams it conducts varies each year, it is “difficult to maintain Head-wise/Exam-wise Budget.” For an agency that collects fees from over two crore candidates annually and outsources significant work to private contractors, this opacity raised eyebrows to say the least.

The biggest problem that NTA has is its outsourcing tendencies. The NTA contracts out some of its most consequential functions such as setting up exam centres, managing physical security, capturing biometric data, to other parties. This problem needs to understood in tandem with the fact that it coordinates with a network of private actors that has no published standards of governing and nobody knows how those actors are selected, supervised, or held accountable. The result has been visible in examination halls where power cuts lasted over an hour or even when students were handed out rainwater-soaked answer sheets. Nothing about the process of setting question papers is publicly known. The qualifications required of paper setters, the processes they follow, and the safeguards against conflicts of interest is simply not disclosed. The CBSE publishes a detailed document specifying exactly these things, including the duties of “secrecy officers” responsible for maintaining confidentiality through the examination process. The NTA has no equivalent. This goes on to show how much opacity is present in the entire process of conducting the examinations– from setting of papers to the conduct of exam on the final day. In toto, it is a centralised body that works with near zero accountability. In such a setting, bluntly, lapses are inevitable.

NOT JUST NTA OR NEET

However, the problem in the examination framework of India is by no means limited to the NTA but runs much deeper.

In May 2026, the Central Board of Secondary Education declared Class 12 results.  There was a drop in passing percentage this year by 3 points. Consequently, students wanted to check their answer sheets and see what went wrong. However, it was found that, students were receiving wrong answer sheets. Evaluators were marking blurred, illegible scans. Pages had gone missing. This year marked On-screen marking’s (OSM) first use by CBSE. The promise of OSM was quite handsome. In OSM, answer sheets are scanned, digitised, and uploaded to a secure portal. Examiners log in remotely and mark on their screens, this marking is then auto-tabulated by the system. CBSE had, in fact, conceived of OSM back in 2014 but shelved the idea because of logistical difficulties. Cut to 2026, CBSE announced its plan on using OSM. During mandatory mock evaluation sessions on February 26, 2026, teachers reported portal access failures, slow system performance, and errors in teacher data on the registration portal. Knowing all this, and instead of going for a phased launch of the technology, CBSE still decided to rollout the technology all at once, for nearly 1 crore answer scripts. In a March 16 circular, CBSE warned Class 10 and 12 evaluators of legal action for sharing “misleading” information about the marking process on social media and declared that evaluation is confidential, therefore, it should not be discussed.

Once the results were out, students who accessed their answer sheets via the OSM verification portal found pages scanned so poorly that not a single line was legible yet the examiner had marked them. On various Reddit and X posts, students described evaluators placing red ticks and numerical scores on images that were, functionally, blank. These problems gained traction when Vedant Shrivastava posted his Physics answer sheet on X. When he checked his answer script he found out that someone else’s answer sheet was marked instead of his. There was a clear difference in handwriting. CBSE eventually admitted the error and issued the correct scanned copy, but only after Vedant’s post had gone viral.

I am a CBSE Class 12 student.

After receiving unexpectedly low marks in Physics, we applied for photocopies of my answer sheets through the CBSE reevaluation process.

Today we received the copies.

And I am shattered because the Physics answer sheet uploaded by CBSE is not mine

— VEDANT (@VEDANTSHRIV17) May 23, 2026

Along the same vein, Sanjana, found that every page of her Chemistry answer booklet belonged to a completely different person. CBSE later acknowledged it had “discarded around 30 answer sheets due to issues like unclear images and duplicate entries” without re-scanning them, this means some students were potentially evaluated on nothing whatsoever.

I applied for CBSE revaluation. The scanned copy of my chemistry sheet I received does not match my handwriting or written responses.
For reference, I am attaching my English answer sheet, which clearly reflects my actual handwriting. pic.twitter.com/laINaEMAP3

— Sanjana (@Sanjanaopxe) May 25, 2026

These issues could largely be pinned to the vendor who was responsible for the application the of OSM technology. The company entrusted with building and running the OnMark digital evaluation platform for CBSE is Coempt Edu Teck Private Limited, a Hyderabad based education technology firm. It was formerly known as Globarena Technologies Private Limited, and it had in the past made grave errors in technological applications. Those errors had led to several suicides as well.

If this company had such discouraging past, how did it manage to get the tender? The inconsistencies in floating of three tenders before finally settling with Coempt Edu Teck was first reported in the Hindustan Times.  Later, Sarthak Sidhant, a 17 years old Class 12 student from Jharkhand showed gave a breakdown of the requirements were consistently to grant then tender were changed several times in a way that made Coempt eligible for it. He spent days readings official CBSE bidding documents on the Central Public Procurement Portal, and tracked changes across three successive versions of the tender.  He published his findings in a blog post, these findings reveal the deep percolated corruption in the system that allowed Coempt to bag the tender.

The original Request for proposal (RFP) contained three specific clauses that would disqualify a vendor for poor past performance. These clauses were entirely removed from the revised RFP. A company with Coempt’s track record would have been eliminated at the gate under the original standards. Further, the minimum revenue threshold was set at ₹50 crore in an earlier version of the tender. It was pointed out that Coempt, would not to meet this threshold therefore, the same was revised in ways that made the company eligible. Capability Maturity Model Integration levels (these are standard benchmarks for software development capabilities) were also reportedly adjusted in the new tenders. The tender was first issued in February 2025. After the initial process failed to move forward, it was re-issued in May 2025, then again. Each iteration, Sidhant alleged, brought the eligibility criteria closer to Coempt’s actual profile. The cybersecurity standards required of the vendor were also scaled back across each of these successive drafts.

Furthermore, Nisarg Adhikari, a 19 years old ethical hacker broke into CBSE’s OSM portal and found several vulnerabilities. He found out numerous flaws that could allow anyone with basic technical knowledge to bypass OTP authentication, impersonate examiners, reset passwords, and even alter marks scored by students! This demonstrates how poorly the OSM was developed and deployed. The entire process of implementing OMS was marred with corruption that rewarded incompetence.

Across the 18 lakh who appeared for Class 12 board exams this year, there is now an uncertainty about the integrity of their results. Even students who scored well and were not directly affected by the visible failures have no guarantee that their marks accurately reflect their performance. This is the case because the system that produced those marks has been publicly demonstrated to be insecure and badly managed. The Board had twelve years to plan OSM after first conceiving it in 2014. It chose to deploy it overnight. It awarded the contract 74 days before exams began. It accepted security certificates covering other people’s systems. It threatened teachers who raised concerns with legal action

The response to these revelations

Instead of any of this being on the front page, it was a teenager that cracked the story open. Several right-wing social media accounts started heckling Vedant (student who received the wrong physics answer script) as anti-national. He was also derogatorily called as a Pakistani. Among those who amplified this heckling was Ashok Shrivastav, a journalist and primetime anchor at Doordarshan News. Shrivastav posted a screenshot of Vedant’s profile location (which showed South Asia) and commented “Did Pakistanis also appear for CBSE exams?!!”

A journalist at a taxpayer-funded national broadcaster took a grievance from a student who had received the wrong answer sheet, checked the geolocation setting of his fresh social media account, and concluded that the most plausible explanation was Pakistani subterfuge.

This shows the levels that Indian Media has stooped down to. Vedant and his family were inundated with abuse. They were called “Pakistani agents,” “anti-national,” “Soros agents,” and members of the “Deep State.” 17 years old who had spent the year studying for his boards, who had done nothing more than post proof of an institutional failure affecting his own marks, was now managing a mental health crisis on top of everything else.

This response is not exclusive to Vedant, even Nisarg and Sarthak who did a commendable job in showing the truth behind the tender allocation and the various infirmities of the present OSM system were treated with the same vitriolic response. The logic of this rhetoric works like this. Any complaint about a government system is, by definition, motivated by hostility to India. Anyone motivated by hostility to India is acting on behalf of India’s enemies. Pakistan is the most convenient enemy. Therefore, any complaint = Pakistani.

CONSTITUTONAL DIMENSIONS

The right to life under Article 21, as interpreted through Unnikrishnan and subsequent decisions, encompasses the right to education. The judiciary has consistently read Article 21 expansively to include not just bare survival but the conditions necessary for a dignified human existence. Access to a fair, uncorrupted examination is not peripheral to this right. For millions of students, particularly those from lower-income families who cannot afford private alternatives or second attempts, NEET and CBSE board exams are the singular pathway to a livelihood and a dignified future. When those pathways are sabotaged by institutional negligence and structural corruption, the right to a dignified life is contravened. The suicides that followed the 2026 NEET cancellation are the most extreme indictment of this constitutional violation. Moreover, paper leak that was facilitated by state appointed officials violated the right to equality.  It gave an undue advantage to some candidates over others who attempted the examination honestly. Two candidates sit for the same exam. One has seen the questions. One has not. They are not equal before that paper, and the State made them unequal. The Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the integrity of competitive examinations was further reinforced in a 2015 decision (Tanvi Sarwal v. Central Board of Secondary Education) involving the CBSE, where the Court directed that a fresh all-India medical entrance examination be held after concluding that widespread use of electronic devices had compromised the process beyond repair.

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 represents the legislature’s acknowledgment that examination fraud is a criminal offence. It contravenes the foundational principles of constitution such as equal treatment of everyone. The Act criminalises question paper leakage, unauthorised access to confidential material, organised distribution networks, impersonation, and digital facilitation of cheating. It extends liability beyond individual bad actors to service providers, vendors, printing contractors, and institutional officers, making negligence and collusion equally punishable. The existence of this statute makes the State’s failure 2026 constitutionally indefensible. The legislature had already recognised, through this law, that paper leaks violate the foundational conditions of fair competition. That recognition maps directly onto the Article 14 guarantee of substantive equality. When the executive arm of the State allowed an institutional architecture that permitted paper setters with unrestricted access to confidential material to operate without oversight. It significantly increased the chances of such leaks, and in turn, increased the chances of constitutional violations as written above.

The way the State responded to the protests that broke out in response of these constitutional violations are quite telling. The Supreme Court has recognised in multiple decisions that the right to protest is implied in Article 19 and that the State must make genuine arrangements for dissent to be heard rather than suppressed. When Delhi Police detained students within hours of the cancellation announcement, when water cannons were deployed in Haryana, when IYC marchers were stopped before they could reach the Education Minister’s residence, the State directly prevented public accountability. The restrictions that Article 19(2) permits on these freedoms must be reasonable and proportionate. Treating students the way they were treated for protesting the loss of an examination they spent years preparing for fails any honest proportionality test.

References for this analysis may be found here.

(The programme research team also consists of interns; this resource has been worked on by Hamzah Patel)

Related:

Equity on Hold: Supreme Court’s interim stay of the UGC Regulations, 2026

CBSE tries to promote RSS ideologues with essay competitions

Failings of Indian Legal Education System

Educational inequities worsen for Muslim students in India

How many lives will it take before India acknowledges dominant caste hegemony in educational institutes?

The post The system that keeps failing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Khurram Parvez was arrested close to five years ago, in a case registered against him by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for alleged terror funding, conspiracy and recruiting persons for the terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Parvez was arrested in the case on November 22, 2021 from Srinagar. He was remanded to judicial custody on February 25, 2022, following series of police custody remands.

On December 19, 2024, the date he filed the appeal, Parvez had been in custody for a total period of roughly 3 years and 1 month. Today –when the judgement is finally delivered–the period of incarceration totals 4 years and 7 months. It took a year and six months for disposal of a bail appeal in the Delhi HC!

The NIA alleged that a network linked to the banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) recruited Over Ground Workers (OGWs), gathered intelligence on security installations and facilitated terror funding. Parvez was arrested during the investigation, although he was not named in the original FIR. According to the charge sheet, the allegations against him were that he recruited OGWs for LeT, collected information regarding the movement and structure of the Army, had links with Pakistan-based terrorist organisations, and instigated protests following the killing of Burhan Wani in 2016.

Khurram’s appeal however strongly argued that the prosecution’s case against Parvez was unsupported by evidence and that he is a “factual stranger” to the larger conspiracy alleged by the NIA. It was also Parvez’s case that there was no digital evidence showing his contact with members of any proscribed terrorist organisation and that no call detail records were collected regarding the alleged meeting between him and co-accused Muneer Ahmad Kataria.

Parvez also argued that he is a human rights activist and was the Programme Coordinator and Spokesperson of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and also the Chairperson of the Philippines-based Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), which campaigns on the issue of enforced disappearances. In his appeal, Parvez said that he was a factual stranger to the alleged conspiracy and that the investigators had failed to establish any contact between him and LeT operatives or members of any banned organisation. He stated that an examination of digital devices seized from him revealed no communication with alleged handlers or evidence of recruitment of overground workers.

He also rejected the allegations that his past visits to Pakistan demonstrate links with proscribed organisations, stating that the trips were undertaken publicly as part of humanitarian and advocacy initiatives, including campaigns against landmines and enforced disappearances.

In his bail application, Khurram Pervez argued that there was no evidence that Parvez passed sensitive military information to any terrorist operative and that there was no allegation linking him to any alleged terror-funding money trail.  Counsel for Pervez included senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, along with Ms. Swati Khanna, Ms. Raminder Kaur, Mr. Md. Imran Ahmad, Mr. Shahzad Khan and Mr. Kartik Venu. The bail plea was filed through advocate Kartik Venu.For the NIA, advocates Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP, Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Shubham Goyal, Mr. Jatin Khatri, Mr. Amit Rohila appeared.

Related:

Supreme Court refers UAPA bail jurisprudence to larger bench; grants interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in Delhi riots conspiracy case

UAPA is a Very Unjust Law in Terms of Bail…Almost Like a Life Sentence: Anand Grover

J’khand HC grants bail to UAPA accused as no link to Al-Qaeda established

The post UAPA: Delhi HC grants Bail to Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez after close to 5 years in alleged terror funding case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Sleeping Under an Open Sky on No-Man’s Land: Two Children, Ten Lives, and the Machinery of Exclusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.