In spite of being one of India’s wealthiest state, Karnataka continues to perform poorly on key public health indicators compared to some of the other southern states (see Table 1 below) primarily because of structural and policy failures. However, it is no accident that the state continuous to be promoted as a ‘model’ for healthcare reforms, largely due to its aggressive adoption of privatisation, public–private partnerships (PPPs), contracting out critical health care services and insurance-based healthcare. The state has been quick to uptake the mandates of the

Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS) -economic reform packages pushed onto India by International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

Table 1: Comparison of mortality indicators for Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu 

Table 2: Health coverage indicators for Karnataka (NFHS-5) 

What should a Public Health law look like?

When there is a failure of voluntary compliance to public health policies, laws may be required. However, laws in themselves may be inadequate unless there is a political and moral mandate by governments to protect populations from threats to health and even to healthcare systems themselves. Public health laws should:

• Set clear rules of behaviour for individuals, public bodies, and private actors
• Define powers, limitations, and duties
• Protect fundamental rights
• Apply universally and predictably under the rule of law
• Must be transparent, publicly debated, and widely
• Embed principles of autonomy, privacy, transparency, accountability, and least
• Include Collective Rights to Social Determinants of Health such as safe drinking water, sanitation, nutrition and housing at the very least.
• Explicitly provide right to universal, free health care services that includes free diagnostics, free treatment and free drugs for ALL citizens for ALL health conditions without any conditions or exceptions.
• Prevent any role of private/ corporate entities in planning, regulating, monitoring or provisioning of public health care services
• Explicitly list violations of citizens’ health, health care and patient rights with clear redressal and enforcement mechanisms with proportionate penalties.

• Regulate unnecessary tests, procedures, referrals, bribes, negligence, and staff
• Clarify responsibility for service delivery
• Prevent sabotage by regulated
• Apply Siracusa principles to limit state power during emergencies
• Cap the costs of drugs and treatment in private/ corporate entities and enforce evidence based, standardised government protocols for treatment of diseases of public health importance.

How Karnataka government perceives health rights

A government draft Karnataka Right to Health and Emergency Medical Services Bill 2025 has been circulating, without any due process of public consultation and mostly borrowed from the Rajasthan Right to Health Act (2022). Some activists in Karnataka have been clamoring for a replication of the Rajasthan Right to Health Act without investing too much thought into whether this is what Karnataka requires.

This critique by Karnataka Janaarogya Chaluvali (KJC) illustrates that the draft Bill for Karnataka neither protects the public health system not citizens’ health care rights. Instead, it seems to legitimise large scale privatisation with a predominant focus on empanelling hospitals for emergency medical care and outsourcing ambulance services to any entity that ‘volunteers’ to do so.

The Preamble of the draft Bill invokes Articles 47 and 21 of the Constitution claiming to commit to providing “protection and fulfilment of rights and equity in health and well-being”, “free accessible health care for all residents of the State with the progressive reduction in out of pocket expenditure in seeking, accessing or receiving health care’ and “to provide for the people of Karnataka rights to health including emergency Health services with participation of stake holders and people for realization of people’s right to health services”.

In the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors on August 28, 1989, the Supreme Court has quoted the Constitutional mandate of the state to preserve life and obliging every doctor (government and medical institutions) to protect life. The Indian Medical Council Act (1860) and Indian Medical Council/Code of medical ethics also state the importance of immediate medical aid in all cases. No law or State action can intervene to avoid or delay these paramount obligations of the medical profession and all standards of care and quality must be upheld while doing so. Doctorscannot put the life of a patient at stake while waiting for fees to be paid. The Karnataka Private Medical Establishments (KPME) Act further reaffirms this mandate. Indeed, there can be no Right

to health without the intrinsic right to emergency healthcare1, so it is unclear why this has to be specified separately as the Karnataka Right to Health and Emergency Medical Services Bill 2025.

Vague definitions and commitments defeat the purpose of a law

The Karnataka draft bill and the Rajasthan Right to Health Act have failed to use standardised globally accepted definitions related to public health and therefore leave wide room for (mis)interpretation, going against the very principle of a good law. Defining public health as “the health of the population, as a whole especially as monitored, regulated, and promoted by the Government” is not only inadequate but also mischievous because it leaves out the crucial term “provisioned” absolving the state from being primary provider.

“health care”, taken verbatim from the watered down Rajasthan Health Act is defined as “testing, treatment, care, procedures and any other service or intervention towards a preventative, promotive, therapeutic, diagnostic, nursing, rehabilitative, palliative, convalescent, research and/or other health related purpose or combinations thereof, including reproductive health care and emergency medical treatment, in any system of medicines, and also included any of these as a result of participation in a medical research program”. Including health research into the definition of healthcare has many implications. Similarly the term “government funded healthcare services” legalises handing over funds to NGOs and private entities further absolving the government from its own Constitutional responsibilities.

The draft further reduces public health to a scheme (Karnataka Scheme of Public Health) with the planned State Health Authority (SHA) being expected to ensure availability, not of comprehensive health care or health, but only “medical services” free of cost, not to all, but only to “eligible patients”. Public health rights must include social determinants of health such as water, sanitation, nutrition, housing etc and include not just related to curative care services.

The SHA is expected to oversee medical, clinical, and social audits; hear all appeals against decision of District /city Health Authority; empanel private medical establishments and outsource ambulance services. It is not clear why a regulatory body should be carrying out executive functions like empanelment of private, placing the Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust (SAST) Executive Director as member-secretary of the SHA. SAST is an autonomous body with representatives of empanelled private hospitals on its Board and conflict of interest. Typically, the Director of Health and Family Welfare should be the member secretary of state level regulatory bodies.

Further, the corresponding District /city Health Authority includes the IMA as member. It is not clear what a member of the IMA is doing in a district level regulatory body which also hears people’s grievances. IMA members also have their own hospitals in the district. How can a legislation allow such a conflict of interest?

Grievance redressal

An aggrieved person should first approach the concerned person within the health care institution. If their complaint does not get resolved or if the person is not satisfied with the action taken by the health care institution, then she may approach the District Health Authority. Finally, an appeal can be made to the SHA and the latter should look into the matter and resolve it. There don’t seem to be any serious consequences of violating the provisions of the Bill apart from “a fine up-to rupees ten thousand for the first contravention, and up-to rupees twenty-five thousand for the subsequent contraventions”. Thus, human life is reduced to a few thousand rupees on the pretext of grievance redressal!

Finance

As per Chapter 6 and 8 of the draft Bill, the SHA will receive INR 100 crores as token fund from the state government to be used as corpus fund. The SHA as well as the District/ City authority can to raise its own funds not only through government bodies but also receive “donations” from any “individuals or body”. Isn’t it obvious that if individuals or groups donate funds then they will have a stake in the functioning of this regulatory body? These bodies can also borrow money from the open market for carrying out its activities. So the government will set up a regulatory body which the government itself will be unable to fund? How is the government expected to have any kind of control over this regulatory body? Further, the accounts of these agencies will be accounted by auditors appointed by themselves. While audited accounts have to be placed before the state legislature, it does not mention if it will be audited by the CAG. These provisions make the government’s intent highly suspect and does not infuse any confidence that the government has citizens’ interest in mind.

No real commitment to Right to Health or Emergency services

In this draft Bill, the government primarily commits to a Right to Information, a right to free OPD services and IPD consultations at public health institutions “accordantly to their level of health care as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act” and “emergency treatment and care for accidental emergency, emergency due to snake bite/animal bite and any other emergency decided by State Health Authority under prescribed emergency circumstances, without prepayment of requisite fee or charges including prompt and necessary emergency medical treatment and critical care, emergency obstetric treatment and care, by any public health institution, health care establishment and empanelled health care centres, qualified to provide such care or treatment accordantly to their level of health care, promptly as prescribed or as per guidelines and in a case of medico-legal nature of case, no health care provider or health care establishment shall delay treatment merely on the grounds of receiving police clearance or a police report”

Further it states that “Provided that after proper emergency care, stabilisation and transfer of patient, if patient does not pay requisite charges, healthcare provider shall be entitled to receive requisite fee and charges or proper reimbursement from State Government in prescribed manner as the case may be”. The statement ‘if the patient does not pay’ implies that payment by the patient is the first option and only if that does not happen, there will be reimbursement by the State.

The clause in the Act that emergency medical services means “any reasonable measure to render first-aid, advise or assistance to an injured person of an accident or incident of crime or any other emergency” is alarming. A private entity no matter how well equipped is now (by definition) allowed to wash its hands off by simply providing first aid, advice or assistance. This is no more than what anyone on the street can do if trained in basic first aid. It absolves private medical professionals and institutions from any kind of moral or ethical obligation to a patient in an emergency.

The bill says that to “stabilise” means the “rendering of any immediate emergency care of the injured person as may be necessary to assure within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of

the condition of such injured person is likely to result from or occurred during the transfer of such injured person from one hospital to another, where such appropriate facilities are available to render the requisite treatment” goes against the Supreme court directive in the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989 where preserving life by the health professional and the State is over reaching. Terms like ‘as maybe necessary to assure within reasonable medical probability’ will not hold up in a court of law and will allow negligence to be absolved. Further emergencies happen to anyone in the state – visitor or resident. The language of “eligible individual and eligible households” being brought into emergency services is concerning. Are people now expected to carry identification documents or money for healthcare emergencies everywhere they go?

Other Provisions in the Bill

Karnataka Bill has two chapters dedicated to Empanelled Hospitals (Chapter 9) and Requirements of Ambulances (Chapter 10). Chapter 9 is about empanelling private hospitals for “providing or directing the life support system or limited life support system and pre-hospital care system to provide Health care facility and treatment under Government Funded Scheme”. It is not clear what the terms “directing life support”, “life- support system”, “limited life support system” and “pre-hospital care” even mean. With funds from the government, empanelled hospitals will set up emergency departments in their respective facilities without clearly stating what their commitments and accountability mechanisms will be using government funds. District/ City Authority are expected to ensure availability of ambulances, ensure easy access to medical emergency services as also handing over ambulance services to “persons voluntarily registered”.

Conclusion

With the spate of new privatisation friendly healthcare policies, the state has moved further and further away from its core commitments. If the government of Karnataka is seriously invested in the health care, it needs to commit to sustained direct investment into government health care facilities at all levels (primary, secondary, tertiary and super-specialty); strengthened district and government medical colleges as the final referral point; a permanent and well-supported health workforce; strict regulation of private providers; transparent data reporting; and, accessible and enforceable grievance redressal mechanisms. Instead the government breezes over all of these in its draft Bill and instead undermine citizens’ health rights, public accountability, and the core principles of public health.

In the Karnataka State Integrated Health Policy in 2004 and later again in 2017, the state had committed to quality healthcare with a focus on equity, accountability, community participation to improve health and well-being of ALL the people of Karnataka and reducing health disparities.

The vision foregrounded the social determinants of health and Constitutional mandates thus foregrounding health within which healthcare is situated.

Any law that legalises privatisation (public private partnerships, health insurance, contracting) will only further drain public resources will leaving patients at the mercy of market vagaries.

Unless there is a core commitment by the government to revisit these mandates, a law can only be toothless and an ineffective band aid for optics. It is time that the citizens of the state play a more informed role in demanding for our health rights.

The Draft Bill may be read here.

Related:

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

Why health and sex education for young is crucial: Supreme Court

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

The post Healthcare in Karnataka: Is a Health Bill the Need of the Hour? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the communication, the signatories have stated that these series of public statements made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture, says the communication. Besides, the letter states that the statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

In addition, the letter enumerates what they see violations of the Oath of Constitutional Office by the Chief Minister.

The entire letter may be read below:

February 5, 2026

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice Gauhati High Court

Guwahati, Assam

Subject: Request for Suo Moto Cognisance of Repeated Hate Speech, Executive Interference, and Constitutional Violations by the Chief Minister of Assam

Respected My Lord,

We write this letter with profound faith in the constitutional role of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as guardian of the fundamental rights.

It is with deep concem that we draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court to a series of public statements made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, which, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture. The statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

(A) Instigation for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation

In a recent public statement Chief Minister of Assam instigated people to make people from Miyan community suffer, he categorically stated, “Whoever can, in whichever way should make Miyan suffer. If you board a rickshaw, if the fare is 5, pay them #4”. Such a statement, coming from the highest executive authority of the State, constitutes a direct call for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation of the Miyan community, normalising

cruelty and stripping them of their inherent right to live with dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution.

(B) Direction to interfere in the Special Revision (SR) process

Equally alarming are public statements wherein the Hon’ble Chief Minister has stated that he has directed or ordered BJP party workers to file objections during the Special Revision (SR) process, particularly targeting members of the Miyan community, he has also said that the officers should work overtime to make Miyan suffer. This is a grave constitutional impropriety. A constitutionally mandated and quasi-judicial process such as the SR cannot be converted into a partisan or communal exercise at the behest of the Chief Minister. Such statements amount to executive interference, undermine institutional neutrality, and violate the principle of free and fair democratic processes, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. But, till now, the Election Commission authorities have not taken cognizance of such illegal interference in the SR exercise by the Assam Chief Minister and BJP workers.

Collectively, these utterances have a chilling effect on the right to life with dignity under Article 21, violate equality before law under Article 14, and erode fraternity, a core constitutional value expressly enshrined in the Preamble. They also strike directly at secularism, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Violation of Constitutional Oath

Under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, the Chief Minister swears an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to discharge duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Publicly singling out a religious community for suffering, economic deprivation, heightened scrutiny, and exclusion is fundamentally incompatible with this oath. Such conduct represents not merely political impropriety but a constitutional breach by a constitutional functionary.

Supreme Court Directions on Hate Speech

The brazen hate speech of the Assam Chief Minister is prejudicial to national integration and directly promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, has categorically directed that where instances of hate speech come to the notice of authorities, the police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo moto, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of wit Thace dirartinne are hindinn under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the

identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of court. These directions are binding under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the Chief Minister himself, the ordinary executive machinery becomes structurally compromised, making judicial Intervention indispensable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India reiterated that any attempt to spread hate speech must be dealt with iron hand. The Supreme Court observed that, “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.”

Secularism as Basic Structure

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, notably in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, and Aruna Roy v. Union of India. State power cannot be exercised to privilege or prejudice citizens on the basis of religion, nor can governance be infused with communal considerations. The statements and directions referred to above are plainly inconsistent with these binding constitutional principles.

In these extraordinary circumstances, we respectfully submit that this is a fit case for this Hon’ble Court to exercise its suo moto jurisdiction to:

1. Direct competent authorities to register a case against hate speech, executive interference, and violations of fundamental rights;
2. Protect the dignity, equality, and security of the affected community;
3. Reaffirm that constitutional functionaries are bound by their oath and constitutional discipline; and
4. Uphold public confidence in secular constitutional governance and the rule of law.

The intervention of this Hon’ble Court is crucial not only for the protection of a vulnerable community but also for preserving the constitutional equilibrium between executive power and fundamental rights. Silence or inaction in the face of such open constitutional transgressions risks normalising them and eroding the moral authority of the Constitution itself.

We submit this representation with utmost respect and hope that this Hon’ble Court will consider taking appropriate action in accordance with law.

Yours faithfully,

1. Dr. Hiren Gohain, Scholar and public intellectual
2. Harekrishna Deka, former DGP, Assam and author
3. Thomas Menamparampil, former Archbishop Guwahati
4. Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, Member of Rajya Sabha
5. Dr. Dulal Chandra Goswami, Environmental Scientist
6. D. Salka, retd. IAS
7. Paresh Malakar, Editor-in-Chief, Northeast Now Duball hoswe upall
8. Deepak Goswami, former Deputy Director General, NIC
9. Lakhi Nath Tamuli, retd. IAS
10. Jayanta Borgohain, retd. Deputy General Manager, IOCL
11. Dr. Indrani Dutta, former Director, Omiyo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development
12. Robin Dutta, former Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam
13. Rashmi Goswami, Social Activist
14. Najibuddin Ahmed, retd. Adl. Chief Engineer, PHED.
15. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah

Related:

CJP seeks action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam for election code violations in Bihar

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Himanta Biswa Sarma in latest hate speech blames people of ‘specific religion’ for BJP loss in Nagaland, Meghalaya

The post Suo moto cognisance of repeated hate speech by CM Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma must: Assam’s public intellectuals to Gauhati HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner and copied to the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, the memorandum documents a disturbing pattern of unauthorised deletions, fabricated objections, false declarations of death, and misuse of statutory forms, allegedly targeting legitimate voters across multiple districts of the State. Along with CJP, Assam Majuri Sramik Union, Banchana Birdodhi Mancha and Forum for Social Harmony are also the signatories to this memorandum.

Dead voters filing objections, living voters declared dead

Among the most alarming allegations are instances where “dead persons” are shown as having filed objections against living voters, as well as complaints branding living electors as deceased. The memorandum flags this as a grave subversion of electoral procedures, calling for immediate scrutiny of how such objections were accepted during the SR process.

In several cases, voters who never changed residence were issued objections falsely claiming that they had shifted addresses. A separate annexure, the groups state, lists such affected voters.

A single woman, 64 objections — all denied

The memorandum details a striking case from Goalpara town, where a woman named Naba Bala Ray from Jyotinagar, Krishnai, was shown to have filed 64 objections against voters. When the affected voters approached her, she categorically denied filing any objections. While she later withdrew some complaints in Assamese, the memorandum notes a glaring inconsistency: her signatures also appeared on Form 7 complaints in English, which she claimed she could not write or understand.

CJP annexed these complaints as evidence of forgery and fabrication within the objection process.

Man objects to himself — and 133 others

In another extraordinary instance from Shribhumi district (formerly Karimganj), a man named Salim Ahmed was shown as having filed objections against himself and 133 other voters, alleging they were not genuine electors. According to the memorandum, Ahmed told the Booth Level Officer that he never filed any such objection, pointing to what the groups describe as a “fully fabricated” complaint attributed to him without consent or knowledge.

BJP leaders accused of unauthorised access to election data

Beyond individual cases, the memorandum raises grave institutional concerns. It alleges that office-bearers of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including district-level leaders and ST Morcha functionaries, unauthorisedly entered the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Boko-Chhaygaon, and accessed official documents and the Election Commission’s electronic database.

Such actions, if proven, would amount to a serious breach of electoral neutrality and administrative safeguards, the groups warn.

Migrant workers disproportionately affected

The memorandum also flags how migrant labourers from Assam were particularly vulnerable during the SR process. Voters who had temporarily left the State for work during verification reportedly returned to find fresh objections raised against their names, effectively penalising economic migration and seasonal labour mobility.

Allegations of partisan signalling from political executive

Calling for institutional impartiality, CJP and other groups cite alleged interference in the Boko-Chhaygaon constituency and refer to statements attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which they characterise as “blatantly partisan” and inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of a neutral electoral process.

Demands to the Election Commission

The memorandum places eight specific demands before the ECI, including:

• Withdrawal of objections where the original complainant is absent during hearings
• Investigation and penal action for false Form 7 complaints
• Action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against false declarants
• Compensation for victims subjected to mental, physical, or financial harassment
• Extension of timelines for claims and publication of the final electoral roll

At its core, the memorandum urges the Election Commission to restore procedural integrity and ensure that Assam’s electoral rolls are prepared “free and fair, in the interests of democracy”.

Why was this memorandum submitted?

Coming amid heightened national scrutiny of electoral processes, the allegations — if substantiated — point not merely to clerical lapses but to a structural vulnerability in voter list revision mechanisms, particularly in politically sensitive regions. The memorandum underscores that electoral rolls are not administrative lists but constitutional instruments, foundational to the exercise of universal adult franchise.

The Election Commission has not yet responded to the memorandum.

The complete memorandum may be read below.

Detailed report may be read here.

Related:

Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025

CJP flags Zee News broadcast ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’ for communal framing before NBDSA

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

The case of “pushback” of Doyjan Bibi and the quiet normalisation of undocumented deportations

The post Assam’s Electoral Rolls in Crisis: CJP flags structural manipulation in Summary Revision appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What followed has only deepened that concern. Across campuses, students protesting the Supreme Court stay on UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 have faced intimidation, surveillance, violence, and criminal process. Instead of debate, there has been policing. Instead of institutional introspection, securitisation. And instead of engagement with the substance of caste discrimination, there has been an aggressive narrowing of what may even be spoken.

Together, these developments mark a dangerous convergence: the criminalisation of speech, the judicial suspension of equity safeguards, and the shrinking of democratic space within institutions meant to nurture critical thought.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

A judicial stay that did not calm campuses—but exposed a fault line

The immediate trigger for nationwide student mobilisation was the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the UGC Equity Regulations 2026, observing that the framework appeared “too sweeping” and required closer scrutiny. The stay was framed as a neutral act of caution. On campuses, it was experienced as something else entirely: a sudden withdrawal of long-awaited recognition.

As reported by India Today, students argued that the regulations were halted before they could even be tested. No implementation, no data, no demonstrated misuse—only a speculative fear that accountability mechanisms might be abused. The contrast was striking. In a legal system where far-reaching executive actions are often allowed to operate while constitutional challenges remain pending for years, a framework designed to protect marginalised students was frozen at inception.

The context matters. The 2026 regulations did not emerge in a vacuum. They were the product of years of litigation, including the long-pending petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom died by suicide after alleged caste-based harassment. Over time, the Supreme Court itself sought reports, monitored compliance, and pressed for reform. A Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewed the draft regulations in late 2025, recommending substantive changes—many of which were incorporated.

Yet, at the very first hearing after notification, the framework was stayed.

For students already navigating hostile campuses, the implication was stark: caste discrimination may be acknowledged rhetorically, but meaningful institutional safeguards remain deeply contested.

Campuses Respond: Different languages, the same demand for justice

The response to the stay has varied across universities, shaped by institutional histories and student politics. But taken together, protests at JNU, BHU, and Delhi University reveal a shared insistence that equity cannot remain a matter of administrative goodwill.

JNU: The defence of ideological space

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, students organised torchlight processions demanding immediate implementation of the regulations and renewed calls for a statutory Rohith Act—a central anti-discrimination law for higher education.

Placards and slogans opposing Brahmanism and Manusmriti dominated the march. Defending the language used, JNUSU representatives told PTI that the slogans were ideological critiques, not attacks on any caste group—an important distinction grounded in established free-speech jurisprudence. Political critique, even when sharp or unsettling, lies at the heart of constitutional democracy.

Student leaders also raised a pointed question: why was extraordinary urgency shown in staying these regulations when countless cases involving civil liberties remain pending for years? The warning from the campus was clear—if justice is indefinitely deferred within universities, it will not remain confined there.

UGC गाइडलाइन के समर्थन में जेएनयू स्टूडेंट्स का मार्च#JNU #UGCRegulations2026 pic.twitter.com/S9tlsULus0

— Dalit Dastak | दलित दस्तक (@DalitDastak) February 4, 2026

BHU: Evidence, reports, and institutional failure

At Banaras Hindu University, the protest took a different form. Hundreds of SC, ST, and OBC students marched carrying letters, official reports, and citations, demanding Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, transparency in grievance redressal, and public disclosure of compliance.

As reported by India Today, students cited the Thorat Committee Report (2007) and the IIT Delhi study (2019), both of which document systemic discrimination and its links to mental health crises, dropouts, and suicides. The emphasis here was not symbolic resistance but institutional accountability.

A heavy police presence and alert proctorial boards accompanied the march—an unsettling reminder of how quickly claims of discrimination are met with securitisation rather than reform.

Delhi University: From regulation to law

At Delhi University, Left-backed student groups led an “Equity March” through North Campus, framing the issue as a legislative and constitutional question. According to The Times of India, speakers argued that without statutory backing, grievance mechanisms remain fragile, easily diluted, and subject to withdrawal.

The demand for the Rohith Act surfaced repeatedly—reflecting a growing consensus that enforceable rights, not discretionary guidelines, are essential to address structural caste discrimination.

Violence, policing, and the price of naming caste

Even as students mobilised, reports of violence and intimidation surfaced from multiple campuses. As per reports, a BHU student allegedly being beaten by upper-caste peers for sharing a poster supporting the UGC protests in a WhatsApp group. At Allahabad University, students discussing equity regulations were reportedly attacked, with allegations pointing to ABVP-linked groups.

Most chilling was the Allahabad University episode itself: students allegedly assaulted, and one student arrested or warned for speech alone. If the use of the word “Brahminism”—a staple of academic critique—can invite police action, the boundary between maintaining order and enforcing ideological conformity has all but vanished.

For many protesters, these incidents crystallised the argument for equity regulations: without enforceable safeguards, marginalised students are left vulnerable not just to bureaucratic neglect, but to physical and legal harm.

चप्पा चप्पा गूंज उठेगा , जय भीम के नारों से pic.twitter.com/5eb3H59nXr

— Dr. Om Sudha (@dromsudhaa) February 4, 2026

This is shocking and absolutely unacceptable in university campuses. Students who were peacefully discussing equity regulations in University of Allahabad were reportedly beaten up by Brahmanical forces of ABVP. This is exactly why we need equity regulations. The safety of… pic.twitter.com/beFHX0xoSh

— Rehna Raveendran (@Rehna_AntiCaste) February 4, 2026

A BHU student was brutally beaten by upper-caste students simply for sharing a poster about the UGC protest in a WhatsApp group.

To stop this kind of hooliganism and violence on campuses, strong and enforceable UGC regulations are absolutely necessary.
pic.twitter.com/vUKPXjAjm1

— Harshita Narayani (@DearAspirant) February 4, 2026

Faculty Unease and the Limits of the Framework

Faculty responses have complicated the picture rather than resolved it. The JNUTA noted that the regulations fail to address the deep-rooted and systemic nature of discrimination. At protest gatherings, faculty speakers acknowledged these limitations—pointing to the absence of punitive provisions, excessive power vested in principals, and the exclusion of elite institutions like IITs and IIMs.

Yet the consensus among many educators was striking: even an imperfect framework represented a rare institutional acknowledgment that caste discrimination exists on campuses. To halt it before implementation was not correction—it was erasure.

Media silence, political quiet, and democratic erosion

A recurring concern across protests has been the muted response of large sections of the mainstream media and the conspicuous absence of sustained parliamentary debate. Students questioned how a nationwide mobilisation demanding discrimination-free campuses could unfold without political engagement at the highest levels.

When speech is criminalised, safeguards are stayed, and violence is normalised or ignored, trust in democratic institutions begins to fracture—not through apathy, but through lived experience.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

More Than a Regulation: A test of university democracy

As highlighted by the incidents above, the battle over the UGC Equity Regulations has outgrown the regulations themselves. It has become a test of whether universities will remain spaces of critique or instruments of control; whether caste can be named without punishment; and whether equality will be treated as a constitutional obligation or an administrative inconvenience.

When students are arrested for words, protections are suspended before they are tried, and dissent is met with force rather than reason, the crisis is no longer confined to campuses. It speaks to the health of the republic itself.

The question now confronting India’s universities is no longer about guidelines or committees. It is about whether democracy—messy, uncomfortable, and argumentative—still has a place in the classroom.

.Related:

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

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

Another Campus, Another Death: Student suicides continue unabated across India

My birth is my fatal accident, remembering Rohith Vemula’s last letter

‘Diluted Existing Rules’: Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi’s Mothers Slam UGC’s Draft Equity Regulations

The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised

The post Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Mumbai Police have registered an accidental death report (ADR) and initiated an inquiry, stating that it is too early to draw conclusions. As reported by Deccan Herald, Agarwal was officially residing in Hostel No. 3, but fell from the terrace of Hostel No. 4, raising questions about his movements in the hours leading up to his death. Police officials told the newspaper that his roommate and other students are being questioned, a panchnama of his room has been conducted, and the body has been sent for post-mortem examination. His family in Pilani, Rajasthan, has been informed.

A police officer quoted by The Indian Express said authorities were “conducting inquiries from all possible angles” and would not rule out any possibility at this stage. If evidence of abetment or coercion emerges, officials said further legal action would follow.

Student organisation APPSC (Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle) described Agarwal’s death as the second suicide at IIT Bombay in the last six months. The group explicitly linked the incident to a pattern of institutional failure, recalling earlier student deaths on the campus.

Naman Aggarwal died of suicide last night after jumping from Hostel-4. He was a second year Civil Engineering student and convenor of Style Up club in IIT-B. This is second death by suicide in IIT-B in six months. #IITkills pic.twitter.com/lqZp8fvVwu

— APPSC IIT Bombay (@AppscIITb) February 4, 2026

A spate of campus deaths in a matter of days

What makes Agarwal’s death especially alarming is that it occurred amid a cluster of student suicides reported across India within days, cutting across states, disciplines, and institutional hierarchies.

On January 31, Ronak Raj, a 19-year-old first-year engineering student at SVKM NMIMS Hyderabad’s Jadcherla campus, died by suicide in his hostel room. According to reports carried by India Today, the student had allegedly been accused by college authorities of cheating during semester examinations. Multiple reports stated that he appeared deeply distressed and humiliated following the accusation. The incident sparked student protests on campus, with student unions demanding accountability and transparency in disciplinary processes.

On February 4, a 19-year-old second-year nursing student, Bheeshmanjali, was found dead in her hostel room at a private college in Tirupati, according to information released by the Tirupati East Police and reported by DT Next. Police stated that she had remained alone in the hostel while her roommates attended classes. A case has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by her parents, and an investigation is underway.

Only days earlier, a 20-year-old third-year engineering student, Vishnavi Jitesh, was found hanging in her hostel room at the BITS Pilani Goa campus, as reported by The Indian Express. Police confirmed that this was the sixth suicide reported on the campus in the past two years. The growing number of deaths at the Goa campus was raised in the Goa Legislative Assembly during the winter session, where Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, as reported by The Indian Express, stated that academic pressure had emerged as a common factor in several cases. The Goa government subsequently constituted a district-level monitoring committee to examine the deaths. The committee’s preliminary findings referred to the possibility of “copy-cat suicides”, where one suicide triggers imitative behaviour within a closed institutional environment—a phenomenon well documented in suicide-prevention research.

National data confirms a worsening crisis

The recurrence of such deaths is supported by national data. As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2023, student suicides in India rose by 64% between 2013 and 2022, with 103,961 student suicides recorded over that decade. 

A report by the IC3 Institute, titled Student Suicides: An Epidemic Sweeping India, estimates that over 13,000 students die by suicide every year. The report warns that the actual numbers are likely underreported, due to stigma, institutional reluctance to report deaths accurately, and misclassification of suicides as accidental deaths.

State-wise NCRB data shows that Maharashtra reported the highest number of student suicides. In 2023, India reported 13,044 student suicides, or about 36 a day, with Maharashtra (2,578) and Tamil Nadu (1,982) having the highest number, followed by Madhya Pradesh (1,668). These states have the largest educational ecosystems, or competition for schools, outside of state-controlled educational ecosystems.  

Gender-disaggregated data presents another troubling trend. While male student suicides declined by 6% between 2021 and 2022, female student suicides increased by 7% in the same period, with women accounting for nearly 47% of all student suicides in 2022, according to NCRB figures.

Detailed report may be read here.

Policies on paper, protection absent on campus

India is not short of policy frameworks. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 decriminalised suicide. The National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 explicitly recognises suicide as a product of intersecting personal, academic, and social pressures, including humiliation, academic competition, transitions, and insensitive institutional cultures.

Yet the central problem lies in implementation. Many institutions may formally appoint counsellors, but the quality, accessibility, confidentiality, and suicide-prevention expertise of such services remain deeply uneven. Poorly trained or inadequately resourced counselling mechanisms, experts warn, can aggravate distress rather than mitigate it.

Supreme Court intervention—and institutional resistance

In a recent judgment of January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India had held higher educational institutions directly accountable for student mental well-being. Acting on the recommendations of a National Task Force chaired by former Justice Ravindra S. Bhat, the Court mandated:

• Mandatory reporting of all student suicides and unnatural deaths, irrespective of where they occur
• 24×7 access to medical care on or near residential campuses
• Protection of students from punitive measures due to scholarship delays
• Time-bound filling of vacant faculty positions, especially reserved posts
• Strengthening of Equal Opportunity Centres and Internal Complaints Committees

The Court was unequivocal in its assessment, observing that existing UGC and institutional guidelines remain “largely prescriptive and on paper”, with little enforcement or accountability.

Where is UMMEED when students die?

Despite the existence of a dedicated national framework on suicide prevention in educational spaces, the spate of recent student deaths raises serious questions about whether such measures exist anywhere beyond official documents. The UMMEED Guidelines— issued by the Union Government in 2023 as a comprehensive framework for mental health promotion and suicide prevention in educational institutions—were meant to institutionalise early identification, peer support, emergency response, and accountability mechanisms within campuses. Yet, the deaths at IIT Bombay, NMIMS Hyderabad, BITS Pilani Goa, Tirupati, and elsewhere demonstrate a stark disconnect between the guidelines’ stated objectives and campus realities.

UMMEED mandates the constitution of School or Institutional Wellness Teams, headed by the principal or head of the institution, tasked with identifying students at risk, coordinating responses, ensuring counselling access, and conducting periodic reviews. It also stresses the importance of safe campus design, supervision of vulnerable spaces, sensitivity training for staff, and the creation of non-punitive, non-stigmatising environments. However, in case after case, students continue to die in hostel rooms, terraces, and unsupervised spaces, suggesting that even the most basic preventive measures envisaged under UMMEED—such as surveillance of high-risk areas and timely intervention—are either absent or treated as mere formalities.

Crucially, UMMEED emphasises early identification of distress and immediate response, distinguishing between students showing warning signs and those actively at risk. Yet, recent incidents indicate that distress is often noticed only in hindsight—after allegations of cheating, academic humiliation, isolation, or prolonged silence have already taken a severe toll. The deaths of students who were reportedly distressed following disciplinary action or academic pressure directly undermine the claim that institutions are effectively identifying or responding to warning signs, as UMMEED requires.

The guidelines also stress sensitivity, confidentiality, and non-judgemental engagement, cautioning against actions that could shame or alienate students. This stands in sharp contrast to incidents where students were allegedly humiliated following accusations or subjected to rigid, unsympathetic administrative processes. The persistence of such practices highlights how disciplinary regimes often operate in direct contradiction to suicide-prevention frameworks, exposing students to precisely the kinds of stressors UMMEED warns against.

Perhaps most telling is UMMEED’s insistence on shared responsibility—placing obligations not just on counsellors, but on administrators, teachers, staff, and even peers. Yet, when deaths occur, responsibility is routinely diffused: police inquiries are initiated, institutions express regret, and investigations are framed as premature to conclude. What is conspicuously missing is any public accounting of whether UMMEED-mandated structures existed, whether they functioned, and if they failed, who is answerable.

In this sense, UMMEED mirrors a broader pattern in India’s mental-health governance: robust language without enforceability, ambition without accountability. Like UGC advisories and NEP mandates, it lacks clear statutory backing, monitoring mechanisms, or penalties for non-compliance. The result is a framework that allows institutions to claim compliance on paper while students continue to fall through the cracks—sometimes, quite literally.

Beyond condolences

Despite judicial directions, national policies, and repeated institutional assurances, students continue to die—often following episodes of humiliation, isolation, academic pressure, or silent distress.

The deaths of Naman Agarwal, Ronak Raj, Vishnavi Jitesh, Bheeshmanjali, and thousands of unnamed students across the country are not failures of individual resilience. They are failures of institutions that continue to privilege discipline over dignity, reputation over responsibility, and procedure over care.

As police inquiries continue and administrations issue carefully worded statements of regret, the most pressing question remains unanswered: how many more deaths will it take before existing safeguards are enforced—not merely cited—after another student is gone?

Related:

Lives in the Margins: Reading India’s suicide data beyond the numbers

KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide

Raman Garase’s suicide on May Day, 2024 is a sombre reminder of how badly IITs treat their labour

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

Another Dalit student dies by suicide after being attacked in Tamil Nadu, activists demand urgent action

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

The post Another Campus, Another Death: Student suicides continue unabated across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), following weeks of protests in Ladakh demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protection—a movement that later spiralled into violence, leading to the deaths of four civilians.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P. B. Varale is hearing the Article 32 habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, which challenges the legality of his continued detention. Proceedings have been closely tracked by LiveLaw and other media.

Union’s core defence

1. Court’s review is procedural, not substantive

Opening arguments for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that judicial scrutiny in preventive detention matters is narrowly circumscribed. The Court, he argued, is not entitled to examine whether the detention was “justified”, but only whether statutory and constitutional procedures were followed so as to ensure fairness to the detenue.

Mehta relied on established precedent to submit that once the detaining authority records subjective satisfaction, courts must exercise restraint.

He further underscored the “inbuilt safeguards” within the NSA:

• The District Magistrate’s detention order must be confirmed by the State Government; and
• The detenue has a right to make a representation before an Advisory Board headed by a former High Court judge.

Crucially, Mehta pointed out that Wangchuk has not independently challenged either the confirmation order or the Advisory Board’s opinion, a submission clearly aimed at narrowing the scope of judicial interference.

2. Dispute Over Supply of Materials: Union calls allegations an “afterthought”

Responding to the petitioner’s contention that four video clips relied upon in the detention order were not supplied to Wangchuk, Mehta rejected the claim as factually incorrect and a belated fabrication.

According to the Union, the service of the detention order itself took nearly four hours, during which a senior police officer personally went through each page of the grounds and the video material, a process that was videographed.

“The DIG Ladakh sits with him, shows him every page, every clip, and asks if he is satisfied. He answers in the affirmative,” Mehta told the Court, offering to place the recording on record if required.

3. “Borrowed satisfaction” argument rejected

When the Bench raised the argument that the detention order was based on borrowed or mechanically reproduced material, Mehta countered that this misunderstands the nature of preventive detention.

He argued that a District Magistrate is not expected to personally witness each incident but is entitled—indeed required—to rely on inputs placed before him by law enforcement agencies to arrive at subjective satisfaction.

“What the authority must assess is the speech as a whole,” Mehta said, warning against isolating references to non-violence or Gandhian philosophy while ignoring the allegedly inflammatory core.

4. Union alleges “hope for riot-like situation” in Ladakh

The centrepiece of the Union’s case lies in its reading of Wangchuk’s speeches. According to Mehta, Wangchuk deliberately invoked foreign protest movements to emotionally mobilise young people in Ladakh—a region that shares borders with volatile and geopolitically sensitive areas.

He referred to Wangchuk’s alleged references to:

• Nepal’s youth-led protests,
• Political upheavals in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and
• The Arab Spring, where multiple governments were overthrown following mass unrest.

“What is the relevance of Nepal and Ladakh?” Mehta asked. “You are not addressing Gen-Z in isolation—you are hoping for a Nepal-like situation.”

The Solicitor General dismissed Wangchuk’s invocation of Mahatma Gandhi as a rhetorical façade. “Gandhi was resisting an imperial power. He was not instigating violence against his own democratic government,” Mehta argued.

5. Alleged security concerns and references to self-immolation

The Union further alleged that Wangchuk attempted to create distance between civilians and Indian security forces by lamenting the deployment of armed personnel in Ladakh.

“Security forces become ‘they’, and the people become ‘we’—this is dangerous in a border region,” Mehta submitted.

The most serious allegation concerned Wangchuk’s references to self-immolation, drawn from the Arab Spring narrative.

“This is an invitation to bloodshed,” Mehta claimed, arguing that such examples could incite impressionable youth to extreme and irreversible acts.

Petitioner’s response

1. Non-consideration of crucial exculpatory material

On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mounted a systematic dismantling of the detention order in earlier hearings.

Sibal argued that the September 24 speech, in which Wangchuk broke his hunger strike and publicly appealed for peace after violence erupted, was the most proximate and relevant material—yet was never placed before the detaining authority.

Its suppression, he argued, vitiates the very foundation of subjective satisfaction, particularly when the speech was publicly available and known to authorities.

2. Failure to supply relied-upon materials violates Article 22(5)

Sibal further submitted that four key videos, explicitly relied upon in the detention order, were never supplied to Wangchuk along with the grounds of detention, in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA.

Without access to the complete material, Wangchuk was denied the right to make an effective representation—not merely before the Advisory Board, but also before the government itself.

3. Section 5A cannot rescue a composite detention order

Rejecting the Union’s reliance on Section 5A of the NSA, Sibal argued that the provision applies only where distinct and independent grounds of detention exist.

Here, he said, the detention rests on a single composite ground, stitched together through selective videos, stale FIRs, and allegedly distorted interpretations.

Relying on Attorney General of India v. Amratlal Prajivandas (1994), Sibal submitted that a chain of events cannot be artificially severed to salvage an otherwise unlawful detention.

4. Stale FIRs, copy-paste orders, and non-application of mind

Sibal also pointed out that:

• Several FIRs relied upon date back to 2024,
• Many are against unknown persons, and
• Even the FIR registered after the Ladakh violence does not name Wangchuk.

He further demonstrated that the District Magistrate reproduced the Superintendent of Police’s recommendation verbatim, betraying a mechanical exercise of power rather than independent application of mind.

5. Allegations of anti-army rhetoric and plebiscite “completely false”

Addressing allegations that Wangchuk discouraged civilians from assisting the Indian Army during wartime, Sibal said the claim was entirely false, arising from mistranslation or deliberate distortion.

He quoted Wangchuk as urging Ladakhis not to mix political grievances with national defence, and to stand by the country during any external conflict.

Similar distortions, Sibal argued, were made regarding:

• Alleged support for plebiscite, and
• Claims of disrespect toward a Hindu goddess—both of which he described as manufactured narratives, widely debunked by fact-checkers.

Health, custody, and court-ordered medical care

Amidst these proceedings, concerns over Wangchuk’s health have also engaged the Court’s attention.

On January 29, the Supreme Court directed that Wangchuk be examined by a specialist gastroenterologist at a government hospital, after he complained of persistent stomach pain during his detention.

He was subsequently taken to AIIMS Jodhpur on January 31, where he underwent medical tests. While jail authorities claimed he had been examined 21 times, the Court accepted that specialist care was warranted and sought a report by February 2.

Voices Outside Court: Gitanjali Angmo speaks

Speaking to The News Minute at the Mathrubhumi International Festival of Letters in Thiruvananthapuram, Dr Gitanjali Angmo framed her husband’s detention as an attempt to silence a sustained and principled critique of how Ladakh is being governed after the abrogation of Article 370. She suggested that Sonam Wangchuk’s insistence on environmental safeguards and public participation in decision-making had increasingly placed him at odds with a governance model driven by centralised authority rather than local consent.

Dr Angmo emphasised that Ladakh’s demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule protection were neither sudden nor radical, but rooted in the region’s fragile ecology, high-altitude geography, and distinct cultural identity. With temperatures plunging to sub-zero levels and ecosystems highly vulnerable to disruption, she argued that policies designed for the rest of India cannot be mechanically applied to Ladakh without severe consequences for both people and environment.

She cautioned against what she described as a “one-size-fits-all” approach to governance, warning that excessive centralisation risks erasing India’s constitutional commitment to diversity and federal balance. India, she noted, has historically functioned as a plural federation, united not by uniformity but by accommodation of difference—a principle she fears is being steadily undermined.

Rejecting any suggestion that Wangchuk’s activism was anti-national, Dr Angmo characterised his work as firmly anchored in constitutional values and long-term national interest. She alleged that his speeches were selectively excerpted and stripped of context, while his repeated appeals for peace and unity were ignored, creating a distorted narrative that portrayed dissent as a security threat.

In Dr Angmo’s account, the case transcends the legality of one preventive detention and raises a deeper question about the health of Indian democracy. When region-specific political demands and environmental concerns are met with the extraordinary power of preventive detention, she suggested, it signals a troubling intolerance for dissent—particularly from India’s geographic and political margins.

A growing constitutional unease

As the hearings unfold, the case has come to symbolise a broader constitutional tension: the use of preventive detention laws against political dissent, particularly in regions demanding greater autonomy and constitutional safeguards.

At its core lies a troubling question—can references to global protest movements, stripped of context and divorced from subsequent calls for peace, justify the extraordinary power of preventive detention?

Wangchuk, notably, was detained two days after publicly calling for calm, breaking his fast, and dissociating himself from violence. The leap from that moment to the conclusion that he posed an imminent threat to national security remains at the heart of the Court’s scrutiny.

In a constitutional democracy, where preventive detention is meant to be the exception rather than the rule, the outcome of this case may well define the line between legitimate security concerns and the impermissible criminalisation of dissent.

Further hearings are awaited.

Orders of the said case may be read below.

Related:

How the Centre used a ‘Draconian’ law to silence Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakh’s aspirations

A victory for Ladakh’s voices: Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakhi activists break 16-day fast as union government agrees to renew talks on demands

Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’

Gen‑Z’s furious stand for Ladakh statehood, centre blames Sonam Wangchuk for violence incitement

The post When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta indicated that all matters in the batch would be closed, while explicitly preserving the liberty of parties to pursue other remedies under law. One case alone—Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.—was kept pending, limited to monitoring the progress of trial and allied proceedings arising out of a 2021 alleged hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Noida.

The January 20 hearing was not merely procedural. It functioned as a consolidated reckoning—bringing together nearly every strand of hate-speech litigation that has occupied the Court since 2020, and laying bare the Court’s evolving understanding of its own role, the limits of judicial supervision, and the persistent failures of enforcement.

The Beginning: 2020 and the turn to the Supreme Court

The present batch of cases originated in 2020, at a moment when hate speech entered the Supreme Court not as a marginal criminal issue, but as a structural constitutional concern.

The immediate triggers were:

• The “Corona Jihad” campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic, which communalised disease and cast Muslims as biological and civic threats; and
• Sudarshan TV’s “UPSC Jihad” programme, which alleged a conspiracy by Muslim candidates to infiltrate the civil services.

Petitioners argued that these narratives violated equality, dignity, and fraternity, and that State authorities had either failed to act or were complicit through inaction.

In 2020, the Supreme Court intervened to restrain the telecast of the “UPSC Jihad” programme, marking an early acknowledgment that certain forms of hate speech—especially when amplified through mass media—implicate constitutional values beyond ordinary criminal law.

This was the Court’s first decisive signal that hate speech would not be treated merely as offensive expression, but as conduct capable of restructuring social hierarchies and legitimising exclusion.

Expansion of the Docket: Dharam Sansads and genocidal speech (2021–2022)

The hate-speech docket expanded dramatically in 2021–22, following Dharam Sansad events and religious gatherings where speakers openly called for:

• Violence against Muslims,
• Economic boycotts,
• Armed mobilisation, and
• Genocide.

Petitions by Qurban Ali, Major General S.G. Vombatkere, journalists, civil liberties organisations, and religious bodies highlighted a disturbing pattern:

• Hate speech events were openly announced,
• Police often granted permission or remained passive, and
• FIRs, if registered at all, rarely resulted in arrests or prosecutions.

This phase forced the Court to confront not isolated speeches, but a systemic failure of enforcement.

October 2022: The Court steps in

In October 2022, the Supreme Court issued what remains its most consequential intervention on hate speech.

The Court directed that police authorities must register FIRs suo moto in cases involving:

• Promotion of communal hatred, or
• Offending religious sentiments,

without waiting for a formal complaint. Failure to act, the Court warned, would invite contempt proceedings.

The reasoning was explicit: Hate speech strikes at fraternity, corrodes secularism, and threatens constitutional morality. It cannot be left to the discretion of local authorities who may be unwilling to act.

This order marked the Court’s shift from reactive adjudication to supervisory constitutional enforcement.

2023: Nationwide application and preventive policing

In April 2023, the Supreme Court extended its October 2022 directions to all States and Union Territories, making clear that:

• The obligation to act was nationwide;
• Enforcement must be religion-neutral; and
• Police must act proactively, not defensively.

Throughout 2023, the Court:

• Passed preventive orders ahead of announced rallies,
• Directed videography of events,
• Required status reports on FIRs and investigations,
• Entertained contempt petitions alleging non-compliance.

The Court also began drawing upon its Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) jurisprudence on mob lynching, exploring whether similar preventive, remedial, and punitive frameworks could be adapted to hate speech.

Yet even as directions multiplied, enforcement remained uneven—setting the stage for judicial introspection. Across these six years, the Court was not operating in an evidentiary vacuum. Ground-level documentation repeatedly entered the record, including through material placed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) under its Hate Watch (HW) programme. These compilations drew from verified complaints filed by CJP across multiple States before police authorities, district administrations, minority commissions, and other statutory bodies. The same may be accessed here.

During various hearings, this data—reflecting patterns of non-registration of FIRs, selective enforcement, delayed action, and repeat offending by the same speakers—was intermittently brought to the Court’s attention. The material served a dual function: it both corroborated petitioners’ claims of systemic enforcement failure and demonstrated that hate speech was not episodic, but embedded in everyday administrative practice. While the Court acknowledged these inputs at different stages, their presence underscored a recurring tension in the proceedings: between empirical evidence of ground-level inertia and the Court’s increasing reluctance to continue long-term supervisory engagement.

Recalibration: “We cannot monitor the entire country” (2024–2025)

By late 2024 and 2025, a notable shift occurred.

Benches—including Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta—began articulating concern that the Supreme Court:

• Could not act as a permanent national monitoring authority;
• Could not substitute itself for police stations, magistrates, and High Courts; and
• Would not legislate from the bench in the absence of parliamentary action.

This was not a repudiation of earlier orders, but a recognition of institutional limits: judicial directions had reached their ceiling without corresponding executive will. The trajectory of this batch of litigation—from its inception as a broad constitutional intervention to its present narrowing—mirrors a discernible shift in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence when confronted with complex societal harms. What began as a wide-ranging judicial attempt to frame hate speech as a threat to fraternity, secularism, and constitutional morality gradually contracted into a posture of institutional restraint, marked by repeated assertions of jurisdictional and functional limits.

Over time, the Court’s role evolved from norm-setting and preventive oversight to a more confined emphasis on statutory remedies, executive responsibility, and case-specific adjudication. The impending closure of most petitions reflects not a denial of the harm caused by hate speech, but a judicial recalibration—signalling that the enforcement deficit cannot indefinitely be remedied through continuing mandamus. This recalibration forms the immediate backdrop to the January 20 hearing.

January 20 Hearing: A comprehensive closing of the docket

The January 20 hearing brought together every unresolved dimension of the hate-speech litigation. At the outset, the Bench indicated that it was inclined to:

• Close all connected matters, and
• Leave parties free to pursue statutory and constitutional remedies elsewhere.

The sole exception would be Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, which involved a concrete hate crime and an ongoing criminal process.

Arguments of the petitioners

1. The problem is enforcement, not law: Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Qurban Ali, made a central submission:

The crisis is not legal inadequacy, but institutional reluctance—especially when alleged offenders are linked to the ruling establishment.

He argued that:

• Hate speech events are often advertised in advance;
• When the Court previously intervened, events were cancelled or toned down, proving the effectiveness of oversight;
• The same habitual offenders operate across States;
• FIRs are registered but arrests and follow-up are absent, enabling repetition.

Pasha also referred to an application seeking takedown of an AI-generated video, allegedly circulated by the BJP’s Assam unit, portraying Muslims as poised to overtake the State if the party lost elections. He argued that hate speech frequently prefigures hate crime, calling for precisely the acts that later occur.

2. Hate speech as a constitutional tort: Advocate Sharukh Alam, appearing in Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, urged the Court to reject the framing of hate speech as merely a law-and-order problem.

She argued that:

• Hate speech entrenches discrimination and exclusion;
• It should be understood as a constitutional tort, engaging Articles 14, 15, and 21;
• In the Noida case, the Maulana was stripped and assaulted because of his religious identity.

The State of Uttar Pradesh denied the hate-crime characterisation, stating that:

• A chargesheet had been filed,
• Trial was underway, and
• Departmental action had been taken.

The Bench decided to retain this matter alone, limited to monitoring progress.

3. The sanction question: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for Brinda Karat, raised a distinct legal issue: Whether prior sanction is required at the FIR stage, a view adopted by a Magistrate and upheld by the Delhi High Court.

Aggarwal argued that:

• Sanction is required only at the cognisance stage, not for FIR registration;
• The issue is pending reference in Manju Surana.

Justice Vikram Nath asked him to submit a brief note, recognising the issue’s doctrinal importance.

4. Media, elections, and civil liberties:

• Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad (Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind) highlighted the growing targeting of religious personalities, with FIRs refused on erroneous sanction grounds.
• Advocate Amit Pai cited failure to register FIRs even in cases of casteist speech by elected officials.
• Senior Advocate Sanjay Parekh (PUCL) recalled the Court’s earlier reliance on Tehseen Poonawalla, while acknowledging the need for adaptation.
• Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, as amicus curiae, posed a structural question: Can hate speech be meaningfully curbed when social-media and broadcast platforms profit from virality?

State and institutional responses

• ASG S.V. Raju claimed substantial compliance, stating FIRs were registered in most cited cases.
• NBDA sought to be heard, citing self-regulatory guidelines.
• Election Commission, through Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, stated it already had enforcement mechanisms and was open to strengthening them.

The court’s direction

After hearing all parties, the Bench:

• Directed brief written notes within two weeks,
• Reserved orders,
• Ordered closure of all matters except Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, which will continue on the next date.

Conclusion: What January 20 ultimately signals

From restraining a television programme in 2020, to mandating suo motu FIRs nationwide, to threatening contempt, the Supreme Court spent nearly six years attempting to compel the State to confront hate speech as a constitutional harm.

The January 20 hearing marks an institutional conclusion: the Court has articulated the law; enforcement must now occur elsewhere.

Yet the decision to keep Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani alive—and to seek notes on unresolved legal questions—suggests that the Court has not abandoned the field entirely. It has instead stepped back from continuous supervision, leaving behind a dense jurisprudential trail that future courts, litigants, and lawmakers will have to grapple with.

As matters stand, the Supreme Court has reserved orders, directed the filing of brief notes, and indicated closure of all but one surviving case. Final orders are imminent, and with them, a formal conclusion to one of the Court’s longest-running engagements with hate speech as a constitutional issue. Whether this moment comes to be seen as a principled withdrawal in deference to institutional boundaries—or as a premature retreat from constitutional guardianship—will depend less on the text of the final order, and more on what follows on the ground. Whether this represents constitutional restraint or constitutional retreat is a question that will outlive this batch of cases.

Detailed reports of these matters may be read here and here.

Related:

When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR

The Politics of Processions: How the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra amplified hate speech in plain sight

The Orchestrated Extremism: An analysis of communal hate speech in India’s election cycle (2024–2025)

CJP urges NCM action against hate speech campaign vilifying Bengali Muslims as ‘Infiltrators’

The post Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Is this euphoria justified when we look at the interests of Indian farmers and workers? Seen together with a much criticised 2026 Union Budget by Farmers Unions and organisations. India is likely to witness more rounds of nationwide protests.

One,details of the agreement are not yet available. It is only when the full scope and details of the trade deal are available, one can make a proper assessment.

However, the announcement made by the US President Donald Trump on his
social media accounts indicate that Indian goods imports will face a 18 per cent tariff, while India reduces tariffs and non-tariff barriers on US goods to zero.

What does this one-sided deal mean? Eliminating tariffs will or may result in the flooding the country with US goods which will adversely affect industries and workers’ livelihoods. Removal of non-tariff barriers would mean eliminating subsidies and other measures, which protect and support Indian farmers.

Moreover. Trump has claimed that India has agreed to stop buying Russian oil and committed to buy $500 billion worth of US energy, technology and farm products. This, if true, shows up the highly unequal nature of the trade deal with India in a subordinate position, circumscribing its sovereignty.

Farmers unions, analysts and experts are now demanding that the government place the full trade agreement in the Parliament and in the public domain, so that there is a thorough discussion. Any harmful provisions must be rescinded to protect the interests of Indian industry, agriculture and working people.

Sharp Criticism of 2026 Union Budget, Agriculture Finds No Presence in the Union Budget by the All India Kisan Sanghatana (AIKS). Questioning the absence of any proposals for loan waivers and sharply criticising the reduction in fertilizer subsidy by Rs.15679 crores, the AIKS has called upon farmers to burn copies of the anti-farmer, anti-federal budget on February 3 across the country*

In a press note issued, AIKS states that, the Union Budget 2026-27 fails yet again to present any commitment towards the strategic regeneration of agriculture- the most crucial livelihood sector for the Indian people. Agriculture was largely ignored by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, small and marginal farmers were mentioned just once, while there was a conspicuous absence of any mention of rural labour. The budgetary figures echo this neglect.

According to the Economic Survey presented this week by the Union government, the average growth rate of agriculture in 2025 saw a fall. The growth rate registered in the previous quarter was 3.5 per cent, against the decadal average growth rate of 4.45 per cent.

Crop production witnessed the most drastic fall. Given this context of stagnation in the agriculture sector, it was expected that the Union Budget 2026-27 will deliver some relief and momentum. However, the Budget disappoints once again.

The total budget allocated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare at about 1.40 Lakh Cr., is just a 5.3 per cent increase in nominal terms from the Revised Estimate 2025-26. Accounting for inflation, this implies that the real allocation to agriculture has not seen any substantial growth.

The Economic Survey also recognised that the yield rates of various crops including cereals, maize, soybean, and pulses continue to trail behind the global averages, making Indian production uneconomic.

However, according to the AIKS. The Budget fails in terms of providing any additional support to boost agriculture research and development.

Despite the Finance Minister mentioning enhancing agriculture productivity as a kartavya, the budgetary allocation to the Department of Agricultural Research and Education has been reduced from 10281 crores Revised Estimate (RE) 2025-26 to 9967 crores (BE 2026-27).

The rhetoric on investing in cash crops continued even in this year’s budget. The speech underlined a focus on coconut, cocoa, cashew, nuts, and sandalwood. However, in reality, missions such as Cotton Technology Mission, Mission on Pulses, Hybrid Seeds, and Makhana Board, introduced in the past, find no mention in the budgetary figures.

Talking of relief to farmers, the budget presents no remarkable proposal. The subsidy on fertilizers has seen a reduction from 186460 crores (RE 2025-26) to 170781 crores (BE 2025-26). Food subsidy has also seen a reduction from the revised estimates of previous year.

There was no mention of the MGNREGS scheme or even the newly passed VB-GRamG scheme in the budget speech, which indicates the total dismissal of the significance of rural employment.

VB-GRamG scheme has been allocated 95692 crores; however, this allocation is subject to the clause of 40 per cent mandatory state funding. 60 percent of the allocated budget under VBGRamG is 57,415 crores, which is drastically less than the 88000 crores allocated to MGNREGS under RE 2025-26. This means for the new scheme to function at the previous level, State governments have to bear the burden of 38,277 crores!

As per the economic review 2025-26, the number of states with surplus has been reduced from 19 in 2018-19 to 11 in 2023-24. The states are demanding 50% share of the divisible pool but the 16th Finance Commission has proposed 41% only. The state governments without financial autonomy will not be able to find adequate funds to support the employment guarantee scheme and even the average 47 days of employment under MGNREGS will not be available for the rural people this year under VB GRAMG Act. It is a gross assault on the rural workers and peasants as well as violation of the federal rights. This is not acceptable to the peasantry.

AIKS: The only major announcement concerning rural employment was the Mahatma Gandhi Gram Swaraj Yojana, promoting village industries; however, no significant financial allocations were made.

Among the Agriculture and Allied sectors, the only significant budgetary allocation has been made under Animal Husbandry and Dairying, from 5303 crores (RE 2025-26) to 6135 crores (BE 2026-27). However, here again the thrust has been on expansion of credit-infused veterinary hospitals, breeding in the private sector and garnering foreign investments.

The AIKS has called upon the farmers, rural workers and the people at large to strongly protest against the anti-farmer, anti-worker, anti-federal budget by burning copies in villages and tehsils on February 3, 2026 or any subsequent day. AIKS also appeals to all to ensure the General Strike on February 12 will be a great success and will reflect the anger against the anti-people Union Budget 2026-27.

Related:

As heat waves intensify in India, some inspiring examples of how small budget efforts conserve water, big time

ASHA Union Demands Hike in NHM Funds in Union Budget 2025, Social Security Benefits

Thousands of NREGA workers urge Modi to resume work in West Bengal, contribute to State Budget

The post Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Struggles such as these deserve wider attention also because of the highly inspirational leaders who led some of these struggles but whose stories have not been adequately told. Apart from Govind Guru from Rajasthan, one of the most inspiring and courageous such leaders was Sridev Suman. A follower of Mahatma Gandhi, in normal times Suman attracted many people with his pleasing personality and soft manners. He was also a poet and a writer. However, when cruel repression was unleashed, he revealed the amazing strength of his commitments by refusing to compromise despite facing brutal torture and sacrificing his life in jail at a very young age (29 years).

Suman attained martyrdom in the very courageous struggles against exploitation and for freedom in the distant Himalayan kingdom of Tehri. There are several other highly courageous chapters of the freedom struggle of Tehri.

Soon after independence, Sunderlal Bahuguna had edited a small book on these various struggles of Tehri, which was published by Satya Prasad Raturi who as a teacher had played a role in mobilizing students during the freedom movement days. Most people know Sunderlal mainly for chipko and environment activism, but he was also a freedom fighter and follower (perhaps it is better to say worshipper) of Suman. After independence he was in a leadership role and with his strong inclination for writing about movements and struggles, planned this book titled Baagi Tehri (Rebel Tehri) on the struggles of the freedom movement in Tehri (including various struggles against exploitation). The essays and memoirs included in this book can be trusted for their authenticity as these were written soon after the events by those who were leading participants in these struggles or who were well informed on these issues.

This book was first published in 1948 but had not been available in recent years. After the passing away of Sunderlal Bahuguna, his daughter Madhu Pathak started searching for this book and finally found this with the help of two members of the family of the original publisher—Urmila and Prerna. Encouraged by her mother Vimla, Madhu started making efforts for the re-publication of this book with some additions. Thus in its new form, this book has been published by a leading publisher of Dehradun Samaya Sakshaya very recently in 2026 under the same title but by adding significant portions from the diary of Sunderlal Bahuguna written during those times. This has added further to the value of this book, as Sunderlal was a direct participant in some of the events of these struggles. For those interested in his early life also, these pages of his diary will be useful and interesting. Not many people know that following his participation in early struggles of Tehri and an early jail sentence at a very young age, to escape a second imprisonment he escaped to Lahore where he tried to study further by concealing his real identity. However, the police caught up with him and he had to flee again, finding safety in a village for some time. Some of these episodes I have also related in my biographies of Vimla and Sunderlal Bahuguna.

This book tells us about several important struggles such as Saklana’s struggle against exploitation and the farmers’ movement of Dang Chaura. These reports have tales of the greatest courage in very difficult and adverse circumstances. These should be more widely known and this book in its new form makes an important contribution to taking these stories to many more readers including young readers of a new generation.

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine, A Day in 2071 and Guardians of the Himalayas—Vimla and Sunderlal Bahuguna.

Related:

Light a lamp of hope in 2026

Strengthening indigenous communities means protection of the environment 

The post Hidden Histories: A rare memory of the struggle for freedom in a Himalayan kingdom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The chief minister had held a meeting with the CEC today in Delhi over the issue of deleted names from draft electoral rolls during ongoing special intensive revision (SIR). She was accompanied by Trinamool Congress MPs and 12 voters from West Bengal – five of whom were declared dead and had their names deleted from the rolls. The delegation, including Banerjee, wore black shawls on as a mark of protest.

In November, she had asked the CEC to halt the SIR in the poll-bound state, claiming that the BLOs had not been provided adequate training, support or time.

“I have been involved in Delhi’s politics for a long period of time…But I have never seen such an Election Commissioner. He is extremely arrogant. He is a great liar. I said that I respect your chair. I said that no chair is permanent for anyone. One day, you too will have to go. Don’t create this precedent,” she said, addressing the media after the meeting.

She claimed that the EC was using artificial intelligence (AI) to remove names from the list and that was the reason behind the discrepancies. She also claimed that “only Bengalis” were being targeted.

Here are five things she said while speaking to the media:

1. ‘Why Bengalis?’

“Why are only Bengalis being targeted? In a democracy, elections are a festival,” Banerjee asked, claiming that 58 lakh voters had been removed from the rolls without being given a chance to defend themselves.

She further questioned why the SIR exercise was not being conducted in BJP-ruled states and was limited to opposition-ruled West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. She said her party did not oppose SIR in principle, but it should not have been carried out in the hurried manner as it is being conducted.

“SIR didn’t happen in Assam since there is a BJP government. You didn’t carry out SIR in the north-eastern states. SIR happened in Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. In BJP-ruled states, you will get the time to put everyone’s name on the voter list,” she said, alleging more mismatches and mismapping in the opposition states.

2. ‘Using AI’

The chief minister alleged that it was not the EC handling the revision but BJP IT cell, who were “using AI” to delete names from the rolls.

“Who is doing this using AI? It is nobody from the EC. It is being done by the BJP IT cell. Even when a murderer doesn’t get a lawyer and pleads to the judiciary to defend himself, he is allowed to do so. But, you removed 58 lakh voters in the very beginning through Seema Khanna (EC’s IT expert) and the use of AI,” she said.

She highlighted that in several cases of deleted names, the issue was that the English surname did not match with the Bengali surname.

“I write Mamata Banerjee in English. However, in Bengali, I write Mamata Bandhopadhyay. Chatterjee in English is Chattopadhyay in Bengali. In this way, it [the ECI] has removed all the names that it could not understand [as being the same],” she said.

“It is fine that duplicate voters have been removed. We also highlighted duplicate cases last year. That should have been rectified, and the names of genuine voters should have stayed,” she said.

3. Minorities affected, elderly hassled; BLOs died

She added that this was affecting women who have changed their surname after marriage, the young generation and minorities, including Muslims, SCs and STs.

Banerjee questioned why the documents listed for verification were not being allowed for SIR in Bengal. “In every state, domicile certificates, land certificates, Aadhaar cards, land records, and matriculation certificates are allowed. None of these documents are recognised in Bengal for the SIR process. People in Bengal are carrying trunks full of documents, yet they are put into the ‘not found’ category in terms of evidence,” she said.

She also raised the issue of elderly harassment, pointing out that the elderly people were “being taken to the hearing venue in ambulances”, “made to wait futilely for 8-10 hours before they are sent back”.

She also pointed out that institutional delivery was rare earlier that many people are unable to retrieve their parent’s birth certificates, etc.

“Ask your PM if he has his parents’ birth certificates. Could Atal ji have been able to provide his birth certificate had he been alive today? Ask Advani ji if he can provide the dates of birth of his parents,” she said, calling the SIR process “totally undemocratic and unparliamentary”

Raising the issue of BLO suicides, the chief minister claimed that the BLOs died as they were “threatened and terrified” by the officers.

Banerjee has previously also criticised the situation in which BLOs across West Bengal were reportedly working. Many have alleged they are being forced to distribute hundreds of forms daily, then digitally upload them despite repeated server failures and poor technical infrastructure.

4. ‘Will face consequences like Dhankhar’

Banerjee told the media that she told CEC Kumar that he will “also face consequences like Dhankhar”, for “working at the behest of the BJP”.

Notably, before becoming the vice president, Jagdeep Dhankhar, as West Bengal’s governor, was often embroiled in public spats with Banerjee and the TMC.

“You are not doing inclusion; you are doing deletion. After removing 58 lakh voters, you have planned to remove another 1.4 crore voters. That means you have put 2 crore voters under the mismatch and mismap category,” she alleged.

5.’Boycotting CEC, not elections’

The chief minister said that the party has “boycotted” Kumar because he “insulted and humiliated” them. She also alleged that the CEC did not respond to her letters, and also went against the Supreme Court judgement.

However, she said she will not “commit the mistake” of boycotting the elections.

“We will not boycott the elections. We will not commit this mistake. We will fight and win. They have captured our administration for the last six months. They are not letting us do any work. It’s just like President’s Rule. Bengal is being targeted. Till he [the CEC] is sitting on that chair, he is going to be a threat to the country.”

“My allegation is against only one person. I respect the chair. I said that I have faith in him, and that is why we came. But he is not ready to listen. He does whatever the BJP instructs him to do.”

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Five Things Mamata Banerjee Said After Meeting CEC Over SIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.