Combining detailed regional overviews with independent commentaries by Anjuman Ara Begum and N P Chekutty, along with insights from academics and activists on Puducherry, the report offers a layered account of how dissent, media, and electoral processes intersect in contemporary India. It locates the upcoming elections within a broader pattern of shrinking civic space, contested electoral practices, and increasingly polarised public narratives—raising fundamental concerns about the conditions necessary for free and fair democratic participation.

The report situates the 2026 elections within a larger context: a shrinking space for dissent, increasing use of censorship, and the growing normalisation of hate speech. Across all three regions, it identifies a pattern where free expression is not only challenged through formal legal mechanisms, but also through intimidation, institutional pressure, and political messaging that reshapes public discourse.

It also highlights the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has raised concerns about exclusion, transparency, and voter confidence—placing the very foundation of electoral participation under scrutiny.

Assam: Systemic curtailment and the centrality of hate speech

The report’s coverage of Assam is extensive and sharply critical, documenting a sustained pattern of restrictions on free speech alongside the institutionalisation of polarising rhetoric.

It details how journalists and media workers faced criminal cases, arrests, and direct intimidation. A prominent editor was charged with sedition in 2025, while earlier instances included the detention of journalists for reporting on communal violence and the arrest of reporters investigating corruption. Physical attacks and coercion—such as forcing journalists to delete recorded material—further reinforced an environment of fear.

The report also points to more subtle forms of suppression, including the discontinuation of critical columns addressing human rights violations, indicating a climate where self-censorship becomes necessary for survival.

A significant episode cited is the complaint by the CPI(M) alleging that state broadcasters censored portions of its election speech critical of the government, raising concerns about electoral fairness and the misuse of public broadcasting platforms.

At the centre of the report’s Assam analysis is the pervasive use of hate speech. Political rhetoric targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims—particularly the “Miya” community—is described as sustained, deliberate, and electorally mobilising. Statements invoking economic boycotts, branding individuals as “traitors,” and linking communities to national security threats are documented as part of a broader narrative strategy.

The report further highlights the role of technology and disinformation, especially the circulation of AI-generated videos depicting violent and dehumanising imagery aimed at Muslims. These instances are presented as evidence of how digital tools are being deployed to intensify polarisation.

Legal responses, including petitions before courts, are noted—but the report underscores that such interventions have not significantly curbed the continuation of hate speech.

Additionally, it records attacks on media institutions, including the burning of newspaper bundles, and raises concerns about attempts to influence journalists through state-sponsored distributions, such as the gifting of smartphones.

Taken together, the report presents Assam as a case where free speech is constrained both structurally and atmospherically, with fear, lawfare, and polarisation reinforcing each other.

Kerala: Contestation, censorship, and civil society pushback

In contrast, the report’s examination of Kerala presents a more layered and contested environment. It acknowledges that free speech conditions in the state remain comparatively stronger, supported by a vibrant media ecosystem and an active civil society. However, this relative openness coexists with increasing instances of censorship and legal pressure.

The report documents the use of legal mechanisms, including FIRs and defamation case, against journalists, activists, and protestors. It also recounts the ban on a Malayalam news channel by the Union government, later overturned by the Supreme Court, as a key example of institutional censorship.

Cinema emerges as a major site of conflict. The report details:

• Judicial interventions affecting film reviews
• Controversies around propaganda films released in the run-up to elections
• Attempts to block screenings at international film festivals

These developments are framed as indicative of a broader struggle over narrative control in a state where cinema plays a central cultural role.

The report also examines the delayed and redacted release of the Justice Hema Committee report on the film industry, highlighting how even institutional inquiries into gender justice faced forms of informational control.

On the electoral front, it notes the emergence of communal rhetoric—traditionally less dominant in Kerala politics—and the legal challenges that followed, including court scrutiny of campaign speeches. At the same time, the report emphasises the role of public resistance. Civil society interventions, media plurality, and a politically aware citizenry have consistently pushed back against attempts to curb free expression.

However, it also flags emerging concerns: increasing corporate influence over media, declining investigative scrutiny, and growing public dissatisfaction—particularly among younger populations.

Kerala, therefore, is portrayed as a space of ongoing struggle, where democratic safeguards remain active but are under pressure.

Puducherry: Suppression of dissent and structural pressures

The report’s coverage of Puducherry highlights a different but equally significant pattern—where free speech is shaped by administrative control, campus politics, and broader structural inequalities.

A central focus is the curtailment of student expression. The report documents:

• Disciplinary action against students protesting fee hikes
• Disruption and criminalisation of cultural performances
• A controversial university code of conduct that triggered widespread protests

It further records police intervention in student movements, including lathi-charges, detentions, and arrests—underscoring the use of state force in response to dissent.

Journalists in the region also faced violence and intimidation, including physical attacks and verbal abuse during reporting.

Electoral processes come under scrutiny through the report’s discussion of the SIR exercise, which led to significant deletions of voters before partial corrections were made, raising concerns about disenfranchisement.

Beyond censorship, the report situates free speech within a broader political economy. It highlights:

• High levels of youth unemployment
• The dominance of wealthy candidates in elections
• The prevalence of candidates with criminal cases

These factors, it argues, shape the environment in which speech and dissent occur, often limiting meaningful participation in democratic processes.

The report also draws attention to the influence of centralised political power in the Union Territory, suggesting that local democratic autonomy is constrained.

Conclusion: A fragmented but converging crisis

Across Assam, Kerala, and Puducherry, the report does not present a uniform decline—but rather distinct trajectories of constraint.

• In Assam, free speech is undermined by criminalisation, intimidation, and the centrality of hate speech in political discourse.
• In Kerala, it is shaped by institutional pressures and censorship, countered by strong civil society resistance.
• In Puducherry, it is limited through administrative control, suppression of student activism, and structural inequalities.

Yet, despite these differences, the report identifies a common concern: the erosion of the conditions necessary for meaningful democratic participation. Free and fair elections, it argues, depend not only on the act of voting, but on the ability of citizens to speak, question, and dissent without fear. The persistence of censorship, the spread of hate speech, and the controversies surrounding electoral processes together signal a deeper challenge—one that extends beyond any single state or election cycle.

The complete report may be read below:

Related:

AERO dies by suicide in Kolkata, family alleges extreme election duty pressure and humiliation

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas

Alleged Pattern of Denigration: High Court seeks response from Himanta Biswa Sarma on PIL against his alleged hate speeches

The post Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate: Mapping the state of free speech ahead of the 2026 polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the official police enquiry, Malabika, a resident of Garia and posted at Diamond Harbour BDO-I, returned home after work on the night of March 29, 2026. She went to bed with her daughter as usual. However, at around 1:00 AM, she suddenly fell critically ill and began vomiting. In a state of distress, she informed her husband, Amalesh Bhattacharyya, who was in another room, that she had consumed poison. The family immediately rushed her to Allied Nursing Home in Boral. As her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to Ruby General Hospital on March 30 for advanced treatment. Despite medical intervention, she succumbed to the effects of poisoning on March 31, 2026, at approximately 8:30 AM.

Family’s account and allegations

The bereaved family has attributed her extreme step to the overwhelming pressure arising from her official responsibilities, particularly those linked to the SIR of electoral rolls.

Her husband has stated that Malabika had been under severe mental strain for several months due to the heavy workload associated with SIR duties. He further alleged that she had recently faced humiliation in connection with her work, which deeply affected her. On the night of the incident, after returning home, she reportedly spoke about the distressing experience. Later, when her condition worsened, she confessed to having consumed pesticide. Despite immediate efforts to save her, her condition continued to decline, ultimately leading to her death. The husband has also raised allegations against the Election Commission, claiming that the work pressure imposed on her was excessive and unmanageable.

Allegations of work-induced stress

The incident has foregrounded serious concerns about work-induced stress among election officials tasked with high-stakes administrative responsibilities.

Family members and relatives have consistently maintained that Malabika was struggling with an unsustainable workload for a prolonged period. According to them, the demands of the SIR process had left her mentally exhausted and overwhelmed. They revealed that she had expressed her inability to cope with the mounting pressure and had even contemplated resigning from her position. Significantly, the official police enquiry also records that she had been “suffering from mental depression for the last few months due to SIR,” thereby lending weight to the family’s assertions.

Police Action and Ongoing Investigation

Following the incident, the Bansdroni Police Station registered an Unnatural Death (UD) case (No. 22/26 dated March 31, 2026) and initiated a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death.

At present, no formal complaint has been lodged by the family or any other party. However, the police have conducted an inquest and arranged for a post-mortem examination to determine the exact cause of death and to preserve medico-legal evidence. The investigation remains ongoing, and authorities are expected to examine all relevant aspects, including the alleged work-related stress factors.

 A nationwide pattern of electoral fatigue

Tragically, Bhattacharyya’s death is not an isolated incident but part of a grim, nationwide pattern linked to the SIR exercise. Across India, compressed timelines, technical failures, and coercive supervision have pushed grassroots election workers to the brink. In West Bengal alone, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) like Rinku Tarafdar and Shantimoni Ekka took their own lives late last year, explicitly citing unbearable pressure, faulty digital apps, and language barriers.

Similar tragedies have unfolded in Uttar Pradesh, where officials like Sudhir Kumar Kori died by suicide after being denied leave for his own wedding under threat of dismissal. From Gujarat to Kerala—where a BLO’s death triggered a statewide boycott—and Tamil Nadu, workers have succumbed to extreme distress, with some even suffering fatal, stress-induced strokes and heart attacks. These cascading tragedies reveals a systemic crisis, highlighting the urgent need to address the harrowing human cost of rigid administrative mandates.

Related:

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

The post AERO dies by suicide in Kolkata, family alleges extreme election duty pressure and humiliation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Just two days ago, the High Court quashed a petition seeking permission to re-conduct the Neja Mela in Sambhal, held in memory of Ghazi Mian, directing the petitioner instead to approach a lower court.[1] Notably, the very need to seek such permission did not arise from any explicit judicial ban, but rather from a discretionary determination by state authorities deeming the event “impermissible.”

Uttar Pradesh has long been home to such heterodox sects who made their presence felt across the hinterland, away from the metropolis dominated by traditional religious authority. Similar to Sufis of Maghreb their proponents often came from both communities —Rajputs in Hindus, Afghans, Syeds and Arabs among Muslims— who were primarily military adventurers as described by Christopher Bayly in his magnum opus Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars. Engaging in agricultural administration and military occupations simultaneously these members of the landed class found themselves dwelling on socio-spiritual questions while living among the common peasantry compared to established, orthodox religious life.

The Syncretic Cult of Ghazi Miyan 

Originally venerated by pastoral communities across the Indo-Gangetic plain, the cult of Ghazi Miyan is tied to the lore of a horse-riding warlord—comparable in some respects to the Rajput Panch-Pir traditions of Rajasthan—believed to have arrived from the west and to have long-standing associations with cattle-rearing groups, particularly Ahīrs. Local tradition holds that when he laid claim to the area around Suraj Kund in Bahraich as his base, he encountered resistance from a regional chieftain.

According to legend, in the ensuing conflict he initially refrained from attacking cattle, and was eventually ‘martyred’ by a local Rajput chief identified as Suhel Dev. As Shahid Amin argues in Conquest and Community: The Afterlife of Saint Ghazi Miyan, the story of Ghazi Miyan represents a layered narrative shaped through repeated retellings—rooted in the idiom of the warrior-saint tradition and embedded within a local sacred geography marked by symbols such as the Mahua tree and betel leaf, both predominantly associated with Hindu cultural practices. In this sense, the myth reflects a shared, non-sectarian history of conflict, accommodation, and social realities rather than a rigidly communal past.

Besides the objections of Ulema, earlier one such attempt is credited to Sikanadar Lodi (Uttar Taimur Kaleen Bharat, S.A.A. Rizvi) who banned the procession of spears, citing orthodoxy. However, opposed to attempts post-1870s, the strategy changed to ‘nationalist’ social engineering post 1920s, which saw the valorisation of Suheldev. Evidently, contrary to claims of extremism, the tradition of Neja Mela (where Muslims replace the flag atop the pole of shape of the Neja i.e. spear) in Sambhal is no different than Zohra Bibi-Ghazi Miyan ka Mela, celebrated in Bahraich in the memory of their aborted marriage before which he was ‘martyred’.

Shivnarayanis 

In contrast to the more visible syncretic cults—many of which have been subjected to reinterpretation within Hindutva frameworks due to their prominence in public discourse—there exist other syncretic traditions in Uttar Pradesh that have largely evaded such interventions. The Shivnarayani, which is one such tradition, is a sect from eastern Uttar Pradesh with a history spanning nearly three centuries. Founded by Shivnarayan Singh—born in 1686 into a Narauni (Pratihara) Rajput family in Ballia—the tradition articulated what he called Sant Mat (the “creed of the Saints”), with individual adherents known as Sants. As his 10th direct descendant and head of the Panth, Jagatguru Amarjeet Singh explains, Santpati signifies that anyone who truly lives the path of ultimate truth can be considered a Sant. Rejecting the corruptibility of fixed hierarchies and institutional authority, Shivnarayan emphasized a deliberately non-ritualistic framework—eschewing temples and idols in favour of temporary chauris, often structured in seven steps symbolizing both the seven chakras and the seven heavens.

The sect’s founding narrative is tied to the Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah Rangila, who is said to have summoned Bagh Rai, Shivnarayan’s father, to Delhi over unpaid dues during a famine. Shivnarayan accompanied him to the imperial court around 1732. According to tradition, while imprisoned, news of his spiritual powers reached the emperor, who tested him by killing a cow and challenging him to restore it to life. The episode, as narrated within the sect, culminates not merely in a miracle but in a moral transformation: Shivnarayan compels the emperor to confront the futility of senseless violence, leading to a change of heart and his initiation into the fold. The enduring legacy of this encounter is reflected in the continued presence of Muslims as chharidars (ceremonial guards) for the head of the panth and its monastic institutions—an institutionalized symbol of the sect’s syncretic ethos.

Drawing upon his own feudal background—where the Naraunis had historically controlled clusters of villages under the ṭappas of Sukhpura, Bansdih, and Kharauni—Shivnarayan was uniquely positioned to challenge Brahminical orthodoxy. He is credited with opening the doors of organized religious practice, albeit stripped of conventional ritualism, and embedding within it a strong message of social equality. This appeal resonated particularly among marginalized communities, including Dalits, across eastern Uttar Pradesh, and later spread to regions such as Bihar, Nepal, Uttarakhand, Malwa, and Punjab.

Although the number of adherents and initiated Sants has declined over time, the sect’s message continues to find expression in its distinctive funerary practices: when a Sant departs for Nij Dham, the body is interred rather than cremated, accompanied by Bhojpuri verses from Sant Vilas. Such practices underscore a worldview that resists rigid religious binaries. As thinkers like Gail Omvedt have noted, the imposition of doctrinal divisions since early modernity has largely emanated from centres of power, while among marginalized communities, traditions emphasizing harmony over conflict, cooperation over coercion, and faith as a means of transcendence have remained more deeply rooted. This ethos finds parallels in imagined sacred spaces such as Anandpur associated with Guru Nanak, Begampura envisioned by Kabir, and Sant Lok articulated within the Shivnarayani tradition.

Arya Samaj’s war on syncretic beliefs

Influenced by a Protestant-inflected model of spiritual morality—marked by defined theology, rigid religious boundaries, hierarchical authority, and codified norms—alongside the transformative effects of print capitalism, 19th-century revivalist movements began to cast a suspicious eye on syncretic traditions. Reformist currents, particularly those associated with the Arya Samaj, as well as strands of both Hindu and Muslim orthodoxy, increasingly dismissed such blended practices with derision, often labelling them disparagingly as khichri. Emerging from metropolitan centres and gaining traction among the educated urban middle classes, these reformist voices promoted a Sanskritic, text-centred epistemology—albeit not without contesting traditional authorities—and advanced a more congregational, collectivist religious identity. This marked a departure from the diffuse, practice-based, and often individualized nature of older Hindu traditions, especially those shaped by karmic doctrine.

By the early 20th century, many of some reformist actors—especially those linked to the Arya Samaj—had entered the arena of electoral politics, positioning themselves as agents of reason and enlightenment within formations like the Indian National Congress, while simultaneously fuelling a parallel reformist zeal within right-leaning organisations. This ideological convergence across the political spectrum became particularly visible in events such as the 1950 fair commemorating Suheldev, organised by the Arya Samaj, and inaugurated by Congress leaders—despite the backdrop of communal unrest and the imposition of Section 144.

Khwaja of the Thakurs

Folk traditions of indebtedness often stem from simple ancestral memories. As noted by Sharique Ahmad Khan, the Bais Rajputs of Azamgarh trace one such episode to Khwaja Minhaj, a Mughal officer, who rescued a wounded man—Mainpar Dev—from a well after he had been left for dead. Dev later rose in Minhaj’s service, and upon the latter’s death, inherited his estate and built his tomb, giving rise to the name Minhajpur (Mehnajpur).

In a lasting mark of gratitude, Bais Rajputs adopted the Muslim style of tying the mirzai to the right, protected local Muslim communities, and continue to contribute to the annual urs at the shrine.

Conclusion 

While presenting itself as reformist, Hindutva remains tethered to a Brahminical cosmopolis. Even as it challenges ritual hierarchies and orthodox authority, it consistently targets syncretic traditions that unsettle its rigid binaries.

Across the Indo-Gangetic plain, however, long-standing, symbiotic belief systems—rooted in marginalised communities and distant from metropolitan influence—have persisted outside the frameworks of both organized religion and modern ideological constructs. Often overlooked or suppressed, these traditions continue to embody and transmit a lived ethos of interfaith and intercultural harmony. 

(The author is a post graduate scholar, a MA in History, specialising in medieval and pre-modern History from University of Delhi. His interests include heritage research, social and environmental histories)

[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/sambhal-cops-deny-permission-for-historic-neja-mela-commemorating-plunderer-ghaznavis-commander/articleshow/119125961.cms; Note the contradictory even provocative headline in Times of India, on the one hand calling the Neja Mela “historic” and on the other hand almost legitimising the terms used by hardline objectors, “..commemorating plunderer Ghaznavis”!!

Related:

Rajasthan: Gogamedi, a Rajput-Muslim shrine and the politics of communal capture

The post UP’s syncretic warrior cults facing Hindutva challenge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

High-Flying Service: The Decorated Career of Wing Cdr Akhtar

Wing Commander Akhtar, commissioned into the Indian Air Force on 15 December 2006, served the nation with distinction for 17 years. His career included key roles across the country—from training nearly 2,000 airmen at Air Force Station Tambaram to administrative leadership postings in Chandigarh and Allahabad. He also represented India internationally in a Young Officers’ Exchange Program with the Royal Thai Air Force.

He played a crucial role during the devastating 2018 Kerala floods, coordinating rescue and relief operations while serving at the Southern Air Command. After taking voluntary retirement (VRS) in July 2022 due to family commitments, Akhtar has been actively mentoring youth aspiring to join the armed forces and working with underprivileged students.

From Combat to Courtroom: A Veteran’s Fight for the Vote

According to Akhtar, his name was placed “under adjudication” during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). However, before he could even be called for a hearing, his name was deleted in the second supplementary list released on March 28, 2026.

The Wing Commander (Retd) claims he followed all instructions issued by the Election Commission and remained in constant touch with the BLO at every step. “My name was there in the final list, so I had nothing to act on. But in the first supplementary list on March 23, it was marked ‘under adjudication’. I contacted my BLO, Mondal, but he did not tell me any procedure to follow and assured me that it would be restored automatically. Then on March 28, when my name was deleted in the second list, the BLO told me to hire a lawyer and approach the tribunal,” rued Akhtar.

What makes the case more puzzling is that:

Longevity: His name had been part of the electoral rolls since 2002.

Family Status: His family members’ names continue to remain on the list.

Lack of Due Process: No formal hearing or opportunity for clarification was provided.

The incident has sparked outrage among sections of civil society, with some questioning whether the deletion could be linked to the officer’s identity as a Muslim. “When a decorated officer with an impeccable service record is denied even a hearing, it naturally raises questions,” said Athar Firdausi, a rights activist.

Recently, Alt News, in its report “Bengal SIR: The Wall ECI Built Around Electoral Data and How We Broke Through It,” highlighted large-scale discrepancies, claiming that voters from communities less likely to support the BJP were disproportionately targeted for deletion or placed under doubt.

However, the Wing Commander is not the only alleged victim of the controversial SIR process. The list is long. eNewsroom has also reported that AGWB gazetted officer Reshma Shirin Iqbal’s name was deleted in a similar manner. Former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi’s name was also removed, and he publicly stated that the experience was not only humiliating but left him unsure of where to seek redress. It has also been reported that the names of the grandson and granddaughter-in-law of Indian Constitution illustrator Nandalal Bose were dropped.

Courtesy: https://enewsroom.in

The post No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But what if we pause and think about the thousands of modern day slaves in India who continue to work under almost the same conditions? 

As India marks 50 years of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, cases of bonded labour still surface in states like Telangana. Many workers in sectors such as agriculture, brick kilns, fishing and construction remain trapped in debt and coercion. The only thing that has changed is that it is no longer the 3rd century BCE, but the 21st century. 

Pursala Lingamma’s story emerges from this reality. Once a bonded labourer, she later entered public life and today serves her village as its Sarpanch.

Pursala Lingamma, Sarpanch of Amaragiri village

“At night, our seth(master) locked our children in a separate room so that we would not run away. If we tried to escape, we would have to leave our children behind. That is how we remained trapped in slavery for nearly three decades.” – says Pursala Lingamma 

P Lingamma, once trapped in conditions of forced slavery, went on to become the Sarpanch of a village with hundreds of rescued individuals. Lingamma hails from Amaragiri village in Nagarkurnool district, Telangana. For over three decades, her family, along with 44 other families from the Chenchu tribe (an aboriginal community listed among the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in India) was trapped in bonded labour. 

“The community’s complete rescue was a miracle. We had to suffice in the given boat and equipment for fishery and had never imagined that we could ever be free. My parents and the whole community had lost all hope. ” – she adds. 

They were trapped by three local businesspersons who controlled most of the fishing trade in the area. Through debt and coercion, Lingamma’s family, along with many other families, were forced to sell the fish they caught at extremely low prices. While the market price was around Rs 60, they were made to sell it for just Rs5. They were denied access to fair markets and were even subjected to physical abuse, leaving constitutional guarantees only on paper.

Rescued from Bonded Labour 

However, the turning point came when a civil society organisation, the Foundation for Sustainable Development (FSD), stepped in. Established in 2004, FSD works to eradicate bonded labour across several Indian states, including Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and West Bengal. 

“Due to migration and the search for a stable livelihood, these tribal groups, most of them illiterate, get trapped by local businessmen. They are often threatened and abused so that they do not speak against them.” – Dr. Kandasamy Krishnan, Executive Director of FSD and Convenor of the National Adivasi Solidarity Council (NASC)

Krishnan speaks about the deep fear among the survivors of Chenchu tribe in Amaragiri village. For generations, these families had been catching fish from the Krishna River and selling it locally for around Rs. 100 per kilogram. The same fish could earn up to Rs. 1,000 per kilogram in markets in West Bengal. In other words, they were getting barely one-tenth of its real value. Yet most of them were afraid to complain to officials, fearing they might lose even this small income, if they engage with officers. Krishnan adds that among the 106 people who were rescued, only two could read and write, which made it even harder for them to understand their constitutional rights and speak up against them in front of officers.

Lingamma’s Leadership Journey

Lingamma attended several leadership sessions conducted by the Foundation for Sustainable Development and waited for the right opportunity to show her abilities. She is one of the 2,900 rescued survivors by FSD, who has received leadership training. Today, many of them are leading participants in different fields such as local politics, markets, working at handicrafts and self-help groups. However, their journey, even after the rescue, is not easy. It is only their first step. 

For the first time, the position of Sarpanch in Amargiri village was reserved for a woman from a Scheduled Tribe. It was then that a cousin of Lingamma encouraged her to contest the election, thinking that the position could later be taken over by him. She hesitated at first, but eventually decided to step in and make use of the opportunity. However, she faced heavy criticism for contesting, especially because she was a woman and that too from the Chenchu tribe.

Lingamma says, “The village was already divided among different tribes. When I got nominated, it soon turned into a gender conflict as well. The toughest time for me was not the haunting decades of slavery, but the months before the election, when the men of my own community stood against me.” 

The villagers were deeply divided in their opinions about a woman’s capability to hold such a significant position in the political arena. They doubted a woman’s ability to conduct meetings with bureaucrats, negotiating and bargaining the interest of the community wisely. Many were sceptical, but she was confident. She went ahead and mobilised male voters by taking up their daily issues and also assured the women that she would be a strong and accountable leader. After conducting numerous local Sabhas to engage with opposing forces, the tribe slowly consolidated and she won the first election of her political journey. Later, despite being offered monetary bait of Rs10 lakh to transfer the real authority to her cousin, Lingamma declined to sell the trust of her own people. Today, she stands as an epitome of women’s empowerment for the whole of Amaragiri.

Developmental Road Ahead after Winning

Lingamma’s leadership as Sarpanch has played an important role in establishing the economic independence of Amaragiri. 

Lingamma is currently focusing on education and has been working to lay the foundation for school buildings in the village. She is also pushing for the establishment of a community hall for her community, which is still awaiting sanction. Along with this, she hopes to soon ensure access to drinking water and improve road infrastructure, as the village remains largely isolated from the outside world.

She says, “Amaragiri should not be known as a village of bondage, but for its progress and for the leadership of a tribal woman.”

Post-rescue, survivors have organised themselves into the Amaragiri Released Bonded Labourers Association (RBLA) in effort to secure government benefits, and launched initiatives like a fish-processing unit to ensure economic independence in their age-old profession. The Chenchu community of Amaragiri were able to obtain government funds as well, of approximately 40 lakh rupees, to start a Fishing Cooperative and purchase vehicles to take the fish to city markets. 

Her victory is historic, not just for her but for the entire community. It symbolises a complete reversal of decades of oppression and a beacon of hope for other marginalized communities. 

At the heart of this transformation stands Sarpanch P. Lingamma. 

Her journey is recently recognised in a feature by Eenadu, a Telugu newspaper, on March 18, 2026 titled “From Struggle to Recognition: An Inspiring Journey of Resilience.”

On the occasion of International Women’s Day, Lingamma was also among nine Elected Women Representatives from across the country who were felicitated by the Indian School of Democracy at the Constitution Club of India. ISD is a non-partisan organisation that works to nurture principled grassroots political leaders committed to strengthening Indian democracy.

(The author is a Political Science student at Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Delhi University, and an independent journalist writing on polity, governance, and social issues.)

Related:

Raid on Adivasi leader Manish Kunjam for ‘seeking investigation into the tendu patta bonu scam’, condemned by rights groups

Appeal to Political Parties, Visit Bastar, Initiate a Dialogue, Restore Fundamental Rights

Attack on Prof Sanjay Kumar Roundly Condemned

The post An Adivasi woman once in bonded labour now serves her village as a Sarpanch appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Roy cited the case of Ripon Mollya, whose name was deleted despite his family’s long-standing voter registration in the constituency, and Jesmina Khatoon, whose name was purged following her marriage, even though both her parents and husband are registered voters. He noted that in Booth No. 56 of Swarupnagar Assembly Constituency, 13 names were deleted on February 28, followed by another 52 on March 23, with most belonging to legitimate citizens.

The letter accuses electoral officers of procedural failures, including ignoring Form 6 applications and petitions submitted to the District Election Officer and District Magistrate. Roy warned that “silly clerical typos” and departmental whims were being used to disenfranchise marginalized communities in border villages. He described the ongoing Special Intensive Revision as “chaotic” and “non-transparent,” turning what should be a citizen-friendly process into an instrument of harassment.

Calling the exercise of power a public trust, Roy demanded immediate restoration of the names of Ripon Mollya and Jesmina Khatoon, a time-bound inquiry into ignored applications, and directives to ensure marginalized populations are not excluded due to minor technicalities. “We look forward to your immediate intervention to end this ‘nightmare’ for these families and to uphold the sanctity of our democracy,” Roy wrote.

This complaint underscores growing concerns about electoral integrity and the protection of voting rights in sensitive border regions.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund has now listed the matter for April 24, 2026. While the hearing itself was limited to procedural aspects, the petition raises substantive challenges to the Foreigners Tribunal process, the delay in approaching the Court, and the legal consequences of an ex-parte declaration of foreigner status. The legal aid in this case is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace.

Details of the previous case proceedings in GHC, challenging their detention, may be accessed here, here and here.

Proceedings before the High Court

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, submitted that the writ petition is maintainable and deserves consideration on merits for two primary reasons.

First, it was argued that the delay in filing the petition has been sufficiently explained, and is not attributable to any deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner.

Second, it was emphasised that the present petition has been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court, which had expressly permitted the petitioner to challenge the Foreigners Tribunal opinion.

Advocate Dutta also sought that the Court may call for the records of the Foreigners Tribunal, particularly in light of the contention that the proceedings were initiated without disclosure of the grounds of suspicion.

The State, at this stage, did not address the merits of the challenge. Instead, it sought time to file an affidavit raising preliminary objections, specifically on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

The Bench allowed the request and passed the following directions:

• The State is permitted to file an affidavit on preliminary objection,
• The interim protection against deportation is extended, and
• The matter is listed on April 24, 2026, with a direction that a copy of the order be furnished to the petitioner.

At this stage, the Court has not adjudicated on maintainability or merits, but has kept the petition alive and ensured that no coercive action is taken in the meantime.

Background: Tribunal opinion and subsequent proceedings

The petition challenges the ex parte opinion dated June 13, 2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang, in FT Case No. BNGN FT/CHR/220/07, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had allegedly entered India after March 25, 1971.

According to the petition:

• The petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal through an advocate,
• However, due to financial constraints, he was unable to continue legal representation or file a written statement,
• As a result, the proceedings culminated in an ex parte opinion.

Following the declaration:

1. The petitioner was detained on April 30, 2019,
2. Subsequently released on April 30, 2021 due to Covid based relaxations,
3. Thereafter, he was required to report regularly to the police station, which he is stated to have complied with.

The petition further states that:

• On May 25, 2025, he was taken into custody again, allegedly without issuance of an arrest memo or any formal order cancelling his release conditions.

This sequence of events forms the immediate background to the present writ petition.

Supreme Court proceedings and grant of liberty

An important stage in the litigation is the petitioner’s approach to the Supreme Court. After earlier proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner filed an SLP, which came to be disposed of on December 12, 2025.

While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the Foreigners Tribunal opinion. This clarification is central to the present proceedings.

The petition asserts that:

• The current writ petition is being filed in exercise of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, and
• Therefore, objections based on delay or prior proceedings must be considered in that context.

Explanation for delay in filing the petition

The petition sets out a detailed explanation for the delay in challenging the 2018 Tribunal opinion.

1. Financial constraints- It is stated that the petitioner:

• Was unable to pay legal fees before the Tribunal,
• Could not pursue remedies thereafter due to continued financial hardship,
• Faced severe economic difficulty, particularly during the COVID period.2. Periods of detention- The petitioner’s ability to pursue legal remedies was affected by:

• His detention from 2019 to 2021, and
• His subsequent detention beginning May 25, 2025.3. Lack of access to the petitioner- The petition records that:

• Family members were not permitted to meet him freely,
• Efforts to obtain a fresh vakalatnama were unsuccessful,
• At certain points, even information regarding his whereabouts was not clearly disclosed.4. Absence of legal aid- It is specifically pleaded that:

• The petitioner was not provided legal aid, despite being eligible,
• The present petition has been filed only after assistance was arranged through an external organisation.5. Practical difficulties in preparing the petition- The petition had to be prepared:

• Without direct access to the petitioner,
• By reconstructing documents and facts from available records.

Legal submission on delay- On the basis of the above, it is argued that:

• The delay is neither intentional nor negligent,
• The matter involves citizenship and personal liberty, and
• The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought to consider the petition on merits despite delay.

Challenge to the tribunal proceedings

The petition raises multiple grounds challenging the validity of the Tribunal proceedings.

1. Absence of “Main Grounds” in Notice- It is contended that:

• The notice issued to the petitioner was a standard printed format,
• It did not disclose any specific grounds or material forming the basis of suspicion.

The petition argues that such a notice is insufficient in law and affects the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. Validity of the reference- The reference made by the police is challenged on the ground that:

• It was not based on disclosed material,
• There is no indication that there was application of mind before initiating proceedings.

3. Ex Parte opinion- The ex parte opinion is explained as a consequence of:

• The petitioner’s inability to sustain legal representation,
• Rather than any deliberate failure to participate.

4. Opportunity to contest- It is argued that:

• The petitioner was not provided access to materials relied upon,
• Nor given an effective opportunity to present his case.

Documentary basis of citizenship claim

The petitioner relies on several documents to establish his claim to Indian citizenship, including:

• Entries in the NRC 1951 relating to his family,
• Inclusion of his and his family’s names in voter lists of 1965 and 1970,
• Land records showing inheritance from his father.

These documents are relied upon to demonstrate longstanding presence and linkage within India.

Legal argument on burden of proof

The petition addresses the operation of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act by submitting that:

• While the law places an onus on the proceedee,
• This arises only after the State establishes basic facts justifying the reference.

In the present case:

• It is contended that no such foundational material was disclosed,
• Therefore, the burden could not have been validly shifted to the petitioner.

Reliefs sought

The petition seeks:

• Quashing of the Tribunal opinion dated June 13, 2018,
• Setting aside of the reference and notice,
• Directions restraining the authorities from acting on the declaration, including deportation.

Related:

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

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

The post Abdul Sheikh Citizenship Case: Deportation stayed as Gauhati High Court Hears challenge to ex parte foreigner declaration, state to raise maintainability issue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.”

Lenin stated this fact in context of Marxism but this has a universal connotation. Such whittling down has been common to the ideas, contribution and sacrifices of Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh. The latest contributor to this venture is a self-acclaimed liberal, Bhagwan Josh. He contributed an article, ‘Why Bhagat Singh was not a Marxist thinker’ (The Tribune, March 23, 2026).[1] He ended his derogatory piece with the words: “The fact remains that Bhagat Singh was hanged not for his revolutionary ideas but for committing a murder of a British officer.” It is notable that The Tribune chose to publish it on the 95^th anniversary of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, Rajguru and Sukhdev. This act also reveals what has happened to even a publication, which had previously remained supportive of the revolutionaries when they were alive.

Bhagwan Josh, not confident of his current take on Bhagat Singh, goes hunting for names like Antonio Gramsci, Bipin Chandra and Harish Puri to add weight to his diatribe. Gramsci and Bipin Chandra are not alive to clarify but Professor Harish Puri needs to share with his fans like me whether he too believes that Bhagat Singh was not a revolutionary. Thanks to Harish Jain who responded by penning ‘Why Bhagat Singh defies easy labels’ (The Tribune, March 26, 2026) in which Bhagwan Josh in one of his earlier Punjabi works, (Bhagat Singh da Markasvad) located “Bhagat Singh within the distinct Leninist current that was emerging in Punjab between 1928 and 1931 an intellectual formation grounded in study, debate and ideological seriousness and set apart from what he saw as the more pragmatic and often anti-intellectual strands within Indian communism”.[2]

A serious problem with armchair Professors is that they live in ivory towers but believe that they and only they are authorised to explain ground realities. Bhagat Singh was not a thinker because he was unable to produce in his writings, “the perfunctory references to the sources or books from which these notes and quotes were taken have left a rather perplexing question mark with regard to the authentic source. That is, from which editions of which books, by which particular authors, were these taken?” They do not know that Bhagat Singh was not a doctoral candidate in some university but chose to work to liberate his motherland from the colonial subjugation. According to British official documents, he was in jail for 716 days, consulted/read approximately 302 books and was well versed in English, Urdu, Hindi, and Punjabi. When he was not in jail, he was both a researcher and a journalist. He followed the Gramscian dictum (without reading him) that “It is necessary to think and study even under the most difficult conditions…to keep the risk of intellectual degradation at bay”.

Bhagat Singh was not reading books for the purposes of writing a doctoral proposal for enrolling at Oxford or Cambridge but for understanding the world and India so that he could challenge the mightiest imperial power and replace it with a system in India where ‘men do not exploit men’. This is what a thinker does. I am sure if Bhagat Singh had met Professors like Bhagwan Josh there would have been no need commemorating his Martyrdom Day, he would have retired as a teacher-receiving pension from the British masters!

Bhagwan Josh makes another problematic claim: “But what sort of Marxism did Bhagat Singh imbibe from his readings? Did this Marxism help him in any way to get some insight into the contemporary politics of Indian nationalism, working class movements and the immediate historical social reality around him? A mastery of Marxism that is merely an exercise in the appropriation of textual discourse must remain a ‘Brahmanical Marxism’…”

This from a Professor who — we are told, has taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)! Can such an armed academic be so ignorant of the written word, so oblivious of facts available in the public domain? This does not bode well for future of JNU. Bhagat Singh who died at the age of 23 years, authored the following major documents, Universal Love (Hindi 1924), Youth (Hindi 1925), Religious Riots and their Solution (Punjabi 1927), Religion and our Freedom Struggle (Punjabi 1928), The Issue of Untouchability (Punjabi 1928), Satyagrah and Strikes (Punjabi 1928), Students and Politics (Punjabi 1928), New leaders and their Duties (Punjabi 1928), Lala Lajpat Rai and the Youth (Punjabi 1928), What is Anarchism part 1, 2, 3 (Punjabi 1928), The Revolutionary Nihilist of Russia (Punjabi 1928), Ideal of Indian Revolution (English 1930), Why I am an Atheist (English 1930), The First Rise of Punjab in the Freedom Struggle (Urdu 1931), Introduction to Dreamland (English 1931), and Young Political Workers (English 1931).

The Manifesto of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and the Manifesto of Hindustan Socialist Republican Army were written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra and finalised after consultation with Bhagat Singh.

Shame on those who call this ‘Brahmanical Marxism’. Bhagat Singh developed Marxism in the context of Indian realities. Marx said that future generations would come and prove us wrong; this is how Marxism as a science survives.

Bhagwan Josh also declares the Ghadar movement as a failed movement and declares that Bhagat singh “instead of learning a lesson from its tragic failure, he blindly followed the example of the Ghadarites”. This sweeping conclusion reveals on whose side Professor the worthy stands while evaluating two among the greatest milestones in the glorious anti-colonial history of Indian freedom struggle in the 20^th century. Failure does not mean that any resistance was faulty or not required. To hail the victor is, in fact, a typical Brahmanical characteristic. Bhagwan must be glad to know that he is not alone in holding such a debased idea. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while denigrating the tradition of martyrdom had similarly, brazenly stated:

“There is no doubt that such man who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.” [‘Martyr, great but not ideal’, Bunch of Thoughts, the collection of writings of MS Golwalkar.]

Last but not the least, Bhagwan Josh indulges in peddling another falsehood when states that 1857 Mutiny (which in fact was a nation-wide liberation war which continued for more than 3 years), was defeated by British forces and Sikh troops. There are abundant contemporary documents which conclusively prove that Punjab and Sikhs played significant role in 1857 liberation war. These were not only Sikh ruling families in Punjab who supported the British but also well-known rich families amongst Hindus and Muslims who joined the British campaign against the 1857 rebellion. This reality was no different from the rest of India, where rulers of Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bhopal, Dhar and many more native states joined hands with the British in crushing the great War of Independence.

If Bhagat Singh is simply a murderer, Professor Bhagwan Josh why do you bother with him? The fact is that he with his comrades continue to be synonymous with Indian revolution, and this troubles those intellectually subservient to imperialism who then come forth to denigrate them.

Marxism survives as so will Bhagat Singh’s heritage.

March 27, 2026

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

[1] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/why-bhagat-singh-was-not-a-marxist-thinker/

[2] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/why-bhagat-singh-defies-easy-labels/

Related:

Denigration of martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev – a peep into RSS archives

78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

The post Bhagat Singh sent to gallows once again! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Across party lines, opposition Members of Parliament repeatedly demanded that the Bill be referred to a Standing or Select Committee to enable wider consultation with stakeholders, including transgender persons, legal experts, and civil society organisations. These demands were rejected without substantive reasoning. Civil society groups later highlighted that the Bill had been introduced through a supplementary list of business, limiting the time available for parliamentary scrutiny. In their joint letter to the President, the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR) characterised the process as one marked by “undue and unjustifiable haste,” arguing that the government had disregarded both parliamentary conventions and the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014.

The Bill now awaits assent from President Droupadi Murmu, even as legal scholars, activists, and citizens urge her to exercise her powers under Article 111 of the Constitution to return the Bill for reconsideration.

The Core Legal Shift: From self-identification to state certification

At the heart of the amendment lies a fundamental transformation in how Indian law conceptualises gender identity. The Transgender Persons Act, 2019 was built upon the constitutional foundation laid down in NALSA v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify one’s gender as intrinsic to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty. The judgment made it clear that gender identity is not contingent on medical procedures or external validation, but rather on an individual’s deeply felt sense of self.

The 2026 amendment departs sharply from this framework. By removing the provision for “self-perceived gender identity,” it replaces a rights-based approach with a certification regime. Under this system, individuals seeking recognition as transgender must undergo evaluation by a designated medical board. The recommendation of this board is then examined by a District Magistrate, who ultimately decides whether to issue a certificate of identity.

While the government has defended this mechanism as necessary for administrative clarity and targeted delivery of welfare benefits, according to Hindustan Times, many argue that it effectively places the State in the position of validating identity. This shift is not merely procedural—it alters the philosophical basis of the law, moving from recognition to regulation. The concern is that identity, which the Supreme Court treated as an aspect of personal autonomy, is now being reframed as something that must be verified, measured, and approved.

Redefining Transgender Identity: Inclusion, exclusion, and legal erasure

The amendment also introduces a narrower definition of “transgender person,” with significant implications for who is recognised under the law. It includes individuals with intersex variations or congenital differences in sex characteristics, as well as those belonging to certain recognised socio-cultural communities such as hijras, kinnars, aravanis, and jogtas. However, it explicitly excludes individuals whose identities are based solely on self-identification.

This definitional shift has been widely criticised as exclusionary. Activists and scholars argue that it risks erasing large sections of the transgender community, including trans men, non-binary individuals, and those who do not belong to traditional community structures. Media reports have noted that the amendment effectively restricts recognition to those who can either demonstrate biological markers or align with specific socio-cultural identities, as reported in Indian Express.

The implications are not merely symbolic. Legal recognition is the gateway to accessing rights, welfare schemes, and protections. By narrowing the definition, the law may render many individuals ineligible for benefits they were previously entitled to under the 2019 framework. This has led to fears that the amendment could create a hierarchy within the transgender community, privileging certain identities while excluding others.

Penal provisions and the question of criminalisation

Another significant aspect of the amendment is the introduction of new penal provisions, including offences related to “inducing” or “compelling” someone to adopt a transgender identity. The government has justified these provisions as necessary safeguards, particularly to protect minors from coercion and exploitation. It has also emphasised that the law introduces graded punishments to reflect the seriousness of offences.

However, the language of these provisions is vague and potentially overbroad, as such clauses may inadvertently criminalise support systems that have historically sustained transgender communities, including families, chosen kinship networks, and civil society organisations. There is concern that by framing transgender identity in the context of inducement or coercion, the law risks reinforcing the idea that such identities are not self-originating but externally imposed.

This concern is particularly acute in a social context where transgender individuals often rely on informal networks for survival and support. The fear is that these networks could come under legal scrutiny, further marginalising an already vulnerable community.

Government’s Position: Welfare, clarity, and control

Union Minister Virendra Kumar has consistently defended the Bill as a necessary step toward ensuring justice and protection for transgender persons. According to the government, the amendments are intended to ensure that welfare benefits reach those who genuinely need them, and that the absence of clear criteria does not lead to misuse. The emphasis on biological and verifiable markers is presented as a way to bring administrative clarity to the system.

Several ruling party MPs echoed this reasoning during parliamentary debates, raising concerns about the possibility of individuals falsely claiming transgender identity to access benefits, as reported by Hindustan Times. The government has also pointed to its broader initiatives—such as awareness programmes, job fairs, and helplines—as evidence of its commitment to the welfare of transgender persons.

Yet, these arguments fail to address the central constitutional issue: whether the State can condition recognition of identity on verification processes that undermine autonomy and dignity.

Opposition and Constitutional Challenge: Rights, dignity, and judicial precedent

The parliamentary debate on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was marked by an unusually unified and forceful response from opposition parties, who framed their objections not merely in political terms but as a matter of constitutional principle. Across party lines—including the Congress, DMK, AITC, SP, RJD, AAP, CPI(M), BJD, and others—Members of Parliament consistently argued that the Bill represents a fundamental departure from the rights-based framework established over the past decade, and risks violating core guarantees of equality, dignity, and personal liberty, according to The Hindu.

At the centre of this critique lies the removal of the right to self-identification, a principle that had been firmly recognised by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India. Opposition MPs repeatedly emphasised that this judgment was not merely declaratory, but transformative—it located gender identity within the domain of autonomy, holding that individuals have the right to determine their own gender without medical or bureaucratic validation. By replacing this framework with a system of medical certification and administrative approval, the amendment, they argued, effectively reverses a settled constitutional position.

DMK MP Tiruchi Siva articulated this concern in particularly stark terms, warning in the Rajya Sabha that even if the Bill were to pass through Parliament, it would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, as per Hindustan Times. His intervention reflects a broader apprehension that the amendment is not merely controversial, but constitutionally vulnerable. For many in the opposition, the issue is not one of policy disagreement, but of legislative overreach into areas already protected by judicial interpretation.

This constitutional framing was echoed by multiple MPs who raised concerns about equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15. By narrowing the definition of “transgender person” and excluding those who identify on the basis of self-perception, the law, they argued, creates an arbitrary classification within the community itself. Such classification, lacking a clear rational nexus to the stated objective of protection, may fail the test of reasonable classification under Article 14, reported Indian Express. Moreover, by conditioning recognition on medical criteria, the law risks discriminating against individuals who cannot or do not wish to undergo such processes, thereby indirectly penalising certain forms of gender expression.

“Even a person who is being hanged, is asked what their last wish is? Then why are we not asked about our wishes while creating this (Trans) Bill? Who will listen to our Mann ki Baat?” – BJD MP @SulataDeoMP from Odisha pic.twitter.com/M5XI8WGyaZ

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 25, 2026

Honestly, give @RenukaCCongress Ally of the Year Award already.

What a speech in the Rajya Sabha! Laced with sarcasm, hitting where it hurts, she’s shown why we #RejectTransBill2026 – because it’s illegal, unconstitutional and illogical! pic.twitter.com/n3V3mhcLRg

— Anish Gawande (@anishgawande) March 25, 2026

Equally significant are concerns relating to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. MPs such as Sandeep Pathak and Priyanka Chaturvedi questioned the logic of requiring transgender persons—unlike cisgender men and women—to subject themselves to medical boards for identity recognition, provided Times of India. This differential treatment, they argued, not only violates the principle of equality but also intrudes into the most intimate aspects of personhood. Gender identity, in this view, is not a fact to be verified but an experience to be respected. The requirement of certification thus transforms a deeply personal aspect of identity into an administrative hurdle, raising concerns about dignity, autonomy, and bodily integrity.

The debate also invoked the right to privacy, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Opposition MPs argued that the process of medical evaluation and potential disclosure of sensitive personal information to state authorities may constitute an unjustified intrusion into privacy. The absence of clear safeguards regarding data protection, confidentiality, and purpose limitation further intensifies these concerns. In a constitutional framework that recognises privacy as intrinsic to dignity and autonomy, such provisions are likely to face rigorous judicial scrutiny.

BRS Party opposes the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026

The new bill excludes certain identities from the definition of “transgender” based on subjective perceptions.

Identity is personal, and the law should respect that.

The process of… pic.twitter.com/Q6JltuQIyp

— BRS Party (@BRSparty) March 25, 2026

Another strand of opposition critique focused on the penal provisions introduced by the amendment. MPs raised concerns about the vague and expansive language used to define offences such as “inducement” or “influence” in relation to transgender identity. There is apprehension that these provisions could be misused to target families, community networks, healthcare providers, and civil society organisations that support transgender persons as per Indian Express. This raises a classic constitutional issue of overbreadth and vagueness—whether a law, in seeking to address a legitimate concern, casts its net so wide that it captures protected conduct and creates a chilling effect on lawful activity.

The absence of a robust grievance redressal mechanism was also highlighted during the debate. MPs pointed to the fact that thousands of applications for transgender certification under the existing 2019 Act had already been rejected, with little clarity on the grounds for rejection or avenues for appeal, reported Hindustan Times. By strengthening the role of medical boards and district authorities without simultaneously enhancing accountability and transparency, the amendment risks institutionalising arbitrariness. This concern ties directly into the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary state action, which has been read into Article 14 by the Supreme Court.

Importantly, opposition leaders also situated the Bill within a broader pattern of legislative and executive action. Some MPs argued that the amendment reflects a growing tendency to privilege administrative convenience over fundamental rights, and to treat marginalised communities as subjects of regulation rather than holders of rights (The Hindu). This critique is not limited to the transgender context, but speaks to a wider constitutional anxiety about the erosion of rights-based governance.

Outside Parliament, political leaders reinforced these concerns in public statements. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi described the Bill as a “brazen attack” on the constitutional rights and identity of transgender persons, arguing that it strips individuals of their ability to self-identify and subjects them to dehumanising scrutiny. Such interventions indicate that the constitutional critique of the Bill is not confined to legislative debate, but forms part of a larger political discourse on rights and governance.

The BJP government’s Transgender Persons Amendment Bill is a brazen attack on the Constitutional rights and identity of transgender people.

This regressive bill:
– strips transgender people of their ability to self identify, violating a Supreme Court judgement
– ⁠wipes out the… pic.twitter.com/et6lqpgTXw

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) March 24, 2026

Many also took to social media to convey their disagreement with the Bill.

Though I will miss Parliament because of the ongoing #KeralaElections, I am following reports of legislative developments there.

I’m deeply concerned by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha, which was tabled rather…

— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) March 22, 2026

The @BJP4India Govt’s Transgender Amendment Bill 2026 is a shameful rollback of rights. It kills self-identification, revives colonial-era suspicion, and erases trans men, trans women & non-binary citizens affirmed by the Supreme Court in NALSA.
I reject this bill outright. I…

— Karti P Chidambaram (@KartiPC) March 22, 2026

CPI(M) Polit Bureau demands the withdrawal of the Transgender Persons Amendment Bill pic.twitter.com/JJgvflFDvo

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) March 14, 2026

I stand in solidarity with the transgender community and will strongly raise these serious concerns in Parliament.

Met a delegation of transgender community members and civil society representatives regarding the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026; a deeply regressive and… pic.twitter.com/WjVYVMZ7fq

— Renuka Chowdhury (@RenukaCCongress) March 20, 2026

Chandra Shekhar Azad @BhimArmyChief Lok Sabha MP of the @AzadSamajParty extends support to #RejectTransBill2026 pic.twitter.com/KeGjgqC4Sm

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 24, 2026

Ultimately, what emerges from the opposition’s position is a coherent constitutional argument: that the amendment undermines the principles of equality, dignity, autonomy, and privacy that form the core of India’s fundamental rights framework. By departing from the jurisprudence established in NALSA v. Union of India and potentially conflicting with the privacy protections recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the law sets the stage for an inevitable judicial confrontation.

Institutional Dissent: Resignations and judicial alarm

Beyond parliamentary opposition and street-level protest, one of the most striking aspects of the controversy surrounding the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has been the emergence of dissent from within institutional frameworks themselves. This is significant because it reflects not merely ideological disagreement, but a breakdown of confidence within bodies that were specifically created to represent, advise on, and safeguard transgender rights.

Our demand is clear: Take the bill back.

Lawyers Call Trans Amendment Bill “Unconstitutional,” Seek Withdrawal#RejectTransBill2026 pic.twitter.com/W4gfL9YXAE

— P // (they/them) (@pratzhell) March 22, 2026

A particularly visible manifestation of this institutional unease came through the resignation of two members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP)—Rituparna Neog and Kalki Subramaniam—immediately following the passage of the Bill in Parliament, as per Times of India. The NCTP, a statutory body constituted under the 2019 Act, is tasked with advising the government on policies affecting transgender persons and ensuring that the community’s concerns are meaningfully represented within governance processes. The resignations, therefore, are not merely symbolic acts of protest; they raise deeper questions about whether the consultative mechanisms built into the law are functioning at all.

I have officially resigned as the Southern States Representative of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP).
The Ministry passed the #TransgenderAmendmentBill2026 without consulting the Council. I cannot hold a seat where our voices are silenced.
I stand with my… pic.twitter.com/Fkt9SGC2Ai

— Kalki Subramaniam (@QueenKalki) March 25, 2026

In their resignation letters, both members pointed explicitly to the absence of consultation as the central reason for stepping down. Rituparna Neog stated that attempts to engage with the Ministry as “the voice of the community” had gone unheard, suggesting that the institutional channels for dialogue had effectively been bypassed. Kalki Subramaniam went further, describing her continued presence within the Council as untenable in a situation where the “collective voice” of the community had been silenced. Her resignation underscores a fundamental contradiction: a body designed to represent transgender persons was neither consulted nor meaningfully involved in shaping a law that directly alters their legal status.

These resignations must also be understood in the context of prior attempts by NCTP members to engage with the government before the Bill’s passage. Reports indicate that community representatives had, in meetings with ministry officials, strongly reiterated that self-identification—recognised by the Supreme Court—must remain the foundation of gender recognition. They also raised concerns about the proposed definition of “transgender person,” the introduction of medical boards, and the potential for invasive verification processes. Despite these interventions, the final legislation appears to have incorporated none of these suggestions, reinforcing the perception that consultation was procedural rather than substantive, as reported by Times of India.

Parallel to this institutional dissent from within the executive framework is a significant expression of concern emerging from the judiciary itself—more specifically, from a Supreme Court-appointed advisory committee chaired by Justice Asha Menon. This committee, constituted to examine the implementation of transgender rights and recommend improvements, reportedly wrote to the government urging withdrawal of the Bill, Bar & Bench reported. Its intervention is particularly noteworthy because it represents a quasi-judicial assessment of the law’s compatibility with existing constitutional principles.

The committee’s concerns are both substantive and structural. At the core is the removal of self-identification as the basis for legal recognition of gender identity. The committee observed that by linking recognition to biological characteristics or medical processes, the amendment risks excluding individuals who identify as transgender but do not meet these criteria. This, in turn, could limit access to identity documents, welfare schemes, and legal protections—effectively rendering certain sections of the community invisible in the eyes of the law (Bar & Bench).

Equally significant are the committee’s concerns regarding privacy. The amendment’s requirement that details of gender-affirming procedures may be shared with district authorities raises serious questions about confidentiality and bodily autonomy. In a legal landscape shaped by the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right, such provisions are seen as potentially intrusive and lacking clear justification. The committee reportedly noted that the objective of such data collection remains unclear, further intensifying apprehensions about surveillance and misuse, according to Bar & Bench.

The advisory body also questioned the necessity of introducing new penal provisions, pointing out that many of the offences outlined in the amendment are already covered under existing criminal laws. This raises a broader concern about legislative redundancy and the possibility that the new provisions may be used in ways that disproportionately affect transgender persons or their support networks. By highlighting these overlaps, the committee implicitly challenges the rationale that the amendment is required to fill legal gaps.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the committee’s intervention is its implicit constitutional warning. By flagging the removal of self-identification, the committee draws attention to a potential conflict with the principles laid down in NALSA v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court affirmed that gender identity is a matter of personal autonomy and self-determination. This raises the possibility that the amendment, once enacted, could face judicial scrutiny for contravening established constitutional jurisprudence.

Civil Society and Community Voices: Law meets lived reality

If Parliament reflected the formal contest over the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, it is within civil society and community responses that the deeper stakes of the law become visible. Across the country, a wide spectrum of actors—transgender collectives, queer rights groups, feminist alliances, parents’ networks, legal advocates, and independent activists—have articulated a layered critique that moves beyond doctrinal disagreement to foreground lived experience, structural exclusion, and everyday vulnerability.

One of the most organised interventions has come from coalitions such as the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), which formally wrote to the President to return the Bill for reconsideration. Their critique extends not only to the substance of the amendments but also to the process of law-making itself. They argue that the Bill was pushed through without meaningful consultation, in violation of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014, and describe its passage as marked by “undue and unjustifiable haste”. Substantively, their concerns centre on the removal of self-identification, the imposition of medical certification, and the introduction of vague penal provisions—all of which, they argue, undermine constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

The statement may be read here.

Parallel to these institutional interventions are deeply personal responses emerging from families and support networks. The collective Sweekar, comprising parents of LGBTQIA+ individuals, has framed the amendment through the lens of care and lived reality. Their public appeal emphasises how the law transforms identity into a matter of scrutiny, forcing individuals to “prove” their gender before medical boards and administrative authorities. For families who have struggled to support their children in the face of stigma, this requirement is experienced as a form of state-imposed doubt—one that risks undoing fragile processes of acceptance and belonging.

The statement may be read here.

A recurring concern across civil society responses is the question of access and inequality. Activists have pointed out that the requirement of medical verification presumes access to healthcare, financial resources, and bureaucratic systems—conditions that are unevenly distributed across class, caste, and geography. For many transgender persons, particularly those in rural or economically marginalised settings, navigating a medical board and district administration may be practically impossible. In this sense, the law risks producing exclusion not through explicit denial, but through procedural barriers that render recognition inaccessible.

Another major strand of critique relates to the impact of the law on existing community support structures. Transgender communities in India have historically relied on networks of care—such as the guru-chela system, peer groups, and NGO support—for survival in the face of systemic exclusion. The introduction of penal provisions relating to “inducement” or “influence” has raised fears that these very networks could be criminalised if the provisions are interpreted broadly, reported Hindustan Times. Activists argue that the law, in attempting to regulate identity, risks destabilising the informal but essential systems that sustain transgender lives.

Protest and Public Resistance: From parliament to the streets, a nationwide rejection

The passage of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has not remained confined to parliamentary debate; it has triggered a widespread, deeply emotional, and sustained wave of resistance across the country. From organised marches to spontaneous gatherings, from formal resignations to cultural expressions of dissent, the response from the transgender community and its allies reflects not just disagreement with the law, but a profound sense of betrayal.

One of the most visible protests unfolded in Mumbai, where over 200 individuals gathered at Azad Maidan in a peaceful but charged demonstration, as reported by The Hindu. The protest was marked not only by slogans and placards, but by a striking use of cultural resistance. Participants sang a reworked version of a popular Bollywood song—“Bill toh kaccha hai ji”—turning satire into a tool of political critique. Slogans such as “Amka naka Trans Bill” (We don’t want the Trans Bill) and “Hum apna haq maangte hai, naa kisi se bheek maangte hai” underscored a central demand: recognition of rights, not conditional welfare. The gathering brought together transgender individuals, families, and allies, with many emphasising that family support remains crucial in a society where stigma continues to shape everyday life. Several speakers warned that the Bill could deepen fear and push individuals further into invisibility.

Transgender people, activists and supporters protested against the contentious Bill at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

Trans people, activists & supporters protest against Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026 at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Bill has been passed in Parliament. Activist Kalki Subramaniam has resigned from National Council of Transgender Persons over the bill

Photos: @Surajbisht25 pic.twitter.com/2VeCFiKrRj

— ThePrintIndia (@ThePrintIndia) March 26, 2026

Standing room only for the Jan Sunwai on the Transgender Bill 2026!#RejectTransBill2026 #NoGoingBack pic.twitter.com/XvzUT0puGE

— Anish Gawande (@anishgawande) March 22, 2026

MP Manoj Kumar Jha, Renuka Chowdhury, John Brittas, NCP-SP Spokesperson Anish Gawande, Dalit & Trans Rights activists Grace Banu and several other community member — Krishanu, Tan, Nikunj, Samar, Abigail, etc. raised their voice to #RejectTransBill2026 at a Public Hearing, Delhi pic.twitter.com/mtBYWCdioe

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 22, 2026

Protest also took place in Kolkata.

Beautiful images from Kolkata
The fight shall continue. Press conference tomorrow. #RejectTransBill2026 https://t.co/toD8t7m8i2 pic.twitter.com/WGwQpevV84

— Niloshka ☭ (@ruhunaxxine) March 15, 2026

In Thiruvananthapuram, protests took a more confrontational form, with demonstrators marching from Palayam to Lok Bhavan and publicly burning copies of the Bill, as per The Hindu. Organised under the Queer-Trans-Intersex Rights Joint Action Committee Keralam, the protest explicitly framed the amendment as a violation of constitutional guarantees and a reversal of the rights recognised in 2014. Protesters highlighted how the Bill’s definition fails to reflect regional diversity, noting that identities such as hijra or aravani do not capture the lived realities of transgender persons in Kerala. There was also a strong articulation of legal anxiety: participants warned that vague penal provisions could be weaponised against community networks, support groups, and even families who assist transgender individuals through transition and survival.

Today we met our comrade, a constant supporter of my trans community, Tmt. @ThamizhachiTh, to support our #RejectTransBill2026 campaign. She assured us of the entire DMK’s solidarity with the community. Thanks, Tholar.#transrightsnow #transrightsarehumanrights pic.twitter.com/5Opq2EFbpC

— GRACE BANU (@thirunangai) March 23, 2026

In Hyderabad, protests at Dharna Chowk echoed similar concerns, with demonstrators raising slogans such as “Our Body – Our Rights.” Speakers emphasised that gender identity is a deeply personal and experiential reality that cannot be determined by external authorities. Activists pointed out that the requirement of medical certification undermines dignity and autonomy, while also introducing new forms of surveillance and control.

Beyond these major urban centres, the protests have taken on a decentralised and expanding character. Community members have announced district-level mobilisations, beginning with demonstrations in Ernakulam and Kozhikode, signalling that resistance is likely to intensify rather than dissipate. The protests are not limited to metropolitan visibility; they are spreading into smaller cities and regional networks, reflecting the breadth of concern across the country.

What emerges from these multiple sites of protest is a pattern that goes beyond opposition to specific provisions. There is a shared perception that the law has been imposed without listening, that it redefines identity without consent, and that it transforms lived realities into categories subject to bureaucratic control. The protests reveal a community that is not fragmented but deeply interconnected—transgender persons, intersex individuals, non-binary persons, families, and allies standing together across caste, class, and regional divides.

Protests continue across the country against the (anti) Transgender Rights Bill introduced by the BJP government! #NoGoingBack The community is united to #RejectTransBill2026 pic.twitter.com/XLY600dErj

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 23, 2026

At a deeper level, these mobilisations reflect a struggle over narrative. While the State frames the Bill as a measure of protection and administrative clarity, protesters articulate it as erasure, surveillance, and regression. The streets, in this sense, have become an extension of the constitutional debate—where questions of dignity, autonomy, and recognition are not argued in abstract terms, but lived, voiced, and contested in real time.

The Larger Constitutional Question: Who defines identity?

At its core, the controversy surrounding the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 is about the relationship between the individual and the State. It raises a fundamental question: can identity be subject to verification, or must it be recognised as an inherent aspect of personhood?

The Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India answered this question by placing identity within the domain of personal autonomy. The 2026 amendment, however, moves in a different direction, emphasising verification, classification, and administrative control.

Related:

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW!

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad”

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

‘Faith Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai’s Christians rise against Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion bill

The post A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The process of drafting, tabling and passage of the Bill into law has been non-transparent and hurried, itself displaying an extremely undemocratic and unconstitutional approach. After some scant media reports regarding the state government’s intent, the Bill (Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 2026) was tabled on Friday, March 13, 2026, hurriedly passed in the Vidhan Sabha on Monday March 16, 2026 (Vidhan Sabha) and March 17, 2026 (Vidhan Parishad).

Just days before Citizens for Justice and Peace, along with other city-wide groups had addressed a press conference outlining the major objections to the Bill. This Joint press conference was held on March 11, 2026. Participating organisations emphasise that introducing another anti-conversion law while the Supreme Court is actively considering the constitutional validity of similar statutes raises serious questions of legislative prudence and constitutional accountability.

CJP is a Lead Petitioner in the Supreme Court challenging all such laws filed in other states in since 2020.

The Maharashtra law, being hurriedly passed also comes at a time when the constitutional validity of similar anti-conversion laws across several states is already under challenge before the Supreme Court of India.

A batch of writ petitions –first filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Mumbai that is the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court– has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2020, raising fundamental constitutional questions about the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality before the law, and the limits of State power in regulating religious conversion and interfaith relationships. Hearings in the matter that have happened intermittently with pressing demands made by CJP for an interim stay on the most egregious provisions are also scheduled today, March 11, 2026.

Originally filed against laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, the petitions were later expanded—with the Court’s permission—to include similar statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. As a result, the ongoing proceedings now concern nine state anti-conversion laws, each framed as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” statute.

The petitions argue that while these laws are formally presented as safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversions, their design and implementation have created a legal regime that treats voluntary religious conversion as inherently suspicious, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

Among the provisions under challenge are:

• mandatory prior declarations before a District Magistrate
• police inquiries into the reasons for conversion
• criminalisation of conversions associated with marriage
• third-party complaints by relatives or unrelated persons
• reversal of the burden of proof
• stringent bail provisions and enhanced penalties

According to the petitioners, these provisions subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to executive scrutiny and police investigation, opening the door to misuse and harassment, particularly against consenting adult couples and religious minorities.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court heard applications filed by CJP seeking interim relief against some of the most intrusive provisions, including those requiring prior declaration and enabling third-party complaints. The Court directed the Union Government and the concerned States to file responses, indicating that the matter raises serious constitutional questions requiring detailed consideration.

Several High Courts examining similar laws have already expressed concern regarding provisions that interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults. For instance, the Gujarat High Court stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act that criminalised interfaith marriages involving conversion, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed provisions requiring prior declaration before authorities. Ironically, BJP-ruled states have played ping-pong with Constitutional Courts on such laws since 2012. In that year, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Justices Deepak Gupta and Rajiv Sharma) had struck down portions of an earlier version of the law in that state which sought to monitor (and penalise) the intention behind converting. The BJP was in power in Himachal Pradesh at the time.

Evangelical Fellowship of India vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (4) RCR 283 (Civil), which was a judgement authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, the Himachal Pradesh High Court court had set aside Section 4 of the HP Act of 2006 as ultra vires the Constitution and struck down Rules 3 and 5 thereunder and held that the right to privacy and the right to change the belief of a citizen cannot be taken away under the specious plea that public order may be affected. Arguing its case before the Supreme Court in early 2023, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh e pointed out that the 2006 Act was repealed and replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 in which provisions set aside by the High Court have been included.

The post Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.