According to The Indian Express, the Jammu and Kashmir administration has informally instructed government departments to allow Kashmiri Pandit employees to remain away from work and to remain alert, with some reportedly advised to move to safer locations. Sources cited by the newspaper said the instructions were particularly directed towards departments such as School Education and Revenue. However, there is no publicly available formal government order confirming the arrangement.

The New Indian Express similarly reported that Pandit employees had been asked to work from home “for some time”, with one Prime Minister’s Package employee telling the newspaper that they had been instructed to remain away from work until August 25. Other reports have put the period at August 20 or August 15, reflecting the absence of a clearly communicated formal order.

The discrepancy has also been acknowledged by government officials. The Indian Express quoted Naseer Ahmad Wani, Director of School Education, as saying that no instructions had been issued to employees to work from home or take leave and that government employees were continuing to report for duty. His statement came after school principals reportedly told the newspaper that they had received verbal instructions to be lenient with the attendance of migrant employees and subsequently to ask them to remain at home.

The reported threat letter has been attributed to a group calling itself the United Liberation Council (ULC). Police are still verifying its authenticity. Security officials cited by Free Press Kashmir suspect that the group may be a front or “shadow” outfit of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. According to a police officer quoted by The Indian Express, the group first surfaced in July, when it released a poster marking the death anniversary of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani.

The alleged letter specifically targeted Kashmiri Pandits who reside outside the Valley but work in Kashmir. Six employees were reportedly named, all belonging to the Revenue Department. The threat purportedly sought to connect their government duties with the seizure of properties allegedly associated with militants or terrorists. The letter is also reported to have claimed that the group possessed details of the employees’ families and locations.

The publication of the employees’ personal information has itself become a major security concern. The New Indian Express reported that Kashmiri Pandit groups have questioned how the names and phone numbers of the six employees became publicly available, asking whether the disclosure represented a security lapse, a breach of confidentiality or a deliberate leak. The Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS) called for the loopholes to be identified and for vulnerable employees to be protected before the situation deteriorates further.

Panun Kashmir convenor Dr Agnishekhar also called for a comprehensive threat assessment of all persons named in the letter and their immediate families. He urged Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha to direct the police and security agencies to review the security arrangements for Pandit employees, particularly those working in sensitive government departments.

The threat comes against the backdrop of a renewed security alert in the Valley following a series of attacks. Two migrant workers from Chhattisgarh were killed at a brick kiln in Kulgam on July 31. The Indian Express reported that the threat letter emerged approximately a week after the killings. The Wire, meanwhile, placed the developments within a broader sequence of recent attacks, noting the killing of policeman Ashiq Hussain Qureshi in a busy marketplace in Anantnag on June 22 while he was deployed for Amarnath Yatra duty, followed by the killing of the two migrant workers in Kulgam.

Against this backdrop, security arrangements have reportedly been intensified around areas inhabited by Kashmiri Pandits. According to The Wire, police and security forces have increased night patrols, checkpoints, frisking and surveillance at vulnerable locations and important entry and exit points across Kashmir ahead of Independence Day. A security review chaired by Kashmir Zone Inspector General of Police V.K. Birdi reportedly brought together senior officials from the Jammu and Kashmir Police, BSF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP, Railway Protection Force, intelligence agencies, traffic police and the Army, besides district police chiefs.

The security review reportedly focused on arrangements for Independence Day celebrations, particularly the main function at Srinagar’s Bakshi Stadium. Officers were directed to strengthen checkpoints during night hours, intensify area domination and patrolling in sensitive areas and maintain heightened surveillance and inter-agency coordination.

The security measures have coincided with the reported restrictions on Kashmiri Pandit employees. The Wire reported that some minority employees had been asked to work from home until Independence Day, while KPSS president Sanjay Tickoo told the publication that Pandit employees had been asked not to leave their residential colonies or report to their offices. Other reports, however, have cited August 20 and August 25 as the end dates communicated to employees.

The varying accounts underline an important feature of the current situation: the reported restrictions appear to have been communicated primarily through informal or departmental channels rather than through a publicly accessible government order. This has created uncertainty not only about the precise scope and duration of the restrictions but also about their legal and administrative basis.

For Kashmiri Pandit employees, staying indoors also does not necessarily resolve the underlying security problem. Sunny Raina, president of the All Prime Minister’s Package Employees, told The Indian Express that employees had been asked to remain at home after the threat posters appeared but argued that this was not a solution. Employees still need to purchase groceries, obtain medicines and maintain ordinary social lives. The concern is therefore not simply whether they can be protected inside their homes or colonies, but whether they can safely participate in ordinary public and professional life.

The issue is particularly significant because employment in Kashmir forms an integral part of the government’s rehabilitation policy for displaced Kashmiri Pandits. Over the years, approximately 6,000 people have received benefits under the Prime Minister’s Special Rehabilitation and Employment Package, under which beneficiaries are required to work in the Valley. The All Prime Minister’s Package Employees association, however, puts the number of such employees currently posted in Kashmir at around 9,000. The reported decision to keep employees away from their workplaces therefore creates an obvious tension within the rehabilitation programme itself. A policy designed to facilitate the return of displaced Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley cannot be reduced to physical relocation without also ensuring that those employees are able to live, work and move with reasonable security and dignity.

This is not the first time the government’s approach to the safety of Pandit employees has been questioned. In 2022, a series of alleged militant attacks targeted Kashmiri Pandit employees, killing five people. The attacks prompted prolonged protests by employees demanding permanent transfers outside Kashmir. According to Sunny Raina, employees protested for approximately 350 days and sought transfers to Jammu. He alleged that the administration refused the demand and that salaries were withheld for six months, eventually forcing employees to return to work. The government instead relocated some employees to areas within the Valley considered comparatively safer.

The current situation therefore revives a problem that has remained unresolved since those attacks: whether security can be meaningfully guaranteed while employees continue to be required to work in the Valley, and whether repeated periods of confinement or informal leave can substitute for a long-term security and rehabilitation strategy.

There are also questions surrounding the manner in which employees’ attendance and movement are being managed. The Indian Express reported that online GPS-based attendance has been made mandatory for teachers in Kashmir, while migrant employees have reportedly been exempted and permitted to record their attendance in an arrival book. Such exemptions may be understandable as an immediate security precaution, but they also demonstrate the extent to which the threat environment has disrupted the ordinary functioning of public employment.

The situation is unfolding alongside a broader intensification of security and administrative activity in Kashmir ahead of Independence Day. The Wire reported increased police checking and frisking, additional checkpoints and night patrols, as well as enhanced surveillance around sensitive areas and event venues.

At the same time, authorities have intensified the government’s Har Ghar Tiranga–Vande Mataram campaign across Jammu and Kashmir. District administrations and BJP workers have reportedly organised Tiranga rallies, mass recitations of Vande Mataram and the National Anthem, quizzes, marathons, sporting and cultural programmes, cleanliness drives and other public-outreach activities. The campaign also includes programmes involving students, youth, women and grassroots communities, with events marking 150 years of Vande Mataram.

According to The Wire, some government teachers and employees have also been asked through internal WhatsApp groups to share photographs of themselves with the national flag. There is reportedly no publicly available formal order mandating such photographs. A government teacher quoted by the publication said that when senior education officials share photographs with the flag in departmental groups, their conduct can effectively operate as an unofficial instruction for subordinate employees to do the same, including on their WhatsApp statuses.

Alongside these developments, security agencies have continued operations against individuals and organisations accused of radical or separatist activities. The Wire reported that the Counter-Intelligence Kashmir unit arrested two men, Mehran Qazi of Dooru in Anantnag and Babar Hamid Dar of Sopore, for allegedly circulating radical and anti-national content online. Police also reportedly conducted simultaneous searches at 26 locations in Sopore as part of an investigation concerning the activities and network of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami. The searches, carried out with CRPF assistance, reportedly covered Sopore town and several surrounding villages, with documents, literature and electronic devices seized for examination.

Jamaat-e-Islami was declared an unlawful association by the Union Home Ministry in 2019 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, with the government alleging separatist and militant links.

In another development, police obtained an order from an NIA court to attach property valued at approximately ₹69.82 lakh belonging to Parvaiz Ahmad Famda in north Kashmir’s Baramulla district. According to The Wire, the action relates to a 2008 militancy-linked case registered at Chandoosa police station under provisions of the EIMCO Act, the Ranbir Penal Code and the UAPA. The property reportedly comprises 12 kanal, one marla and 73 square feet of land. An arrest warrant has also reportedly been obtained against another accused in the case.

Taken together, these developments reveal a Valley operating under an increasingly dense security apparatus as Independence Day approaches. Keeping threatened employees indoors may provide an immediate precaution, but it cannot be the endpoint of a rehabilitation policy. Nor can informal instructions, varying leave periods and the absence of a transparent government order provide employees with certainty about their rights, duties or safety.

Related:

August 11, 2026: A decade plus of students challenging a regime that seeks to control thought & ideas

The Erosion of Equal Protection: Constitutional attrition and State apathy in targeted attacks on Kashmiri vendors across the states

Release Kashmiri HRD Khurram Pervez immediately & unconditionally: International HR Fora

Flip and then a Flop: 50 students of the Vaishno Devi MBBS institute will now be admitted to 7 medical colleges in Jammu, Kashmir

Pervasive fear, surveillance of media, spiral of anti-India sentiment in Kashmir: CCG

The post Kashmiri Pandit employees in the Valley asked to stay home after threat letter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri. Mithun Gopi G.S. in Crl.MP No. 1/2026 in Crime No. 95/2026, T.G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala.

The court noted the non-issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the arrest. It also took into account the recovery and seizure of electronic devices allegedly connected with the case, Mohandas’s cooperation with the investigation, and his age and health condition.

The prosecution had raised concerns that he could abscond, influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation. The court held that these concerns could be addressed by imposing conditions while granting bail.

Case concerns videos on Jantar Mantar protests

The case relates to videos uploaded on the YouTube channel “Pathrika”, in which Mohandas allegedly made statements concerning protests at Jantar Mantar.

According to the prosecution, the statements were made with the intention of disturbing public peace and tranquillity and inciting riots. It was further alleged that the content was capable of creating fear and anxiety among protesters and contained remarks insulting womanhood and violating the dignity of women.

The FIR alleges that Mohandas spoke about beating and “shooting dead” student protesters. It also alleges that he made remarks referring to women protesters as women who “enjoyed rape”. The prosecution told the court that around 16 complaints had been made against him in connection with the alleged statements.

According to The Hindu, the videos led to complaints from student and youth organisations and subsequent police action.

Alleged remarks about shooting protesters and sexual violence

According to The Hindu, Mohandas, a former head of the BJP’s State intellectual cell, had spoken in a YouTube video about how he would respond to the Jantar Mantar protest if he were in control of the situation. The report said he spoke of imposing a curfew in the area around Jantar Mantar, directing protesters to disperse and then using force against those who remained.

In the video, he described a sequence involving shooting protesters and subsequently taking bodies to hospitals. In another video, he allegedly made remarks concerning women participating in protests and referred to leftist, secular, democratic and proletarian women in the context of gang rape. The videos generated public reactions and led to demands for legal action.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh subsequently distanced itself from the remarks. K.B. Sreekumar, Saha Prantha Karyavah of the RSS in South Kerala, said the comments represented Mohandas’s personal views and that he was not an RSS office-bearer at any level. He also said the organisation did not agree with the views.

Cyber police register case

The Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Police registered the case under several provisions.

According to Live Law, Mohandas was booked under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, and Sections 79, 353(1) (b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

However, the police case included Sections 192 and 353(1) (b) of the BNS, along with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

On August 9, a team of cyber police officers searched Mohandas’s residence at Mattancherry before taking him into custody. The seized electronic devices were subsequently produced before the court.

Defence challenges arrest and alleges political motivation

During the bail hearing, counsel for Mohandas challenged both the allegations and the necessity of his arrest. According to Live Law, the defence argued that the case was politically motivated, referring to Mohandas’s association with the BJP and RSS and the alleged political affiliation of the complainant. The defence also submitted that there were no exceptional circumstances requiring immediate arrest.

The principal procedural objection was that the police had not issued a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS before arresting him.

The defence argued that, in the circumstances, Mohandas could have been directed to appear before the investigating officer instead of being immediately taken into custody.

Section 35(3) notice becomes central issue

Section 35 of the BNSS deals with circumstances in which police may arrest a person without a warrant. Sub-section (3) provides for issuance of a notice requiring the person to appear before the police officer where immediate arrest is not considered necessary.

The court examined whether the investigating agency had sufficient grounds to dispense with this procedural requirement. The prosecution argued that a notice was not necessary because there was a possibility that Mohandas could abscond or interfere with digital evidence. According to the prosecution, the investigating officer had recorded concerns about possible destruction, tampering or manipulation of electronic evidence. The prosecution also relied on the number of complaints received against Mohandas and the nature of the allegations while opposing the bail application.

Court rejects general apprehension of absconding

The court did not accept that the material before it established a sufficient possibility of Mohandas evading the investigation or absconding. A significant factor considered by the court was that the police had been able to locate him at his known residential address and conduct a search there.

The court observed, as reported by Live Law:

“The fact that the investigating agency was able to locate the accused at his known residential address and conduct a search there, is, in the circumstances, inconsistent with such apprehension.”

The court further held that a general apprehension that evidence might be destroyed, tampered with or manipulated could not, without circumstances demonstrating an immediate need for arrest, by itself justify dispensing with the statutory safeguard under Section 35(3) BNSS.

The court also noted that the remand report did not contain specific material supporting the apprehension that Mohandas would influence the complainant.

Electronic devices already recovered

The recovery of electronic devices was another factor considered by the court.

Since the allegations concern videos uploaded on YouTube, the electronic material formed part of the investigation. However, the court noted that the devices allegedly used in connection with the offence had already been recovered, seized and produced before it. This was relevant to the prosecution’s contention that Mohandas needed to remain in custody to prevent destruction or interference with digital evidence. The court found that there was no need for custodial interrogation at that stage.

It also considered Mohandas’s cooperation with the investigation and his age and health condition.

Court says arrest procedure was not justified

After examining the material placed before it, the court concluded that there was no justification for the investigating agency to dispense with the statutory requirement of issuing notice under Section 35(3) BNSS.

The court’s conclusion was based on the circumstances before it, including the ability of the police to locate Mohandas at his known residence, the recovery of the electronic devices and the absence of specific material showing that he was likely to abscond or interfere with the investigation.

The court said:

“Mere apprehension of destruction, tampering or manipulation of evidence, in the absence of circumstances indicating an immediate necessity for arrest, cannot by itself justify dispensing with the statutory safeguard contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.”

The court added that the same reasoning applied to the alleged apprehension that Mohandas could influence the complainant, as no specific material supporting that apprehension was disclosed in the remand report.

Court takes age, health and cooperation into account

The court also considered Mohandas’s age and health condition while deciding whether continued detention was necessary and along with these circumstances, the court took note of his cooperation with the police investigation and the recovery of the articles allegedly connected with the case.

The court ultimately held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding possible absconding, influencing witnesses or interference with the investigation could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

It concluded:

“The apprehensions expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, or interfering with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions while enlarging the accused on bail.”

The court further observed:

“Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the non-issuance of notice under Section 35(3), the recovery of the articles, the cooperation extended by the accused with the police investigation, as well as the age and health condition of the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the further detention of the accused in judicial custody is not warranted at this stage” as Live Law reported

Student and youth organisations had sought action

Notably, youth and student organisations held protest marches to Mohandas’s residence demanding legal action. Leaders of the Students Federation of India and the All-India Students Federation also filed complaints. The delay in police action had also led to criticism of the State government, according to the report.

The RSS response came amid the controversy surrounding the remarks, with its South Kerala functionary stating that Mohandas’s comments were his personal views and did not represent the organisation.

Related:

Brinda Karat seeks review of SC verdict in Thakur-Verma hate speech case

Nazia Elahi Khan faces multiple FIRs over alleged hate speech

CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal

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

The Supreme Court blinks when it comes to Hate Speech

The post Kerala court grants bail to T.G. Mohandas in Jantar Mantar remarks case, cites arrest procedure irregularity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pannalal was reportedly arrested from his residence in Raipur late on Friday night, August 7, and was subsequently sent to judicial custody. According to a statement issued by a group of activists and human-rights campaigners, members of the Bajrang Dal had gathered outside his residence during the arrest, while a substantial police presence was deployed in the area.

The activists have described the arrest as an attempt to “silence a voice for minority rights” and have called for Pannalal’s immediate release on bail, a transparent judicial process and an end to what they describe as the misuse of criminal law in matters involving religious speech.

FIR over Alleged Facebook Comment

According to the statement, the case against Pannalal was initiated following a complaint by BJP spokesperson Amit Chimnani concerning an allegedly objectionable comment Pannalal made on Facebook in connection with a post about Lord Shiva.

The activists say Pannalal has been booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between groups, deliberately insulting religious beliefs with the intention of outraging religious feelings, and intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace.

Section 196 of the BNS covers conduct that promotes or attempts to promote disharmony, hatred or ill-will between religious or other groups. Section 299 addresses deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, while Section 352 deals with intentional insult where the accused intends, or knows it is likely, that the provocation will lead to a breach of public peace.

The precise contents of the alleged Facebook comment, the FIR and the police’s evidence against Pannalal could not be independently established from the material available for this report. The allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial determination.

Activists Question Circumstances Surrounding Arrest

The signatories to the statement have questioned the timing and circumstances of the arrest, particularly the reported presence of Bajrang Dal activists outside Pannalal’s residence.

They argue that the combination of a politically affiliated complainant, the late-night arrest and the mobilisation of Hindu-right groups raises questions about whether adequate safeguards were followed in handling a case involving potentially sensitive religious speech.

Those assertions, however, are the position of the activists who issued the statement and should not be treated as established findings unless supported by police records, court proceedings or independent evidence.

The authorities have not, in the material reviewed for this report, publicly established that the gathering outside Pannalal’s residence was coordinated with the police or that the arrest itself was politically motivated.

Pannalal’s Longstanding Role in Chhattisgarh’s Minority-rights Debate

Pannalal is a longstanding public figure in Chhattisgarh’s Christian community and has frequently spoken about alleged attacks on Christians, religious freedom and the rights of tribal Christians.

The Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, which he heads, has previously highlighted alleged attacks on Christian communities and places of worship. In 2020, Pannalal publicly raised concerns following violence involving Christian families in Kondagaon district. At the time, police described the underlying dispute as involving tensions within local communities and said they would take legal action as appropriate.

His advocacy has also brought him into conflict with authorities and Hindu organisations in previous years. In 2025, an FIR was registered against him at Raipur’s Azad Chowk police station following controversy surrounding social-media material related to the Pahalgam terrorist attack. Reports at the time said the case invoked BNS Sections 196 and 299, while Hindu organisations including the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad had demanded action against him.

Earlier reporting has likewise documented Pannalal’s involvement in disputes concerning alleged attacks on Christians and restrictions affecting Christian religious activity in the state.

Arrest Comes Shortly After Tougher Anti-conversion Law Takes Effect

The latest controversy comes against the backdrop of a major change in Chhattisgarh’s religious-conversion law.

The Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom Act, 2026 has now come into force. The legislation replaces the older law inherited from undivided Madhya Pradesh and introduces substantially tougher provisions concerning religious conversion. Reports say the law took effect from July 10, 2026, following notification by the state government.

The new legislation provides stringent penalties for conversion through force, fraud, coercion or inducement, with provisions that can result in lengthy imprisonment and, in certain circumstances, life imprisonment and substantial fines. It also establishes additional procedural requirements surrounding religious conversion.

The law has become a major point of contention between the BJP government and opposition and civil-society groups. The government has defended the legislation as necessary to prevent exploitation and protect religious freedom, while critics have expressed concern about the potential for broad provisions to be used against legitimate religious activity.

The timing of Pannalal’s arrest is therefore likely to intensify an already contentious debate over the relationship between religious-conversion laws, minority rights and freedom of conscience in Chhattisgarh.

Constitutional Questions

The activists opposing Pannalal’s arrest have invoked Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution.

Article 19 guarantees citizens specified freedoms of speech and expression, subject to constitutionally permitted restrictions. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other constitutional limitations.

The constitutional question in Pannalal’s case will ultimately turn on the precise content and context of the alleged Facebook comment, the applicability of the criminal provisions invoked, and whether the prosecution can establish the necessary legal ingredients of the offences.

Freedom of expression in India is not absolute, particularly where speech is alleged to threaten public order or deliberately insult religious beliefs. At the same time, criminal prosecution for speech requires the statutory elements of the offence to be established, and the accused remains entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Allegation of Executive Prejudgment

The statement issued by the activists also criticises Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, alleging that he publicly described Pannalal’s remarks as objectionable to Sanatan Dharma before the case had been adjudicated.

If accurately attributed and contextualised, such comments could become an important part of the wider debate over executive commentary on pending criminal proceedings. The activists argue that a government should not prejudge an accused person’s guilt before the courts have examined the evidence.

However, whether the Chief Minister’s reported remarks amount to improper interference with the judicial process is ultimately a matter that would depend on their precise wording, context and the applicable legal standards.

Wider Backdrop of Christian-minority Concerns

Pannalal’s arrest follows a period of heightened national attention on religious-conversion allegations and the treatment of Christians in Chhattisgarh.

In July 2025, the arrests of two Catholic nuns and another person at Durg railway station over allegations involving forced conversion and human trafficking generated protests and political controversy. The arrests were made under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the then-existing Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom Act. Christian organisations argued that the allegations were politically motivated, while authorities maintained that the cases required investigation.

The episode illustrated the highly polarised environment surrounding allegations of religious conversion in the state, where accusations can rapidly become intertwined with political mobilisation, communal tensions and questions about minority protection.

Pannalal himself has been a prominent critic of what he and other Christian organisations describe as growing pressure on Christian communities. His organisation has previously alleged attacks, intimidation and restrictions on Christian religious activity, claims that have at various times been disputed or differently characterised by authorities.

Demand for Release and Due Process

The August 9 statement has been signed by a group of activists, writers, academics, diplomats and civil-society figures, including former National Integration Council member Dr John Dayal, Jesuit priest and human-rights activist Fr Cedric Prakash, activist Minakshi Singh, Caleb Institute president Dr Richard Howell, Raipur-based activist Dr Goldy George, writer Jay Jayaram, academic Fr Frazier Masceranhas, retired diplomat Ashok Sharma, Dr Fatima Poonawala and writer-activist Blessy Prasad Mathews, among others.

They have demanded:

– Pannalal’s immediate and unconditional release on bail;

– a fair and transparent judicial process;

– an end to executive commentary that could prejudice criminal proceedings;

– protection of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience; and

– an end to what they characterise as the use of criminal law for political silencing.

The controversy now moves into the legal arena, where the contents of the alleged social-media post, the FIR, the prosecution’s evidence and the circumstances surrounding Pannalal’s arrest will be subject to scrutiny.

What Happens Next

The immediate legal issue is Pannalal’s custody and his prospects for bail. The investigation will also determine whether the prosecution can establish the statutory requirements of the BNS provisions invoked against him.

Beyond the individual case, however, the arrest is likely to become a test of how Chhattisgarh balances competing constitutional interests: protection of religious sentiment and public order on one side, and freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and minority rights on the other.

For supporters of Pannalal, the case represents another instance of a minority-rights advocate being criminally prosecuted after speaking publicly about religious issues. For those supporting the complaint, the case concerns accountability for speech alleged to offend religious beliefs and potentially disturb communal harmony.

The courts, rather than political actors or street mobilisation, will ultimately have to determine whether the alleged Facebook comment crossed the legal threshold for criminal liability.

The allegations against Arun Pannalal are not proof of guilt. Likewise, allegations of political or communal targeting made by his supporters remain claims unless established through independent evidence or judicial findings.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Arrest of Christian leader in Raipur sparks concerns over minority rights and free speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The reasons are not far to seek.

Over a decade ago, in 2015-2016, barely a year or two into the first term of this regime that has since been viewed nationally and internationally as autocratic and proto-fascist, it was the Ambedkar-Periyar circles in both Hyderabad Central University and Chennai that were the first targets of power and ideological assault. Ministers from the union government weighed in, first to withhold meritoriously earned scholarships/fellowships of Dalit (read Ambedkarite) and left oriented students like Rohith Vemula and others, thereafter to humiliate them by limiting access to libraries and even hostel accommodation. Muslim student scholars like Umar Khalid and Najeeb Ahmed were particular targets. Najeeb “disappeared” from his JNU room on October 15, 2016, after an alleged scuffle involving the RSS-linked Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the day before. He had been injured in that encounter and doctors, according to a witness, had refused timely treatment. Shockingly, the case assiduously pursued by his mother was “closed” by the Rouse Avenue court in 2025.  Two films, Ammi (2019) and Where is Najeeb? (2022) have preserved a contemporary tragedy this regime would rather have us forget.

Rohith Vemula, talented and bright, part of a vibrant student community that was in the cross hairs of the administration for daring to screen Muzaffarnagar Baqi Hai at HCU was driven to suicide, an act the movement has called “institutional murder” on Sunday January 17, 2026. That very night JNU students protested Rohith’s death and the ripples of the movement surged across India. Mumbai that only sometimes steps out collectively against repression saw tens of thousands students and activists march in Mumbai from Byculla to CSMT (CST) to demand justice for Rohith.

Brute power and authority coupled with the supine behaviour of Vice-Chancellors like Appa Rao Podille (HCU) and M Jagadesh Kumar (JNU) actively enabled violent police entry and involvement in both campuses, behaviour that physically brutalised students and also criminalised dissent. [1] Cases were filed, Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar were jailed for a month and students (35 from the FTII) had to spend precious years battling the vindictiveness the powerful. Payal Kapadia’s A Night of Knowing Nothing (2021) is a film that, in a multi-layered narrative depicts what young Indians have been put through.

2016 then is as significant as 2026 may yet prove to be.

Why then is our public memory so short and our response only episodic? Institutional culpability or even amnesia by our constitutional bodies including courts and a wilful subservience by legacy and traditional commercial media has enabled the irresponsible vilification of student leaders and protesters.

Clearly, the specific targets were young, autonomous students, free in thought and behaviour. Organisations and individuals from Left and Dalit lineages and communities were specific, targets the case(s) made against them more vindictive and pernicious.

Umar was labelled “anti-national” (“desh drohi”) by irresponsible (and unaccountable) “media houses”. Rohith’s unquestionable “merit” was questioned and his caste status “doubted”, his mother hounded as she struggled for justice for her son. Fatima Nafees, Najeeb’s mother proud that her son made it to a central university, regrets that he opted for staying in its hostel! This level of violence and institutional discrimination faced by Dalit and Muslim students has not stemmed before 2016 or since. The deaths of Arman Iqbal Khatri (April 2023) and Darshan Solanki (February 2023) in Mumbai’s Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Payal Tadvi (May 2019) studying to become a doctor at BYL Nair Hospital were all victims of targeted violence. Corrective constitutional institutions like courts have been tardy in offering remedies

Today in 2026, while the “westernised youth” or “desh drohi” (anti-national) are labels still sought to be applied to Gen Z as well, for erudite and clear left-leaning scholars like Umar and Rohith it was relentlessly pinned.

The sustained protests in HCU and JNU —among two dozen other institutions of higher learning –a decade ago were the first effective challenges to a regime determined to control behaviour, thought and ideas. In the months and years that followed this protest spawned multiple campuses across India: Film & Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi Mumbai University, Kashmir, Assam, Puducherry, all saw spirited and sustained protests. Patna University-Bihar, Jadavpur University-West Bengal, National Law School-Bangalore and the Allahabad Central University-Uttar Pradesh saw similar struggles against repression. Nine months after Rohith Vemula’s “institutional murder” on Sunday, January 17, 2026, eight law students from the Babasaheb Ambedkar University Lucknow protested after two of them were target of vindictive administrative action: two of them toppers, who ranked first and second in the PHD entrance examination had been suspended and thereafter expelled without due process because they protested the caste-ist behaviour of both the government and their professors who they claimed were being protected by the administration and the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD).In an article on SabrangIndia, Prathama Banerjee (in 2016) reported that in Gwalior, a meeting organized by the Ambedkar Manch involving an Ambedkarite professor Vivek Kumar from JNU was attacked by ABVP members, who went on to not only fire guns at the gathering but even burn the Indian Constitution, perhaps to avenge Ambedkar’s burning of the Manusmriti half a century ago!

From the ideological slant on syllabi, to the rights of women to dress as they please and eat non-vegetarian (!), to dubious appointments like Gajendra Chauhan as director (FTII), students and youth mobilised first and immediately against the threat to their very existence and autonomy. By end 2016, the Modi 1.0 regime’s assault on public education and taken the form of simply cancelling (read withdrawing) a staggering 20,000 scholarships to central universities; this was soon followed by withdrawal of all minority scholarships instituted by the previous UPA II government.

So while today’s 2026 Gen Z protests come as another breath of fresh air to a battle weary people, our students and youth, backed by some in the academia have been at the forefront of this democratic challenge for a decade.

What if?

What if the political opposition, despite its poor numerical strength had backed and amplified these voices and demands in Parliament? Since and repeatedly since 2016?

Would India have already witnessed a pushback from the seat of power?

In any truly democratic society, it is the university that is the storehouse of young and budding intellectual opinion and often the bedrock of voices of sharp, critical dissent. Since 2014, India has been going through a determined effort towards homogenisation and imposed majoritarianism—whether through the blind acceptance of commercialization or privatization of education, or the imposition of a culturally-homogenous worldview where the Indian state and nation is equated with “one language, one culture,” in effect denying a plurality of existence and citizenship. These trends are not just dangerous but pose a challenge to the very foundation of India as a constitutional republic. Centres of higher learning within India that have become the battleground for the preservation of Indian democracy and all it stands for.

Before 2014, over the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, through a slow and often painful process within these central universities that came into being through key enactments—the University of Hyderabad Act of 1974, the Jawaharlal Nehru Act of 1966 and the North-Eastern Hill University Act of 1973—baby steps toward affirmative action within teachers’ unions and associations first ensured real diversity among students: students from rural, marginalised and discriminated-against backgrounds made it into institutions of higher learning. That is how, our Umars, Najeebs, Rohiths are household names even in bold challenge or sacrifice. Before that it was the moneyed with access that enjoyed entry within.

Under this regime in its third term however, the dual assault of aggressive neoliberal policies that have ensured a cut in scholarships in institutions of learning, accompanied by an ideological assault of a proto-fascist authoritarian character, have rendered campuses in India the focal points of a resurgent democratic movement. Student leaders and associations that do not fall in line with the majoritarian vision face criminal cases, the worst being the law of Sedition (Section 124-A)..[2] Only a few days ago, a former student of previously prestigious Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was denied bail for attending an event in support of academic, now deceased, G.N, Saibaba.

As the monsoon session of Parliament reaches its conclusion, and the union home minister, responsible in the chain of command for the use of pellet guns and nail-tacked lathis on students who protested at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20, refuses to answer charges of accountability or incompetence, there is every chance that the regime may not back off either surveillance or vindictive action.

The Gen Z generation that is rightly euphoric of its success in shaking up the union government, may yet have to give tests of its resilience to persistent punishment by process. If solidarity shown by older Indians and large sections of independent media, not present a decade ago, holds, victory may still be ours. We need to be prepared though.

In this moment of reckoning, this is my humble tribute. To the inspiring decades plus relentless pushback by India’s young.

[1] Vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 2016 was M. Jagadesh Kumar, who assumed office on January 28, 2016, a month before the assaults and arrests of tudents. He succeeded Sudhir Kumar Sopory and later served until February 2022; Appa Rao Podile former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad was awarded the Millennium Plaques of Honour for his achievements in Life Sciences by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi in 2017!

[2] Teesta Setalvad’s KG Kannabiran Memorial Lecture delivered at Madurai. December 11, 2016

Related:

The post August 11, 2026: A decade plus of students challenging a regime that seeks to control thought & ideas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The first FIR was registered on August 5, just four days after the law came into force. According to The Indian Express, the 22-year-old, originally from Uttar Pradesh, was allegedly in a relationship with a minor from his village. The two subsequently moved to Karnataka and then Pune. Police allege that he asked the girl to convert from her religion. He has been booked under Sections 3 and 9(2) of the new Act, along with provisions of the POCSO Act, and is currently in judicial custody.

Section 3 prohibits conversion or attempts to convert through coercion, fraud, allurement, misrepresentation, force, threat or undue influence. Where a minor is involved, Section 9(2) permits punishment of up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh.

The allegation, however, still has to be established. The FIR itself does not establish that an offence under Section 3 occurred, particularly since the prosecution will have to demonstrate the specific means allegedly used to induce the conversion. The distinction matters in a law where ordinary interpersonal conduct could potentially come under scrutiny if the statutory ingredients are interpreted expansively.

Second FIR widens the scope of concern

The second case concerns a British national and OCI cardholder. Pune Police allege that he participated in prayer meetings and religious gatherings and attempted to persuade people to embrace Christianity. Police have also alleged that he spoke about following Jesus and made statements concerning Hindu temples and deities that were intended to mislead people and induce conversion, The Indian Express reported.

The police have reportedly invoked both the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act and provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, arguing that the OCI cardholder was not authorised to preach or deliver religious discourses without permission. This case raises a more fundamental question about the boundary between religious propagation and unlawful inducement. Participation in a religious gathering or expressing one’s religious beliefs, by itself, does not establish coercion, fraud, force or undue influence. Whether the alleged conduct crosses that statutory threshold will ultimately have to be determined through evidence and judicial scrutiny.

A law with wide-reaching provisions

The Maharashtra Act does more than criminalise forced or fraudulent conversion. It introduces a prior-notice regime for persons intending to convert, permits complaints by specified relatives, regulates conversions connected with marriage or promises of marriage, and places the burden of establishing that a conversion was voluntary on the person conducting it. It also provides enhanced punishment where the alleged conversion involves minors, women, members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, or persons of unsound mind.

The breadth of terms such as “allurement”, “undue influence” and “misrepresentation” is likely to be central to the misuse of the law. A law intended to prevent coercive conversion cannot, constitutionally, become a mechanism for policing voluntary religious belief, expression or association.

The concern is particularly relevant because the legislation operates in an area closely connected with individual autonomy, freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. This is one of the key substantive points argued by the CJP in its constitutional challenge to the Himachal Pradesh law. Report may be read here.

The speed with which the legislation moved through the state legislature had itself become a point of criticism. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), in its dissent note, highlighted that the Bill was introduced and passed within days, with limited scope for public consultation or legislative scrutiny, despite the fact that similar anti-conversion laws enacted by other states are already under examination before the Supreme Court. CJP is the lead petitioner in the constitutional challenge to the first batch of such laws passed by five states between the years, 2020-2023. This challenge has been pending in the Supreme Court, despite pleas for interim stays on the most egregious provisions for over five years now. [1]

Details on the interim applications urging stay on the most egregious provisions, filed by CJP on April 16, 2025 may be read here.

In early 2026, while the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of these state laws were listed before the court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), they were once again deferred. Reports may be read here. Thereafter, first on May 13, 2026 the matters were listed to be heard after which the next date that appears on the Supreme Court calendar is August 12, 2026.

Related:

Allahabad HC flags misuse of UP Anti-Conversion Law, quashes FIR and rebukes ‘mimeographed’ complaints

35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms

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

Maharashtra’s Proposed Anti-Conversion Law: Manufacturing moral panic to criminalise personal choice

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

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Push: How organised street pressure, Hindutva mobilisation and a pending law threaten constitutional freedoms

The post Two FIRs, Four Days In: Pune sees first use of Maharashtra’s controversial anti-conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: On the morning of April 17, 2026, Satyam Verma, a Lucknow-based freelance writer and former journalist, put out a post on his Facebook account, related to the massive fire reported two days ago, on April 15, in Vikas Nagar’s slum area. Hours later, he was arrested by the Noida Police in connection with the workers’ protest case.

Verma seemed angry at the uncertain fate of thousands of residents whose shanties were gutted beyond repair as he wrote: “Where exactly is the government that talks about sabka saath, sabka vikas?  Even as others are coming out to help, the presence of the government, it seems, has been reduced to the polythene spread with the face of Narendra Modi stamped on it inside a burnt jhuggi (shanty).”

Social causes were not the only trigger that nudged Verma to express himself on social media platforms. A scan of his digital footprint also reveals another colourful side to his personality – that of a movie buff. The 60-year-old author was at the helm of an informal group referred to as ‘Lucknow Cinephiles’, which would regularly organise screening of movies followed by a discussion over the main theme.

From The Voice of Hind Rajab, a movie that focused on the plight of a six-year-old girl in Gaza whose desperate call for help to Red Crescent volunteers exposed the human cost of the armed offensive carried out by Israel, to the 2015 film Suffragette, starring Meryl Streep which looked at the struggle of women in the United Kingdom in the late 19th century regarding their right to vote, to the 1980 Bengali classic Akaler Sandhane (In Search of a Famine), which dealt with a filmmaker’s quest to document a famine, and, in the process, unravel the harsh realities confronting ordinary people, it seemed that issues related to human suffering were the centrepiece of Verma’s day-to-day conversations.

However, if one were to go by the over 250 pages of documents related to approval for invoking stringent provisions of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, against him, submitted by the UP Police to the Noida District Magistrate (DM) Medha Roopam, one would be taken aback by conclusive remarks of the police such as:

“Cyber monitoring trail has revealed that this person who comes from an elite and educated background, whose career has been that of association with media news agencies has given ideological contribution in the form of mental aggression among core group members leading to a volatile situation…

“Ideologue of Marxist thought process, Satyam Verma, in order to provide momentum to workers’ protests against labour codes in Noida industrial area activated his core group members, associated with the Mazdoor Bigul newspaper started in 2010 with its headquarters in Lucknow and Jan Chetna publishing house which publishes his articles based on Marxist ideology with such publicity material being dispatched through Rupesh Roy who is member of outfits such as Mazdoor Ekta Sangharsh Samiti Kulesra Noida, Naujawan Bharat Sabha and Mazdoor Bigul Dasta since 2016 so that a foothold can be established among Noida workers.”

A review of annexures and case diaries that form part of the investigation by the Noida Police in the workers’ protest case shows that implicating journalist Satyam Verma is based on hearsay presented as the testimony of a police informant who won’t be answerable before a court of law. The other ‘evidence’ presented is equally unconvincing – like the exchange of messages in a WhatsApp group presented as a trigger for violence in the testimony of another worker named Mangal, who was in fact part of the group in the hope of finding a better job opportunity. Using these, Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam launched a sharp attack on Verma as she gave the go-ahead for NSA charges. Her notes reflect that she seemed to believe this was some kind of thought crime, claiming his association with Mazdoor Bigul newspaper and Jan Chetna publication acted as an “ideological catalyst for violence” which was “indirectly abetted”.

In the second part of our special series based on NSA-related documents in journalist Satyam Verma’s case, The Wire accessed annexures included in the 170-page proposal submitted by the Noida Police to the Noida DM’s office on May 12, 2026, and an 81-page dossier submitted as supplementary evidence on May 28, 2026. Here’s what we found after examining the documents and speaking to Verma’s lawyer, friends and colleagues.

1. The police’s theory regarding Verma’s alleged presence at the spot of incident stems from a viral video in which Verma’s identity is established based on a statement by an unnamed mukhbir (police informer), who himself is neither an eyewitness nor related to the case in any manner.
2. Verma is named again in the police diary, in a statement by a factory worker named Mangal Kumar. However, in a telephonic conversation with The Wire, Kumar denied having witnessed any provocative messages in the WhatsApp group under the police’s scanner.
3. Satyam Verma’s “Marxist ideology “and his professional association with the Mazdoor Bigul newspaper have been portrayed by the UP Police as “being indirectly motivated by the banned organization CPI (Maoist) with such an ideology found to have added a momentum to protests in the industrial area in the form of an ideological catalyst”.

Among the writers whose works Verma translated into Hindi was German playwright and poet, Bertolt Brecht, who fled Nazi Germany in 1933, and whose writings conveyed the brusqueness of an authoritarian regime. In his satirical poem Article One of the Weimar Constitution, Brecht wrote:

“From the People proceeds the power of the State.

– But where does it proceed to?
Yes, where is it proceeding to?
There’s some place it’s proceeding to.
The policeman proceeds through the station gate.

– But where does he proceed to?
etc.”

Annexure 4(a): Statement by a ‘mukhbir’ and a factory worker

In Case Diary no. 10, dated April 18, 2026, Inspector Raghvendra Singh, posted at Noida’s Phase-2 police station and the Investigating Officer (IO) in the workers’ protest case, recorded two statements both of which were included in the NSA-related documents submitted by the police to Noida DM Roopam, who also happens to be the daughter of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

While one such statement had been attributed to a police informer, the second statement was recorded on behalf of a worker named Mangal. Both these statements have been included as Annexure no. 4(a) in the NSA-related documents.

As reported in part one of this series, the Noida Police had included a list of 17 annexures in its report submitted to the Noida DM on May 12, 2026. These annexures have been cited as pieces of evidence by the UP Police justifying why the NSA had to be invoked in this particular case.

Annexure no. 4(a) has been described by the police as ‘सत्यम वर्मा के अभियोग में प्रकाश में आने वाली केस डायरी (Case diary that brings to light the charges against Satyam Verma)’.

“Today, while we were on a lookout for unknown accused persons in Phase-2 police station area, I showed some viral videos to a mukhbir who then told me that the bald guy as seen in one of the videos, and was wearing spectacles is Aditya Anand. And the person seen behind [Aditya Anand], who is not visible clearly is Satyam Verma; his face is not clearly visible. Mukhbir then further added that he knows and can help in identifying persons associated with the WhatsApp group,” Inspector Singh has been quoted as saying in the case diary.

A mukhbir is a police informer whose identity is not disclosed in official records, and usually provides leads to the local police in connection with an ongoing investigation. While the police can use information provided by a mukhbir to build a case, a mukhbir won’t be part of the trial or be ever held accountable for the information provided.

As reported by The Wire earlier, the police have labelled activist Aditya Anand as the prime accused, with his role as the administrator of a WhatsApp group under probe for allegedly “inciting violence during the workers’ protests”. Anand’s family, on the other hand, maintained that he had in fact posted videos in the same group appealing to people to continue with protests in a peaceful manner.

On the relevance of the testimony of an unnamed mukhbir relied upon by the Noida Police, Supreme Court advocate Kawalpreet Kaur, who is among members of the legal team representing the jailed activists, told The Wire, “The evidentiary value of such a statement is extremely limited. At this stage, it is merely a statement recorded by the investigating agency in the case diary. It is not substantive evidence and, by itself, cannot establish the identity or guilt of an accused during trial.”

“The informer in question was admittedly not an eyewitness to the incident. His statement merely claims that he could identify Satyam Verma from a viral video despite acknowledging that the face is ‘not visible clearly.’ Such identification is inherently speculative and would require independent corroboration through admissible evidence. Courts have consistently held that criminal convictions cannot rest upon conjecture or unverified identification. Moreover, Satyam Verma’s own location records, including call detail records and other electronic evidence, reportedly establish that he was not present at the site of the incident,” she added.

Linking statement by a worker with ‘WhatsApp-initiated violence’

Case Diary no. 10 also included a statement by a worker employed at the Richa Global Company, named Mangal.

Richa Global, with multiple garment manufacturing units in Haryana’s Manesar as well as UP’s Noida, was among the clusters of industrial units whose workers had hit the streets in April demanding that their monthly wage be increased to at least Rs 20,000.

“On April 10, 2026, I got a link in my WhatsApp; upon clicking I joined the Richa Global WhatsApp group  which had Aditya and Rupesh Roy as its admins. In this group, messages were being shared which incited workers to resort to protests while they demanded a wage hike. Some videos which incited the workers were also being shared [in the group],” Mangal has been quoted as saying in his statement to the police.

“Aditya Anand also visited the workers in Phase-2 area and had in an aggressive tone made incendiary speeches before the workers while telling them to continue with the protest. From the workers present there, I had heard that as part of a conspiracy someone by the name of Satyam Verma and Himanshu Thakur had also mingled with the workers trying to incite them,” his statement added.

Contrary to his statement recorded by the Noida Police, when The Wire contacted Mangal Kumar, and he was asked whether any provocative message was shared in the group, he told this reporter, “There was no such thing though a lot of unknown persons were also part of the group. I had joined the group thinking that if I’m out of job it might help me in finding work. There were no other issues as such.”

When asked about whether any of the admins or those in-charge of the WhatsApp group had posted any incendiary message in the days leading up to violence, Kumar told The Wire, “I didn’t know anyone by name or who is the admin, who isn’t. I wasn’t familiar with the members of the group at all.”

Responding to the Noida Police relying on another testimony based on the confessional statement of a worker, advocate Kaur told The Wire, “Firstly, it is again a police-recorded statement made during investigation and is not substantive evidence until the witness appears before the trial court and is subjected to cross-examination. Secondly, the portion stating that Mangal ‘heard from group admins’ that Satyam Verma and Himanshu Thakur were trying to incite workers is hearsay and not evidence. Mangal does not claim to have personally seen Satyam Verma post any message or issue any instructions. Rather, he merely repeats what he allegedly heard from unnamed persons. Such hearsay ordinarily has little or no evidentiary value unless it falls within a recognised exception under the law of evidence.”

In fact, as reported earlier by The Wire, on May 23, 2026, Keshaw Anand, Aditya Anand’s brother, moved the Supreme Court with a petition alleging that “officials of the UP Police were part of the workers’ WhatsApp group ‘Richa Global Noida’ and had an active role in inciting violence”. In a detailed video report published on April 23, The Wire’s reporter Vipul Kumar highlighted the fact that “Sub-Inspector Beena Kaur, posted in Sector-142, Noida, was also part of the WhatsApp group ‘Richa Global Noida’.”

Moreover, the legal team representing the jailed activists maintains that Verma was not a member of any such WhatsApp group. “Available records show that he was not a participant or administrator of the groups connected with the Noida protests. Our criminal law requires proof based on legally admissible evidence rather than suspicion or rumor. Mere assertions attributed to unnamed individuals cannot establish criminal liability,” Kaur told The Wire.

Sudden entry of home ministry’s 2009 notification

A curious entry as Annexure no. 3 (a) in Verma’s NSA case diary is a gazette notification issued by the Union home ministry on June 22, 2009, declaring the “Communist Party of India (Maoist) and all its formations and front organisations as a terrorist organisation” under Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Two other factions of the CPI (Maoist), namely the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People’s War and formations associated with the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), had already been declared terrorist organisations in the First Schedule of the UAPA.

But what is the link between a banned outfit designated as a terrorist organisation by the Centre and the Noida workers’ protest case, particularly Verma’s NSA case diary?

As reported earlier by The Wire in Part One, Annexure no. 3 in Verma’s NSA case diary – a document titled ‘An overview of multifront agitation engine RWPI’ described by the Noida Police as an ‘article on the structure of RWPI (RWPI का संरचनात्मक आलेख)’, was a verbatim copy of a 21-tweet-long thread by a right-wing X handle, named Chronology.

It was in this Annexure no. 3 that reference was made to the ‘Delhi Pollution Protest: Maoist Signal’, while alluding to the protests in Delhi against air pollution in November 2025, where FIRs were registered after protesters were seen holding posters stating, ‘From Birsa Munda to Madvi Hidma, the struggle of our forests and environment will go on’ along with slogans of ‘Madvi Hidma amar rahe (Long live Madvi Hidma)’.

Hidma was among the top Maoist commanders killed in an encounter in Andhra Pradesh on November 18, 2025.

Annexure no. 3 in the NSA case diary reproduces verbatim a tweet from Chronology’s thread, dated April 14, 2026: “During a Delhi pollution protest, RWPI-linked activists raised slogans of ‘Hidma Zindabad’, a chant honouring Madvi Hidma, a CPI (Maoist) commander killed in an encounter in Andhra Pradesh.”

§

Now here’s where both the Noida Police as well as the right-wing handle Chronology appear to get their facts wrong. In December 2025, 15 days after the Delhi Police arrested 12 students in connection with the anti-pollution protests, a Delhi court, while granting bail to 10 of them, noted that “nothing has been discovered against the accused related to the membership of radical organisations linked to Naxalites”.

As far as the RWPI (Revolutionary Workers’ Party of India) is concerned, after excerpts from the police’ report in connection with the NSA appeared in the online news portal The Print on May 20, 2026, CaRWAN [Campaign for Release of Workers and Activists of Noida] issued a statement on May 24: “We are seeing news reports that are quoting from the Detention Order of Satyam Verma under the NSA, issued by the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar, which has been mechanically formed as a cover-up on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector-in-charge to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is troubling to see reputed outlets like The Print treating this as a genuine source of information and taking its contents at face value, as seen in its 20 May 2026 article: ‘Marxist literature, ‘inciting Gen Z – UP cops’ grounds to detain Noida workers’ protest accused under NSA.’”

“The political commentary, accusing Satyam of subscribing to left ideology, by the UP police is a clear indication that the UP police is not doing any investigation, but acting as a trumpet of the UP government. RWPI is an open legal party which has regularly participated in parliamentary, legislative assembly and municipality elections since 2019. RWPI did not even participate in the protest in Delhi against pollution where slogans in support of Hidma were raised,” the CaRWAN statement added.

Another reference to the banned CPI (Maoist) outfit

A second reference to the banned CPI (Maoist) has also been included in the 13-page police report submitted by Inspector Raghvendra Singh to the Deputy Commissioner of Police at the Gautam Buddh Nagar police commissionerate on May 12, 2026.

Making note of the fact that Satyam Verma has been on friendly terms with Arvind Sinha, Executive Editor of the monthly newspaper Mazdoor Bigul, which the police claimed “provides ideological raw material for inciting dissatisfaction and resistance against labour codes”, the report by the Noida Police further concluded: “The reading material associated with Mazdoor Bigul, while directly seems to be inspired by Marxism, indirectly it seems to have been motivated by ideology of the banned organization CPI(Maoist).”

Do such speculations actually constitute a crime under NSA?

According to Kaur, “The mere possession, circulation or discussion of Marxism or even Maoist literature does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence. Indian courts have repeatedly distinguished holding ideas from participating in criminal activities. In Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011), the Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organisation, without incitement to violence or involvement in violent acts, cannot attract criminal liability.  Similarly, in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court stated that possession of books, pamphlets or ideological material, or sympathy for a political ideology, cannot by itself establish offences under the anti-terror law. In that case, the accused were arrested for their links to the banned group CPI (Maoist), yet the Supreme Court held that passive interest in an ideology or books does not amount to active participation in the goals of a banned organisation.”

DM Noida’s conclusion based on ‘psychological’ interpretation

On May 12, 2026, the same day that DM Medha Roopam wrote to the UP home secretary apprising the concerned authorities of her decision to invoke the NSA against Verma, she also informed the detenue, through a nine-page letter, of the grounds for his detention under the law.

This is a mandatory requirement under Section 8 of the NSA Act which states: “When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority…shall as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances…not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the ground on which the order has been made.”

As illustrated in this 2019 piece titled for The Wire by Bhamati Sivapalan and Vidyun Sabhaney, the NSA is popularly known as the law of “no vakil, no appeal, no daleel (no lawyer, no appeal, no argument)”. Since all preventive detention laws “mirror the colonial era 1818 Bengal Regulation in its principles of criminalising dissent”, NSA can also be added to the same list as Defence of India Act, 1962 which “was infamously used against Indians of Chinese ethnicity”.

The reasoning adopted by Noida DM Medha Roopam seems to have taken a cue from Hollywood actor Tom Cruise’s 2002 film, Minority Report, centred around a dystopian set-up in 2054 when a policing unit could foresee a crime and tried to stop it.

At the very outset, Roopam, in her May 12 letter, refers to the nature of involvement as “अप्रत्यक्षतः दुष्प्रेरित किया गया”, which translates to “indirectly abetted” violence during the workers’ protest. The DM’s letter also accuses Verma of “indulging in a form of pseudo writing with undertone of violence on account of being a writer and publisher of the Mazdoor Bigul newspaper”. It continues:

“Since you are among the founding members of RWPI (Revolutionary Workers’ Party of India), a communist who, with the help of books and literature available at the Jan Chetna bookstore acted as an ideological catalyst aimed at preparing a new generation of cadres who are part of such rebel organizations. Both the RWPI as well as Jan Chetna publication have been found to be the main facilitators of violence in Noida as concluded in the investigation.”

The document titled ‘Annexure No. 10’, prepared by the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU) and forming part of Verma’s NSA case diary, lists 138 sites across Noida, Central Noida Zone and Greater Noida where protests took place between April 10 and April 15, 2026. While instances of arson were reported from three such protest sites, the LIU report mentioned 33 sites where properties had been damaged.

For the DM, this appears to have been a red flag warranting preventive action.

According to a profile piece published in July 2025 by The Print, “since her appointment was announced, she [Roopam] has been dubbed Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s choice” with her top priority then being “the Jewar airport and its completion”.

“This violent protest has created circumstances which will adversely impact forthcoming capital investment in the state’s IT and hosiery sectors while at present Gautam Buddh Nagar has more than Rs 1 lakh crore capital investment across its 21,000 industrial units which generate 6 lakh jobs. Such an environment of industrial growth has been impacted negatively because of irrational, obstinate and violent andolanjeevis like yourself, who owing to their vile mentality are involved in planning civil unrest as was seen in Haryana’s Manesar and Noida industrial unrest,” Roopam’s letter cited as one of the grounds why NSA needs to be invoked.

The nine-page letter signed off by the DM, largely in Hindi, abruptly  switches to English to state that  “violent circumstances are deliberately created such that the hearts and minds of industrial labourers are filled with rebellion which amounts to actions against the state’s investment policy”.

“Narrative making through mass communication with [an] aim to provoking labour class and general public by creating anti state, anti-administration thinking with the motive of disturbing public tranquility,” the letter states in English.

It is, however, not specified in the DM’s letter what exactly those means of mass communication reportedly used by Verma were, and how they are linked with the April violence.

The DM’s letter tends to dwell a bit more on the psychological aspect of allegedly influencing workers, hence the earlier analogy to Tom Cruise’s Minority Report – of mentally mapping someone who has allegedly committed a crime.

The letter concludes with the following observation:

“You tend to encourage such activities which on the very outset may seem like part of a non-violent protest but in fact among the age group of 18-25 years among workers, ideologically they [activities] actually make an individual so agitated and angry that they indulge in collective activities related to the disruption of peace.”

This reporter contacted Noida Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh, but the phone calls went unanswered. The Wire has sent a questionnaire to the Commissioner’s official email ID. This story will be updated as and when a response is received.

The Wire also reached out to District Magistrate Medha Roopam for a response. We were told she was busy in a meeting, and that we could send questions. A questionnaire has been sent at the official email ID of DM Gautam Buddh Nagar. This article will be updated when a response is received.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post ID Based on Anonymous Informant, Sudden Reference to 2009 Home Ministry Notification: Why NSA Case Against Satyam Verma Is Unconvincing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The students’ union did not cancel the discussion. Instead, it moved it outside the School of Social Sciences-II building. According to The New Indian Express, students and faculty gathered in substantial numbers despite the change of venue, while the programme was disrupted by protests from members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). The episode has since become about far more than a cancelled auditorium. It has raised questions about who gets to determine what can be discussed inside a university, how far administrative control over campus spaces can extend, and whether a book — even one written by a jailed political figure — can be treated as an object of academic inquiry independently of the controversies surrounding its author.

The cancellation came at the last minute

The JNU administration announced on August 9 that the booking of the SSS-I auditorium had been cancelled. Its explanation was brief. In a post on its official X account, the university said that JNU was a “democratic and decentralised institution” and that the permission had originally been granted by the Dean of the School of Social Sciences. It then said the booking stood cancelled because of the “non-disclosure of the full facts” concerning the programme scheduled for August 10. But the administration did not publicly specify what information had allegedly been withheld.

That omission lies at the heart of the controversy. Documents relating to the booking showed that the programme had gone through the formal process. The requisition described it as a “Public Talk for Adivasi Diwas (Book Discussion)” and identified the date, time and auditorium. The booking was subsequently approved by the Dean of the School of Social Sciences on August 7.

The organisers therefore questioned why an event that had gone through the university’s own booking procedure could be cancelled two days later on the ground that its “full facts” had not been disclosed.

Professor Avinash Kumar, who had submitted the requisition for the auditorium, was particularly categorical. “The stated reason for the cancellation of the booking of the SSS auditorium is false,” he said, according to Hindustan Times report. Kumar maintained that the Dean had been fully informed that the event was going to discuss Khalid’s book and that the requisition had been prepared in the format suggested by the Dean himself.

His question was simple: if the university did not know what the event was about, why was the auditorium booking approved in the first place?

Kumar also challenged the administration to disclose the actual rule under which the booking had been unilaterally withdrawn. He pointed out that the book itself emerged from Khalid’s doctoral research at JNU and asked why the university could not permit a discussion of a thesis for which it had itself awarded him a PhD.

‘They cancelled the room, not the discussion’

The JNUSU saw the cancellation as something much larger than a dispute over paperwork. In a statement, the union called the decision “arbitrary and authoritarian” and accused the administration of attempting to suppress academic discussion and dissent, according to Indian Express report.

Its argument was that book discussions are not merely social events; they are a basic part of academic life. A university, the union maintained, should be a space where students can encounter controversial arguments, question them, disagree with them and debate them — rather than one where subjects are removed from discussion because of the identity or political status of their author.

The union was particularly scathing about the administration’s explanation that “full details” had not been disclosed. According to the JNUSU, the Dean himself had instructed the organisers on how the auditorium requisition should be made. It therefore described the stated reason as a pretext for what it considered censorship. The union’s position was summed up in its response: “cancelling a room does not cancel a conversation.” And that is precisely what happened.

Gopika Babu, vice-president of the JNUSU, said the large turnout was a response to what she described as pressure from the administration and the ABVP. “Despite all threats of the admin-ABVP nexus, the students gathered in large numbers to assert campus democracy,” she said, reported The New Indian Express.

Babu described debate, dissent and discussion as central to JNU’s institutional character, arguing that the outdoor gathering demonstrated that “JNU stays alive in this spirit”. She also framed the event as an expression of solidarity with Umar Khalid and other political prisoners awaiting trial, while accusing the university administration of pursuing what she described as a “casteist” agenda.

“JNU stood in solidarity with Umar Khalid today, and through him, in solidarity with umpteen other political prisoners languishing in jail without trial,” Babu said. She further described the gathering as a response to what she called the “empty threats” of ABVP members.

JNUSU president Aditi also criticised the administration’s decision, saying, “I condemn the way the administration tried stealing our classrooms. We’ll continue to have such events on the campus.”

The statements underline how the cancellation transformed the character of the event. What began as an academic discussion around Fractured Communities became, after the auditorium was withdrawn, a visible contest over who controls the university’s physical and intellectual spaces. The administration had cancelled the venue. The students’ response was to occupy another space and continue the discussion. In that sense, the outdoor gathering became a message of its own: the withdrawal of institutional permission could change where the conversation happened, but it could not determine whether the conversation happened at all.

The discussion goes ahead — outside

On Monday afternoon, the organisers gathered outside the SSS-II building. The event began around the scheduled time and attracted students, teachers and visitors from outside JNU. The New Indian Express reported that the discussion proceeded despite the cancellation, while Rediff reported that students and teachers attended the outdoor programme from around 3 pm.

The weather itself became almost symbolic. Students gathered in the open despite the rain, listening to speakers discuss the book, its methodology and the history it attempts to recover.

The panel included historian Uma Chakravarti, Professor Prabhu Mahapatra, writer and journalist Shuddhabrata Sengupta, and scholar Banojyotsana Lahiri. The discussion focused on Fractured Communities, rather than turning exclusively into a political meeting about Khalid’s incarceration. Panellists discussed the book’s academic method and its treatment of Adivasi history, while copies of the book were also sold at the venue.

For some students, the fact that the book was written by Khalid was itself a reason to read it rather than a reason to prevent its discussion. JNU student Aniket, who bought a copy at the event, told The Hindu that he wanted to read the thesis to understand how Khalid viewed the world and, importantly, to study how an academic thesis was written. He contrasted that with what he described as a contemporary academic environment increasingly affected by plagiarism and AI-generated material. The sentiment captures an important distinction in the controversy: reading a book is not the same thing as endorsing its author. A university’s academic culture depends precisely on the ability to examine arguments without requiring prior agreement with the person who made them.

Then came the slogans

The outdoor discussion was not free from confrontation. ABVP members protested the programme and raised slogans against Khalid. The New Indian Express reported slogans including “Umar Khalid ko fansi do”, while The Times of India also reported that the event was disrupted by ABVP members who entered the gathering and raised slogans.

The protests reflected the political fault line surrounding Khalid himself. Khalid has been in custody since September 2020 in connection with the case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) among other provisions and continues to contest the allegations against him. The trial against him has not started since the past 6 years.

The case against him highlights both the prolonged incarceration and the continuing litigation over bail. In July 2026, a Delhi court rejected fresh bail applications by Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying it was bound by an earlier Supreme Court order. The question of his imprisonment therefore inevitably hangs over any public discussion of his work. But that also makes the distinction between the author and the academic work more significant.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Harsh (@kahaniistaan)

What exactly is Fractured Communities?

The controversy risks obscuring what the event was actually supposed to discuss. Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power is based on Khalid’s doctoral thesis, submitted to JNU’s Centre for Historical Studies in July 2018. He was subsequently awarded his PhD.

The book examines Adivasi societies in the Singhbhum region of present-day Jharkhand under British rule, including questions of indigenous agency, local governance, resistance and the politics of colonial power. Khalid himself wrote in The Indian Express in July that the thesis had been written years before its publication as a book and that he had never expected the work to acquire the political significance it now carries. He described the thesis as an engagement with history, propaganda and the use of power in shaping narratives.

The book’s publisher, Juggernaut, describes it as an archival study of Singhbhum’s tribal societies and a critique of historical accounts that flatten differences within communities. Its subject, therefore, is not the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid’s UAPA case or contemporary electoral politics. It is a work of history. That distinction matters.

The irony of JNU cancelling a discussion on a JNU-approved thesis

Perhaps the sharpest contradiction in the episode lies here. The book at the centre of the dispute is not an anonymous political pamphlet being brought onto campus without institutional connection. It is derived from a doctoral thesis that Khalid submitted to JNU. The university examined that research. Academic processes assessed it. He was awarded a PhD.

And now, the university found itself cancelling the venue for a public discussion of the work. That does not automatically establish that the cancellation was censorship. JNU is entitled to regulate the use of its buildings and to require organisers to comply with institutional procedures. Its stated position is that the organisers failed to disclose complete information about the programme.

But the administration has not publicly identified what those allegedly undisclosed facts were. And that is where the explanation becomes difficult to assess. If the problem was procedural, the university could have identified the missing information and explained why it warranted cancellation rather than correction. Instead, the auditorium was cancelled immediately before the programme. That left the organisers, and the wider university community, to infer the reason.

Students question the double standard

The controversy has also acquired another layer because of a separate dispute involving an ISKCON programme at JNU. The JNUSU had previously objected to a programme involving an ISKCON representative at the university’s Central Library, titled “Empowering Youth for a Brighter Future”. The union had questioned the permission granted for religious programming on campus.

After the Umar Khalid book discussion was cancelled, the union revived the comparison, accusing the administration of adopting different standards for different events. That comparison remains contested, but it raises a broader question: what should the standard for campus events actually be?

If the concern is procedural compliance, the same rules should apply regardless of whether an event features a religious organisation, a political speaker, a controversial academic or a jailed activist. If the concern is the content of an event, the university should say so openly and identify the applicable rule. What becomes dangerous for an academic institution is a system in which apparently neutral procedural requirements can be invoked selectively, without clearly explaining what triggered their application.

Not everyone attending supported the event uncritically

The outdoor discussion also exposed an important criticism from within the student movement itself. Kranthi Kumar, president of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association, told The Hindu that while his organisation opposed the incarceration of political prisoners and the suppression of dissent, it also agreed with concerns about the composition of the panel. The criticism was that a discussion centred on Adivasi histories did not include members of Adivasi communities on the panel.

That objection complicates the binary framing of the controversy. It is entirely possible to oppose the cancellation of a discussion while simultaneously questioning who gets to speak about Adivasi history. In fact, that is precisely the kind of disagreement a university ought to be capable of accommodating.

The larger question: what is a university for?

The most consequential aspect of the JNU episode may therefore not be Umar Khalid at all. It is the question of whether universities can remain spaces where controversial scholarship is examined without the discussion itself being treated as an endorsement. There is a fundamental difference between giving someone a platform to promote a political position and allowing students to read and debate a published academic work.

There is also a difference between disagreeing with a thesis and preventing people from discussing it. A university does not become democratic because its administration describes it as one. It becomes democratic when disagreement can occur without the institution deciding in advance which questions are legitimate.

JNU’s own explanation invokes its character as a “democratic and decentralised institution”. But democracy on a university campus cannot simply mean administrative discretion. It must also include intellectual pluralism, transparency in decision-making and the ability of students and faculty to question institutional decisions. In this case, the administration cancelled the auditorium.

The students responded by taking the discussion outside. They were joined by faculty members, students from other institutions and others who wanted to hear the debate. The rain did not stop the event. Neither did the cancellation. And that may be the most telling image from the entire episode: a university discussion that the administration could remove from a room, but could not remove from the campus. Because once a university begins treating the discussion of a controversial scholar’s work as something that must be administratively contained, the question is no longer merely what Umar Khalid wrote. It becomes who gets to decide what students are allowed to read, discuss and question.

Related:

July 2026: A dissent that was brutally put down, a crackdown after the protest ended

Permission to Protest? Why the right to dissent needs no licence

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

JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

The post JNU Cancels Venue, Not the Conversation: Umar Khalid’s book discussion moves outdoors amid protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 12 States and Union Territories had a combined 13, 77, 27,807 electors before the revision. Of these, 1, 58, 59,834 names, or 11.51%, have been deleted on the basis of voters being absent, having shifted or being reported dead, according to data shared by the Election Commission.

Door-to-door verification extended in seven States and UTs

The third phase of SIR is being conducted in Delhi, Odisha, Mizoram, Sikkim, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Telangana, Punjab, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Nagaland, Tripura, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

The enumeration or door-to-door verification process has been extended in Delhi, Punjab, Telangana, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Draft rolls for these five States/UTs, along with Tripura and Nagaland, are yet to be published.

Electoral rolls are being revised in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Delhi, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand as part of the ongoing third phase.

Highest deletion rate in Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu has recorded the highest proportion of deletions at 29.64%. Arunachal Pradesh follows at 19.09%, Haryana at 16.38% and Chandigarh at 12.8%.

Mizoram has the lowest proportion of deletions at 5.2%, while Sikkim has recorded a deletion rate of 8%.

Among the other States for which draft rolls have been published, 6.02% of names have been deleted in Odisha, 7.5% in Manipur, 10.39% in Uttarakhand, 7.67% in Meghalaya and 16.48% in Jharkhand.

Andhra Pradesh records 44.89 lakh deletions

Andhra Pradesh has the highest number of deletions in absolute terms. As many as 44.89 lakh names, or 10.78% of its electors, have been deleted. The draft roll in the State has consequently come down from 4.16 crore electors to 3.71 crore.

Of the deleted names in Andhra Pradesh, 22.30 lakh related to voters who had shifted or were absent from the given address. Another 15.22 lakh voters were reported dead, while 7.37 lakh were found enrolled at multiple places.

Haryana has the second-highest number of deletions, at 33.83 lakh, followed by Odisha at 20.12 lakh.

In absolute numbers, Sikkim has recorded the fewest deletions, at 37,724, or 8%, followed by Mizoram with 46,162 deletions.

Total deletions cross 8.7 crore in all three phases

The latest deletions in Phase 3 follow the removal of more than 7.2 crore voters during the first two phases of SIR conducted across 13 States and Union Territories.

With the latest figures, the total number of deletions across the three phases has crossed 8.7 crore electors. These figures remain subject to revision during the claims, objections and appeal stages.

Around two crore voters were also added during the second phase of SIR. After accounting for these additions, the net deletions from the first two phases stand at 6.7 crore.

States and UTs already covered

The SIR exercise has already been conducted in Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep.

In Assam, a “special revision” was conducted because of legalities relating to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have therefore already been covered by the SIR exercise.

Claims and objections process

The draft rolls published in the 12 States and Union Territories will be followed by the claims and objections process. Electors can seek inclusion or deletion of names from the draft rolls, while new voters can also apply for registration. The number of electors in the final rolls may therefore change after claims, objections and the subsequent stages of the SIR process

Related:

SIR 2025-26: Dismantling the very Idea of India?

21 Opposition parties to CJI: SIR process is irregular and illegal, must be suspended

SIR and the Making of a Stateless Citizen? | R. Rajagopal Speaks Out | Teesta Setalvad

Karnataka launches SIR with 5.5 crore voters, State Govt voices transparency concerns

The post SIR Phase 3: 1.58 crore names deleted from draft rolls across 12 States and UTs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the days after the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led protests concluded, several women protesters alleged that they became targets of coordinated online harassment, rape threats, doxing campaigns, morphed images, character attacks and demands for their arrest. What began as a debate over slogans raised during demonstrations transformed into a larger controversy over whether women participating in public dissent were being punished not only for their political expression but also for refusing traditional expectations of silence and conformity.

The aftermath of the protests saw several women participants alleging that their visibility as protesters made them targets of coordinated online attacks, with personal information being circulated, threats issued and attempts made to undermine their credibility and character.  The developments that followed also brought several legal questions before the Supreme Court, with petitions challenging alleged police excesses during the protests, seeking clarity on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, raising concerns over surveillance practices and demanding accountability for the use of force against demonstrators.

Detailed reports on the withdrawal of FIRs may be read here, here and here.

The protests that triggered a national confrontation

The NEET-UG 2026 protests began after allegations of a question paper leak and irregularities in the medical entrance examination created widespread anger among students. The movement, initially amplified through social media under the banner of the satirical Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), eventually grew into a nationwide student mobilisation.

The protests gained momentum after three student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA), namely Neha, Manish and Aameen and activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation and observed a prolonged hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Student organisations and youth groups demanded accountability, reforms in examination systems and action against those responsible for compromising the integrity of competitive examinations.

The movement reached its peak during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march, when clashes broke out between protesters and police in New Delhi. Student groups and civil liberties advocates alleged that security forces responded with excessive force, including the use of tear gas, pellet guns and repeated baton charges to disperse demonstrators. Petitioners before the Supreme Court alleged that several students suffered pellet injuries, while videos circulating on social media appeared to show protesters with bleeding head wounds allegedly caused by lathi blows. Protesters also alleged that some batons used during the operation had metal nails or studs attached, an allegation that has since been raised before the Supreme Court and is part of the ongoing proceedings. Similar allegations emerged from Bihar, where student activists claimed that police resorted to firing during demonstrations. One incident in Siwan drew particular attention after a police constable allegedly fired an AK-47 rifle towards protesters; the constable was subsequently suspended, although protesters have continued to demand accountability from senior officers. Police authorities have maintained that force was used only after demonstrators attempted to breach security arrangements and denied allegations of unlawful or excessive action.

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

The agitation eventually concluded after the Union government accepted several key demands, including the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on July 25. The government also announced that criminal cases registered against many student protesters during the demonstrations would be reviewed, with FIRs against students who had not been accused of serious acts of violence proposed to be withdrawn. However, the selective withdrawal of cases became another point of contention, with petitioners arguing that the criminal process had been used to deter participation in the protests and demanding greater transparency and accountability in the registration and withdrawal of FIRs.

Meanwhile, the end of the protest did not end the controversy. Instead, a new battle emerged — over the treatment of protesters after the demonstrations.

Women protesters become the centre of backlash

One of the most striking features of the aftermath was the disproportionate targeting of women who had participated in the protests. Several women who became recognisable faces of the movement alleged that they were subjected to misogynistic attacks, including rape threats, sexualised comments, fabricated allegations and attempts to publicly shame them.

A report by ThePrint noted that women protesters across Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata became targets of social media campaigns after the protests ended. Images of women were allegedly cropped, altered or circulated with calls to identify them and take action against them. The report highlighted that although protesters of different genders participated in raising slogans during demonstrations, women were specifically singled out afterwards.

The pattern, activists argued, reflected a familiar method of discrediting women in public movements — shifting attention from their political arguments to their appearance, morality, personal lives and character. Women protesters said that rather than addressing the issues raised by the movement, online campaigns focused on portraying them as irresponsible, immoral or deserving of punishment.

Rhiya Ahir: From protest symbol to target of online attacks

One of the most visible examples was Rhiya Ahir, a Mumbai-based actor and model whose image of standing in front of a police vehicle carrying detained protesters went viral during the demonstrations. The photograph turned her into one of the recognisable faces of the movement. However, according to Rhiya, the public attention soon transformed into online abuse.

Speaking to ANI, as reported by LiveMint, Rhiya said she approached the Maharashtra Police cyber cell after allegedly facing harassment and defamatory content online. She stated that while criticism was part of democratic expression, attacks targeting her dignity and personal reputation crossed the line.

“Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but no one has the right to degrade someone, malign their reputation, attack their dignity publicly, or make statements suggesting that a person does not have the right to live,” she said.

Rhiya also clarified that the movement was not organised for any political party, religion or individual but was about issues affecting students.

A detailed report by ThePrint described how women protesters became targets of online campaigns involving alleged fake images, sexualised misinformation and calls for police action. The report quoted Rhiya alleging that fabricated images of her were circulated along with false claims about her personal life and profession. She argued that when critics could not challenge the substance of the protest, they shifted towards attacking the character of women participants.

“If you cannot attack the cause, attack the character”

The backlash against women protesters was described by many activists as part of a broader pattern seen during previous movements, including the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the farmers’ agitation. Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, speaking to ThePrint, pointed out that similar tactics had been used earlier — including spreading misleading videos, manipulated images and personal attacks to delegitimise protesters.

The focus on women, activists argued, was not accidental. Women participating in political protests often face a different form of scrutiny. Their clothing, language, relationships and personal choices become subjects of public debate in ways that male protesters frequently do not experience.

A protester quoted by ThePrint said: “Patriarchy becomes a rather perfect tool when it comes to attacking women, because if you cannot attack the cause, you attack the character.”

This raised a larger question: whether women’s participation in democratic protest continues to be judged through expectations of “acceptable” behaviour rather than constitutional rights.

The apology controversy: A minor protester caught between forgiveness and criminal action

The moral policing and attacks on women for using abusive slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi further intensified the backlash against women protesters. On July 31, Prime Minister Modi posted a video message saying he had forgiven students who had used abusive language against him during the protests. He described them as “misled children” and said the focus should be on guiding them rather than punishing them.

The Prime Minister’s remarks also betrayed a deeply paternalistic view of women’s place in political protest. Declaring that he could forgive youngsters for abusing him, Narendra Modi nevertheless singled out women, saying it was a “culture shock” that they had used abusive language. The outrage, then, was not directed at the abuse itself but at the fact that women had dared to express anger in a manner that defied conventional expectations of femininity. Such framing reduces women protesters to custodians of culture, holding them to standards of civility and respectability that are rarely imposed on men. Rather than confronting the grievances that drove thousands of students to the streets, the remarks shifted the conversation to whether women had behaved as society expects them to. That distinction is not incidental—it reflects the persistence of gendered expectations in India’s political discourse, where women are often judged less for what they demand than for how they choose to demand it. Predictably, according to The News Minute, several women protesters said that online abuse against them continued despite the Prime Minister’s message.

The case of the 15-year-old protester who was accused of using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi became one of the most distasteful examples. During the protest, a video surfaced showing the teenager at the protest site shouting and repeating vulgar profanities directed at PM Modi while expressing her frustration. Once it went viral, the video took a life of its own.

A Zero FIR against her was initially registered in Noida and later transferred to Delhi. The allegations invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections relating to intentional insult, statements allegedly causing public mischief and defamation.

Even after there came a video of the teenager apologising publicly went viral after Prime Minister Modi’s remarks urging society to forgive young protesters. In the video, the girl expressed regret for her comments, said she had been influenced by the atmosphere around her and described the incident as her “first and last mistake”.

Only a 15-year-old minor girl, she said that she continued receiving rape threats and sexually explicit messages from unknown accounts and phone numbers. The teenager told IANS that people threatened her with rape and continued targeting her even after her apology. She also alleged that police continued searching for her despite the apology. However, the controversy did not end with her apology.

According to The News Minute, the teenager alleged that she continued receiving rape threats and abusive messages despite publicly apologising. She said unknown accounts sent sexually explicit material and threatened violence against her. As per the report of The Print, the child had to stop going to school, and had to shift out of her house along with her single mother.

The episode highlighted a contradiction at the centre of the debate: while public discussions focused heavily on the language used by protesters, there was comparatively less attention on the gendered abuse directed towards young women who participated in the movement.

On August 5, Hindustan Times reported that the complainant in the case against the teenager withdrew the complaint, stating that she no longer wished to pursue the matter after the Prime Minister had forgiven the protesters. Lawyer Smriti Singh, who had filed the complaint, said that the FIR was initially registered against multiple girls and that she decided not to continue the matter.

When gender meets religion

Beyond the cases involving slogans and online criticism, several women activists alleged that their participation itself had triggered police scrutiny. One such case involved JNU Students’ Union leader Danish Ali.

According to Maktoob Media, Danish alleged that Madhya Pradesh Police visited her family home after her participation in the NEET protests and questioned her relatives despite no FIR being registered against her. She said police contacted her father and advised him to ask her to focus on studies instead of activism. Danish alleged that she was singled out because of her Muslim identity.

“Coming from a Muslim community, with the peak Islamophobia in the country, my family is concerned,” she told Maktoob. She questioned why police action was directed towards her when several other activists had participated in the same protest.

A similar concern was raised by Amreen Shaikh, an organiser of the NEET protest in Goa. According to Maktoob Media, Shaikh was summoned by Goa Police for questioning after helping organise a demonstration that had received official permission. She alleged that during questioning, police asked whether she would take responsibility if a “bomb blast” occurred during the protest.

She said officers also questioned her about her father, his business and foreign travel history. Shaikh said she struggled to understand why questions unrelated to the education protest were raised. She alleged that her identity as a Muslim woman had contributed to the scrutiny she faced.

Although she was not named as an accused, she said the police action and online harassment caused significant mental distress. The FIRs associated with the protest invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to unlawful assembly and related offences.

Vismaya Mohanlal and dissent

The backlash against protesters also extended to celebrities and public figures who expressed support for student demonstrators. Actor Vismaya Mohanlal, daughter of Malayalam superstar Mohanlal, faced online criticism after expressing support for students protesting over the NEET paper leak. According to Indulge Express, Vismaya responded to criticism by saying she stood by her views and believed democracy required citizens to question those in power.

She stated: “We should always be allowed to question and be heard. We should always have dialogue instead of force, and I don’t think your politics should ever supersede your humanity.”

She clarified that her position was not aligned with any political party and that her concern was based on humanitarian principles. Her comments triggered online backlash, with some social media users calling for a boycott of her debut film. Filmmaker Major Ravi defended her position, saying her comments reflected concern for students rather than political affiliation.

Shradha Singh: Online misogyny after becoming a face of the movement

Another woman who became a target after the protests was content creator Shradha Singh. According to The News Minute, Singh’s seven-second Instagram video recorded alongside Rapid Action Force personnel became a subject of controversy after it was amplified by television channels and social media accounts.

She alleged that she was invited to participate in a television discussion under the impression that she would be allowed to explain her position, but instead found herself in a confrontational debate where she faced criticism. Speaking to BBC Hindi, as reported by TNM, Singh said she felt humiliated during the programme but chose not to react emotionally because millions of people were watching. She later spoke about the sexualised abuse directed at her online.

She said comments under her social media posts included degrading remarks targeting her dignity and character. Singh contrasted this experience with her time at the protest site, saying she had stood among hundreds of men without facing harassment but had experienced severe abuse from people online. She appealed for greater attention towards misogynistic online attacks against women protesters.

Gendered backlash: When women become the issue

If the protests challenged the government’s handling of the NEET crisis, the backlash exposed the deeply gendered nature of political dissent in India. Women who stood at the forefront of the movement were not merely criticised for their politics—they were punished for their visibility. Instead of engaging with their demands, detractors sought to discredit them through misogyny. Their clothing was dissected, their professions questioned, their morality policed, sexual rumours manufactured, morphed images circulated, rape threats issued and calls made for their arrest. The objective was unmistakable: to shift the conversation from what women were saying to whether they deserved to be heard at all.

This is a familiar script in Indian protest politics. When a movement proves difficult to defeat on its merits, its women are turned into the battleground. Their political agency is recast as moral transgression; their dissent reduced to questions of character and respectability. The message is clear—women may participate in public life, but only so long as they remain within the boundaries of acceptable femininity. The moment they speak too loudly, lead too visibly or challenge authority too forcefully, they cease to be citizens exercising constitutional rights and become subjects of public moral scrutiny.

The outrage over abusive slogans exemplified this selective moralism. For weeks, public debate fixated on the language used by a handful of protesters, while allegations of excessive police force—including pellet guns fired at students, lathi blows to the heads of demonstrators, and reports of live ammunition being used against protesters in Bihar—struggled to command comparable attention. The disproportionate focus on slogans effectively displaced the central questions the movement had raised: whether the state had responded lawfully and proportionately, and whether those responsible for violence against students would ever be held accountable.

The Prime Minister’s response only reinforced that imbalance. While PM Modi declared that he could forgive youngsters for abusing him, he singled out women, saying it was a “culture shock” that women had used abusive language. The implication was difficult to ignore. Abuse itself was not the singular concern; it became uniquely shocking when it came from women. By holding women protesters to a higher standard of civility than men, the remarks echoed a deeply paternalistic expectation that women must remain composed, respectful and restrained—even when confronting injustice. In doing so, the country’s highest political office did not simply comment on the protests; it reinforced the patriarchal logic that women in politics are judged less by the legitimacy of their demands than by whether they conform to society’s expectations of femininity. In the end, the conduct of women became a bigger controversy than the conduct of the state.

From online abuse to institutional response: Legal aid emerges as protesters seek protection

As allegations of harassment, intimidation and threats against student protesters continued to emerge, political organisations and civil society groups began creating support mechanisms for those facing legal and online challenges.

The Indian Youth Congress (IYC)v launched a nationwide legal helpline under its “Chhatron Ki Goonj” campaign to assist students who claimed they were facing threats, intimidation and online abuse following their participation in the NEET protests. According to The New Indian Express, the helpline was created to receive complaints from students alleging harassment connected with their participation in demonstrations. The organisation said complaints would be reviewed and that legal and organisational assistance would be provided wherever required.

IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib said young Indians had a constitutional right to question the government and raise their voices without fear. The organisation specifically referred to cases involving women protesters, including Rhiya Yadav and Shradha Singh, who had spoken publicly about online abuse. The launch of the helpline highlighted a growing concern: that the consequences of participating in a public protest were extending beyond the protest sites into private lives, families and digital spaces.

A broader crackdown narrative: arrests, FIRs and continuing protests

While the Jantar Mantar protest ended after assurances from the government, several state-level demonstrations continued. In Bihar, students returned to the streets demanding the release of protesters arrested during earlier demonstrations.

According to The Times of India, hundreds of students and youth activists gathered in Patna demanding that the government honour its promise to withdraw cases and release detained students. The protesters alleged that many students had not returned home despite government assurances.

They demanded:

• a verified list of released and detained protesters;
• withdrawal of criminal cases;
• accountability for alleged police excesses.

The demonstrations were dispersed by police using water cannons after protesters attempted to march towards the Chief Minister’s residence. The police maintained that action was taken only after protesters attempted to enter restricted areas.

Supreme Court intervenes: FIRs, surveillance and police action under scrutiny

The aftermath of the NEET protests reached the Supreme Court, where multiple petitions challenged alleged police excesses during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march and subsequent demonstrations.

The petitions raised serious allegations, including:

• use of excessive force against protesters;
• alleged use of pellet guns;
• baton charges;
• injuries suffered by students;
• alleged assault of journalists and lawyers;
• detention of minors;
• surveillance and collection of protesters’ personal data.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana clarified that States were free to withdraw FIRs against student protesters if permitted under law. The clarification came after petitioners pointed out that the Court’s earlier order allowing investigations to continue could affect the government’s commitment to withdraw cases against protesters.

The Court also clarified that the phrase “criminal antecedents” used in its earlier order would refer only to serious and heinous offences, after concerns were raised that students with minor cases could face difficulties. According to LiveLaw, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the government remained committed to addressing cases against student protesters but that criminal law procedures did not provide a simple mechanism for “withdrawing FIRs”.

Possible legal routes included filing closure reports, seeking withdrawal of prosecution or approaching courts for quashing proceedings. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that withdrawing cases individually would be complicated, particularly where FIRs involved large numbers of unidentified persons. One Patna FIR, she pointed out, named thousands of unidentified individuals, raising concerns that such broad FIRs could potentially be used against students.

The Supreme Court also examined allegations of excessive police action during the protests. Petitioners alleged that security forces used disproportionate force against demonstrators, including pellet guns and other crowd-control measures.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that accountability must extend to senior officials responsible for authorising police action. He urged the Court to examine how security forces were permitted to use such methods against civilian protesters.

The petitioners also alleged the use of:

• pellet guns;
• shock batons;
• sticks with nails;
• force against women protesters;
• detention of minors.

The Court directed authorities to preserve relevant evidence, including:

• CCTV footage;
• drone recordings;
• body camera footage;
• videography;
• wireless communication records;
• PCR logs.

The Court also directed authorities not to disclose protesters’ personal information and digital data while the matter remained under consideration. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that police officers responsible for excessive force should not receive undue protection. At the same time, the Court noted that genuine criminal acts committed during protests could not be ignored merely because they occurred in the context of demonstrations. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 18.

Detailed report on the proceedings before the Supreme Court may be read here.

Tamil Nadu keeps the anti-NEET movement alive

Although the nationwide agitation lost momentum after the resignation of the Union Education Minister, resistance to NEET remained alive in Tamil Nadu, where opposition to the examination has long been rooted in questions of social justice and federalism rather than administrative reform alone. As reported by The News Minute, Members of the Ban NEET Movement under the Anti-NEET Federation launched an indefinite hunger strike in Chennai, demanding the complete abolition of the examination. Protesters argued that NEET continues to privilege students with access to costly coaching while placing first-generation learners, rural students and those from economically weaker backgrounds at a structural disadvantage. They also renewed demands for education to be shifted from the Concurrent List to the State List, contending that states should have greater autonomy over admissions and education policy. The movement once again invoked the memory of S. Anitha, whose death in 2017 transformed the anti-NEET campaign into a larger struggle against educational inequality and the centralisation of policy.

Beyond NEET: The democratic questions remain

What began as a demand for accountability over an examination leak ultimately evolved into a far broader test of India’s democratic institutions. The movement forced difficult questions that remain unanswered: How far can the state go in policing dissent? When does crowd control become excessive force? Can criminal law be used to discourage political participation? Why are women who protest subjected to uniquely gendered abuse? And who is held accountable when constitutional rights are allegedly violated in the name of maintaining public order?

The legal battle is far from over. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of police action, FIRs, surveillance and the preservation of evidence signal that the questions raised by the protests have outlived the demonstrations themselves. Whether those proceedings result in meaningful accountability will shape not only the legacy of the NEET movement but also the boundaries of the right to protest in the New India.

Equally enduring is the lesson the protests offered about gender and dissent. For many women, participation in the movement meant confronting not only the coercive power of the state but also orchestrated campaigns of misogyny, intimidation and character assassination. Their experiences underscored a troubling reality: in India, women who claim political space are still expected to defend their morality before their message is heard.

The NEET protests may have ended, but the questions they raised continue to reverberate. The movement is no longer only about a competitive examination or an alleged paper leak. It has become a referendum on the state’s response to dissent, the shrinking space for democratic protest, and whether young citizens can challenge authority without being met with criminal prosecution, excessive force or targeted harassment.

Related:

#STOPKILLINGUS Protest at Jantar Mantar on August 4 against GOI’s “cover-up” of Manual Scavenging deaths

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

Law fraternity rallies behind student protesters, condemns Delhi police crackdown

Permission to Protest? Why the right to dissent needs no licence

Ken-Betwa protest exposes the cost of state-led displacement

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

The post After NEET protests ended, the battle moved online: Women protesters face threats, doxing and criminalisation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First: Let us go back to history! About 84 years ago. Mahatma Gandhi and several of our freedom fighters had assembled in Bombay. They had just one goal in mind: Freedom! India had been enslaved under colonial rule since 1757, and it was high time to break free! Gandhi’s call was clear, loud, determined and unequivocal. On 8 August, 1942, at the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee, he introduced the resolution to start a ‘Quit India Movement’. The resolution was unanimously passed at that historic meeting. Later, he delivered a fiery speech at Gowalia Tank Maidan (now known as ‘August Kranti Maidan’), which marked the launch of the Quit India Movement. He said, “There is a mantra, a short one that I give you. You imprint it in your heart and let every breath of yours give an expression to it. The mantra is ‘do or die’. We shall either be free or die in the attempt.” The next day, on 9 August, the ‘kranti’ had begun; thousands were out on the streets vociferously demanding that the British should leave India immediately and unconditionally! Most of the leaders, belonging to every strata of society, were arrested. They were fearless! Their struggle, with immense sacrifices, continued till India attained her freedom on 15 August 1947! Today, however, it is freedom struggle @ 2026!

Then to that important night! India was ‘to awake to freedom’, with the clock striking the midnight hour on August 14-15, 1947. The Constituent Assembly to whom power was to be transferred began its session at 11 pm on August 14. After an address by the President, Jawaharlal Nehru, our first Prime Minister, made his now immortal ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech. He called upon the members to take a solemn pledge to serve India and her people. “Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.” Powerful, meaningful words from a visionary statesman! The reality today is freedom struggle @ 2026!

Today, Gen Z and even sections of Gen Alpha are out on the streets demanding an end to corruption (e.g., the NEET paper leaks), for greater transparency and accountability at all levels. The Cockroach Janata Party led by Abhijeet in Jantar Mantar and elsewhere took the nation by storm. It is evidently clear that the youth of our country are not going to take matters lightly any more.  Corruption has to be addressed at every level: demonetisation, electoral bonds, the PM Cares fund, and now the E20 (The E20 Janata Party is on the rise). Where did the RSS and BJP get the enormous amounts of money to put up palatial buildings everywhere?  If the RSS is not a registered body, how do they have access to a mind-boggling amount of money? What about the crony capitalist friends who profiteer at the cost of the poor and by looting the country? What about electoral malpractices: the manipulation of the EVMs and the meticulous disenfranchisement, through SIR, of thousands of legitimate citizens everywhere? Several more questions will continue to be asked. When they had their peaceful ‘March to Parliament’ on 20 July, the youth were tear-gassed, baton-charged, beaten, and pellet guns were used against them. Several were injured. Protests spontaneously erupted all over the country. In Ahmedabad and in other parts of Gujarat, groups of students/youth walked together, singing as though they were on a picnic, shouting slogans like “Modi hatao! Desh Bachao!” In Jharkhand, youth are still on a fast. There is no relenting as the youth of India arise and shout “Azadi! Azadi!”  Speak up now! We will be heard! Stand up now! No more silence. It is freedom struggle @ 2026!

The destruction of the country’s democratic ethos and constitutional framework continues with frightening regularity.  The V-Dem Institute at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg in its ‘Democracy Report 2026’ says that, “India’s autocratization is a slow but systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. The ruling anti-pluralist, Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Modi’s derailing of democracy include deteriorations in freedom of expression and independence of the media, harassment of journalists critical of the government, and attacks on civil society and the opposition. India is classified as an electoral autocracy since 2017.” India continues to be named in the top 10 autocratising countries in the last 10 years; it is placed 105 in the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI). What a terrible disgrace! It necessitates freedom struggle @ 2026!

Some days ago, a District court acquitted a controversial politician in a sexual harassment case filed three years ago by a group of female athletes. Six female wrestlers had accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh of sexually harassing them while he was the head of the Wrestling Federation of India. He had denied the allegations. Singh, a former MP from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), wields considerable influence in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most politically crucial state. The allegations against him made global headlines in 2023, especially after police detained the wrestlers as they tried to march to India’s new parliament building in Delhi. For Vinesh Phogat and her co-wrestlers, the struggle is not yet over. Despite having to pay a heavy price, they are determined not to give up.  For our women wrestlers, it is freedom struggle @ 2026!

In the latest 2026 Environmental Performance Index, India is ranked 176 out of 177 countries! What a terrible shame. The effects of climate change have wreaked havoc on the country. At the receiving end are the poor and the marginalised who suffer very much. Government projects favour their crony capitalist friends, providing them with a license to loot, plunder and rape the environment; the continued use of fossil fuels is a case in point. The Environment is in a shambles! The destruction of precious forest lands and biodiversity, to cater to so-called ‘development’ projects, contributes immensely to the climatic changes one experiences today. Sections of the corporate sector and particularly the mining mafia have no qualms of conscience in depleting precious natural resources, with the sole desire of profiteering. The Adani-owned ‘Greater Nicobar Project’ is a terrible disaster in the making. Adani is also planning the takeover of Mumbai’s salt pans. For those who care for our common home, it is freedom struggle @ 2026!

In the Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2026, India is ranked 102 out of 123 countries, with a level of hunger classified as “serious”. Millions in our country still live below the poverty line and suffer from want, hunger, deprivation and without daily access to roti, kapda aur makaan. The country still does not have any official relevant, reliable, updated data with regard to poverty. Millions want to break away from the shackles of poverty. It is for them, the freedom struggle @ 2026!

India today yearns for freedom! For every citizen to live in dignity and equity, in harmony and in peace, in truth and in justice, in acceptance of the other and in the celebration of pluralism. To preserve, protect and promote Constitutional values, the democratic ethos, the right to dissent, freedom of speech and the secular fabric of the nation. Freedom from untruth, deceit, lies and ‘feku-isms’. Freedom from manipulated, selective and biased history. Freedom from hate and violence, from rape and killing, from extortion and corruption, from uniformity and monoculturalism, from authoritarianism and subjugation

The average citizen of India yearns for freedom from the D-Gang dada-giri of this regime (through demolition, displacement, discrimination, division, demonisation, denigration, delisting, delimitation). The cry is: freedom for all! The Adivasis, Dalits and OBCs, for the minorities and the marginalised, for women and the other Genders, for the small farmers and the indigenous coastal people, for the casual labourers and the migrant workers, for the excluded and the exploited, the human rights defenders and the truthful, objective INDIA’S media. They all demand the freedom to be fearless and transparent citizens! As India yearns for that total freedom, we pray in the words of Tagore, from his ‘Gitanjali’, “into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake. 

For all: freedom struggle @ 2026!

In 2007, Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote this timeless and relevant poem

Pity the nation whose people are sheep

And whose shepherds mislead them

Pity the nation whose leaders are liars

Whose sages are silenced

And whose bigots haunt the airwaves

Pity the nation that raises not its voice

Except to praise conquerors

And acclaim the bully as hero

And aims to rule the world

By force and by torture

Pity the nation that knows

No other language but its own

And no other culture but its own

Pity the nation whose breath is money

And sleeps the sleep of the too well fed

Pity the nation, oh pity the people

who allow their rights to erode

and their freedoms to be washed away

My country, tears of thee! Sweet land of liberty!

How true of India today! Hope, however, never dies for we, the people of India, it is ‘freedom struggle @ 2026!’

August 10, 2026

(The author is a human rights, justice, reconciliation and peace activist/writer)

Related:

The Revolution has begun….!

“The Emperor is Naked!”

The RSS and the Freedom Struggle

The post India’s freedom struggle @ 2026 appeared first on SabrangIndia.