Justice Santosh Rai, while passing the order, noted that indefinite pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified, particularly when the conclusion of trial remains uncertain. According to LiveLaw, The Court also considered systemic factors such as overcrowding of prisons and the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution alleged that Savej uploaded on his WhatsApp status a video manufactured in Pakistan, which had the potential to disturb communal harmony, disrupt social order, and threaten national security. The FIR invoked grave charges including “waging war against the Government of India” and acts endangering sovereignty and unity, alongside Section 13A UAPA.

As reported by LiveLaw, The State strongly opposed bail, stressing that circulating such inflammatory content is prejudicial to national integrity and that releasing the accused could embolden repetition of similar conduct.

Defence’s Case

On the other hand, according to a report in Bar&Bench, the defence highlighted several procedural lapses. It was an admitted fact that the accused had not created the video himself but merely circulated it, which raises serious doubts on whether offences of such gravity were actually attracted. Counsel further argued that:

• The recovery of the mobile phone was false and planted.
• No independent witnesses were examined during investigation, casting doubts on the credibility of evidence.
• The invoked provisions of BNS (Sections 353(2), 147, 152, 196, 197(1)(d)) and Section 13A UAPA were misapplied, since the essential ingredients of these offences were not fulfilled.

Court’s findings

The Court found merit in the submissions of the defence, especially in light of two factors:

1. The applicant had no previous criminal record.
2. The chargesheet was already filed, reducing the risk of tampering with the investigation.

Balancing the severity of the allegations with constitutional principles, the Court emphasised that bail remains the rule and jail the exception, even in serious cases, unless compelling circumstances justify prolonged detention. Consequently, Savej was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions such as non-tampering with evidence, non-threatening of witnesses, and refraining from unnecessary adjournments.

Significance of the order

The order is significant for several reasons. First, it highlights a recurring misuse of UAPA, where the mere act of circulating controversial content—without creation, intent, or demonstrable link to terrorist activity—is prosecuted as a grave national security offence. The invocation of provisions like “waging war” under BNS appears disproportionate and risks diluting the gravity of these offences by stretching them to cover relatively minor acts of online expression.

Second, the judgment reaffirms that Article 21 protects against arbitrary and prolonged incarceration, even in so-called “national security” cases. Courts are increasingly being forced to step in to balance State claims of security with the individual’s right to liberty.

Finally, the case exposes the overbreadth of investigative practices, where procedural safeguards—such as independent witnesses and credible recovery of evidence—are frequently ignored. The fact that the prosecution admitted that the accused had not created the video but only shared it further questions whether such conduct truly meets the threshold of “terrorist activity” or “waging war.”

While the High Court’s decision is a necessary check, it also reflects a deeper structural problem: the routine application of UAPA to low-level acts of dissent or controversial expression, clogging the justice system and undermining the exceptional purpose of anti-terror laws.

Related:

15-year-old Muslim teen died by suicide in Gujrat, alleged communal harassment

Death in Assam’s Detention Regime: 56-year-old Bengali Muslim succumbs to cancer amid denial of release

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

Prabir Purkayastha Case: Mandate of providing grounds of arrest to PMLA/UAPA accused, some safeguards

The post Allahabad HC grants bail in UAPA case over WhatsApp video; raises questions on overuse of stringent national security laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Court proceedings

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after Raut moved the Court citing serious health concerns. Raut suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, a progressive autoimmune disorder that attacks the joints, bones, and muscles. He argued that the necessary specialised treatment was unavailable inside prison facilities or in government hospitals, making interim release essential.

Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for Raut, highlighted that the Bombay High Court had already granted him regular bail in September 2023 after finding no sufficient material to justify continued detention. However, that relief never took effect because the High Court, at the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) request, stayed the order for a week to allow the agency to move the Supreme Court. Since then, the stay has been extended repeatedly.

Although Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju was not present, another counsel appeared on behalf of the NIA and opposed the plea. The prosecution reiterated its allegations that Raut was responsible for fund transfers to Maoists and maintained that the charges against him were serious.

The Court, however, sided with the petitioner on medical grounds, observing:

“The applicant is seeking interim bail on medical grounds coupled with the fact that he was actually granted bail (by the High Court). We are inclined to grant medical bail for a period of six weeks.”

In its order, the Bench noted that “Inasmuch as the applicant – Mahesh Sitaram Raut is seeking interim bail on medical ground, coupled with the fact that he was actually granted bail by the High Court, against which the Special Leave Petition has been filed by the NIA, we are inclined to grant medical bail, for a period of six weeks, from the date on which the conditions are imposed by the concerned Trial Court. Accordingly, the applicant – Mahesh Sitaram Raut is granted interim bail for a period of six weeks, as aforementioned, subject to the terms and conditions 2 that can be imposed by the Trial Court”.

Raut is currently lodged in Taloja Central Jail, where several other co-accused in the case have also been held.

The complete order may be read here.

Earlier interim bails granted to Raut

This is the third instance of the Supreme Court granting Raut temporary release in the past year, in addition to reliefs granted by lower courts:

• April–May 2024: A special NIA court in Pune granted him interim bail to prepare for and appear in his LL.B. second semester examinations. The order directed that he be released between April 20 and May 16, subject to a personal bond of ₹50,000, disclosure of his residence, and sharing of his phone number for tracking purposes. The court also permitted the NIA to monitor his phone during the bail period.
• June–July 2024: A vacation bench of the Supreme Court granted him two weeks’ interim bail (June 26–July 10) to perform ceremonies connected with the last rites of his grandmother. The NIA opposed this plea on grounds of jurisdiction, but the Court ruled that since its own proceedings were pending, the application was rightly before it.
• September 2024: The Bombay High Court ordered Siddharth Law College, Mumbai, to admit Raut as a student for the 2024–2027 LL.B. batch, holding that imprisonment cannot strip a person of their right to education. The Court said that refusing admission despite a validly allotted seat would amount to violation of his fundamental right to education.

These repeated interim releases illustrate how courts have recognised Raut’s educational and familial rights, even while his broader entitlement to bail remains in abeyance.

Background of the case

The Elgar Parishad event on December 31, 2017, held in Pune to mark the bicentenary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon, became the starting point for a sweeping investigation. Authorities alleged that “inflammatory speeches” delivered at the event incited the caste violence that broke out the next day between Dalits and Marathas.

The case was initially probed by the Pune Police, which later transferred it to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Investigators alleged that the event was a front for a larger Maoist conspiracy to destabilise the State and wage war against the country.

A total of 16 activists, lawyers, and academics were arrested, including Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha, Hany Babu, Shoma Sen, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Sudhir Dhawale, Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe, Jyoti Jagtap, Mahesh Raut, and Father Stan Swamy.

The prosecution’s case against Raut specifically alleges that he was a member of CPI (Maoist), recruited others into the organisation, and was entrusted with ₹5 lakh in funds as per a letter allegedly recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop.

Over the years, courts have released several co-accused on bail:

• Sudha Bharadwaj (default bail, December 2021 – upheld by Supreme Court)
• Varavara Rao (medical bail, August 2022 – Supreme Court)
• Anand Teltumbde (merit bail, 2022 – upheld by Supreme Court)
• Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira (July 2023 – Supreme Court)
• Shoma Sen (April 2024 – Bombay HC, upheld by SC)
• Gautam Navlakha (May 2024 – Bombay HC, upheld by SC)

However, the bail plea of Jyoti Jagtap, a Kabir Kala Manch member, remains pending. The Bombay High Court had earlier rejected her plea in October 2022, noting that certain dialogues in Kabir Kala Manch plays ridiculed government slogans such as Ram Mandir, gomutra, and acche din, and were prima facie capable of inciting hatred. Her case will now be taken up by the Supreme Court in October 2025, along with Mahesh Raut.

Notably, Father Stan Swamy, also an accused in the case, died in judicial custody in July 2021 after being repeatedly denied interim bail despite suffering from Parkinson’s disease and ill health. His death drew sharp criticism of the State’s handling of UAPA detainees.

The Bail Puzzle: Two years of inaction

Mahesh Raut was granted regular bail on merits by the Bombay High Court in September 2023, making him the sixth accused in the case to secure such relief. The High Court found that there was no substantive evidence linking him directly to violent or terror-related activity.

However, the High Court, at the NIA’s request, stayed its own order for one week to allow the agency to file an appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently admitted the appeal and extended the stay indefinitely. For two years since then, Raut’s regular bail has been in suspension, leaving him confined despite the judicial finding in his favour.

The Supreme Court’s decision to release Mahesh Raut on medical grounds for six weeks adds to the string of temporary reliefs he has been granted over the years — to study, to grieve, and now to access medical care. Yet, the fundamental question remains unresolved: why does a man, whom the Bombay High Court found entitled to bail on merits two years ago, remain behind bars?

The prolonged suspension of his bail underscores a troubling pattern in UAPA cases — where interim reliefs are allowed piecemeal, but substantive liberty is indefinitely deferred. This effectively neutralises the High Court’s judgment and leaves the accused in a legal limbo, serving an unofficial sentence without trial.

Related:

Gautam Navlakha granted bail by Supreme Court in Bhima Koregaon case; orders him to pay 20 lakhs for the expenses incurred during his house arrest

Bhima Koregaon Case: HRDs and families await justice, five years down

SC grants bail to Varavara Rao on medical grounds in Bhima Koregaon case

Bhima Koregaon case: Why did Bombay HC grant bail to Sudha Bharadwaj, but not her co-accused?

The post Supreme Court grants six-week interim medical bail to Bhima Koregaon accused Mahesh Raut appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ordeal began in October 2024, when Shahjahan Banu Khosro, Saniya’s mother, purchased a house in Gomtipur for Rs 15.5 lakh from Suman Sonavde, a Hindu neighbour. Payment was fully made by December, but before the formal handover, Sonavde’s husband passed away.

When the mourning period ended, instead of transferring the property, the Sonavde family allegedly refused to vacate the house. Suman’s son Dinesh Sonavde and other family members began harassing the Ansaris, citing Gujarat’s Disturbed Areas Act to threaten the nullification of the transaction.

The Wire reported that Sonavde’s son began threatening the family and said he would nullify the deal, citing the Disturbed Areas Act. What was supposed to be a legal transaction turned into a communal and legal quagmire.

Law as a weapon for communal discrimination: The Disturbed Areas Act

The Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, originally enacted in 1986 and strengthened in 1991 and 2019, was introduced to prevent distress sales of properties in riot-prone or communally sensitive areas. It mandates prior approval from the district collector for inter-religious property transactions.

But reality shows, in practice, serves as a tool to block Muslims from moving into Hindu-majority areas, thereby reinforcing ghettoisation and communal segregation.

Kaleem Siddiqui, a social activist monitoring the case, told The Wire, “Instead of protecting vulnerable families, the law is weaponised to deny them agency. It tells Muslims: you may have the money, but you cannot choose where to live.”

Background

On August 7, the conflict turned violent. Members of the Sonavde family allegedly barged into the Ansaris’ home and attacked them. Saniya was dragged by her hair and beaten. Her brother, Mohammad Hussain, sustained head injuries, and Saniya was left badly bruised.

Despite CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts, police initially filed a case against only one person—Manav Sonavde, who was granted bail the very next day.

“Saniya killed herself waiting for someone to save us, help us,” said her sister Rifat Jahan to The Wire

Two days later, Saniya left behind a suicide note naming four individuals, stating that they took her family’s money without giving them the house and had tormented them for months.

“Mere ghar mein inki wajah se 10 mahine se koi khushi nahi, sirf rona dhona aur ladaai (Because of them, there has been no joy in my house for the last 10 months, only tears and fighting)”, Saniya wrote.

Delayed justice and police apathy

The family alleged that local police refused to file an FIR despite the suicide note and video evidence. Officers initially termed the death “accidental” and insisted on forensic verification of the note. According to The Wire, it was only after intervention by Police Commissioner G.S. Malik that a case of abetment to suicide and other charges were filed against six individuals. However, many critical facts—including the months-long harassment and physical assaults—were left out.

Advocate Satyesha Leuva, the family’s lawyer, said, “Even getting the police to register an FIR was a struggle for us. The initial FIR mentioned the suicide, but not the months of harassment or the brutal beating.”

The aftermath: Silence and protest

Since the FIR, the Sonavde family has gone missing, reportedly absconding. Meanwhile, Saniya’s case has become a rallying point for civil rights activists and Muslim families across Gujarat.

Prasad Chacko, national secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, told The Wire, “The young girl who was forced into suicide is yet another victim of the Hindutva supremacist elements that terrorised a Muslim family that engaged in a legitimate transaction of buying a house.”

Systemic discrimination and ghettoisation

For civil society organisations like the Minority Coordination Committee (MCC), Saniya’s death is not an isolated tragedy—it is a symptom of structural marginalisation.

MCC convener Mujahid Nafees stated: “The Disturbed Areas Act has become a big weapon for them. They don’t care about society or the social fabric. The incident that happened in Ahmedabad is a dark picture of this Act.” He added, “This law deepens marginalisation and ghettoisation. It tells Muslims they are not welcome in certain neighbourhoods, regardless of their rights or resources.”

Today, the Ansari family still lives across from the house they paid for but never received. In the last 10 months, they have lost Rs 15.5 lakh, their trust in the law, and their daughter. “We kept going to the police, but they said the law is not on our side. We have been feeling helpless and hopeless,” Rifat said, as reported

Related:

Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state

Navratri: Communal demands mark pre-festival protest in Jabalpur

Fact Check: The RSS Had No Role in India’s Freedom Struggle

The post 15-year-old Muslim teen died by suicide in Gujrat, alleged communal harassment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to local police, the issue began on September 13, when the bike of a Dalit boy collided with a car carrying Rajput men. The boy was allegedly slapped by the car’s occupants. When he and his mother later went to the accused to raise the issue, they were reportedly beaten, reported The Observer Post.

Sensitive Content
This media contains sensitive content which some people may find offensive or disturbing

Link: https://x.com/ambedkariteIND/status/1967797182863683665

Later that evening, the situation worsened. A group of men allegedly entered the Dalit family’s home, held them hostage, and beat them. Women in the family were also among those assaulted.

The next day, on Sunday evening, violence spread in the village. Clashes broke out between members of the Dalit and Rajput communities, leading to stone-pelting and disruption of peace. Police forces were deployed immediately to contain the situation.

“Stone-pelting was reported around 8 PM. Our teams reached the spot and brought the situation under control,” said Acting Assistant Police Commissioner of Mussoorie, Amit Saxena. He added that CCTV footage from the area is being reviewed to identify those involved, as reported

According to report, at least six individuals have been detained so far. A First Information Report (FIR) has been registered under multiple sections, including provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Senior officials confirmed that leaders from the Bhim Army also visited the village, which added to the tensions.

The Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) has been deployed, and multiple police teams are stationed in the area. Despite the presence of law enforcement, locals report ongoing fear.

“We are afraid. Even with police around, the atmosphere remains tense,” a villager told reporters on condition of anonymity, reported The Observer Post.

Authorities say they are monitoring the situation closely and will take strict action against those found guilty. The case has once again brought focus to the deep-rooted caste divisions and the urgent need for effective enforcement of protective laws.

Related:

Caste Atrocity in 2025: Normalisation, neglect and the crisis of accountability

Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse

Rajasthan’s rape crisis: a string of horrific crimes challenges the state’s record on women’s safety

The post Anti-Dalit Crime: Dalit Family brutalised in Ghaziabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bench and the proceedings

The matter came up before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of religious conversion laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.

The illusion of ‘Love Jihad’ has led violence and intimidation by police and non-state actors. The Anti-Conversion laws legitimise un-constitutional, anti-minority and misogynistic beliefs, and help further the hateful, communal agenda of extremists. CJP is challenging these laws as they impinge upon the privacy, freedoms and autonomy of consenting adults. Help CJP fight for equality and choice. Donate now to keep #LoveAzaad.

The Bench granted four weeks’ time to the States to file their affidavits in reply and fixed the matter for consideration after six weeks. Allowing for all the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners, including Citizens for Justice and Peace, the Court also appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel for the respondents to facilitate preparation of compilations.

At the same time, the Court de-tagged a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. CJI Gavai clarified that while the present proceedings examine the constitutionality of State enactments, Upadhyay’s plea was of a different nature and thus could not be heard together.

Petitioners’ Submissions: Harsh punishments, vigilantism, and targeting of interfaith couples

Appearing for lead petitioner Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh stressed that there was great urgency in granting interim protection because several States were not only enforcing existing laws but also amending them to make them harsher.

Singh highlighted the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment, for conversion through marriage deemed unlawful. Bail under this provision has been tied to the “twin conditions” regime, akin to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), making release on bail nearly impossible.

He further noted that the law permits third parties to file complaints, which has emboldened vigilante mobs to harass couples in interfaith marriages or even those merely participating in religious observances and church services. “These so-called ‘Freedom of Religion’ laws are being weaponised against minorities and those in interfaith marriages,” Singh submitted.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), echoed these concerns, pointing to the Uttar Pradesh and Haryana laws, and confirmed that her client too has filed an application specifically seeking stay of their operation.

Singh also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that Rajasthan has recently enacted a similar law, demonstrating the growing trend of States passing such statutes.

Context of earlier High Court orders

The Bench was reminded that both the Gujarat High Court (2021) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted partial stays on certain provisions of their respective anti-conversion laws, holding them to be prima facie unconstitutional.

• The Gujarat High Court had stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, noting that they intruded into the domain of marriage and personal choice, thus violating Article 21.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the MP Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, restrained the State from prosecuting adults marrying of their own volition and stayed the requirement under Section 10 (prior declaration before the District Magistrate before conversion).

Both these States have since appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the interim orders of their High Courts.

Intervention by other petitioners

The hearing also saw appearances by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad, Sanjay Parikh, and others, all representing parties opposing the anti-conversion laws.

Singh urged that the Court must urgently stay the operation of the laws across States, given the severe chilling effect they are having on religious freedom and interfaith marriages.

When Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay pressed for his plea seeking a blanket pan-India law against deceitful conversions, CJI Gavai responded sharply:

• “Who will decide if a conversion is deceitful?”
• Singh intervened, pointing out that the Upadhyay petition was entirely different in nature since the present challenge is to the validity of existing State laws.
• The Court then formally de-tagged Upadhyay’s petition from the ongoing proceedings.

CJP’s previous submissions on weaponisation of laws

On April 16, during the previous hearing, before the bench of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Singh had also underlined that an interim application has been filed specifically highlighting incidents of weaponisation of these laws. He argued that “again and again, these laws are being invoked to harass minorities,” and urged that the Supreme Court issue notice on this application.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, had contested this claim, stating: “My Lords, there are no such instances.”

The then CJI asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and clarify to the Court where the Union has objections and where it does not, to ensure expedited hearings.

The Court then passed an order permitting States and non-applicants to file responses to these applications even if no formal notice had been issued, in order to speed up completion of pleadings.

Details may be read here.

Background of the challenge

The litigation traces back to January 2020, when a Bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha first issued notice on these petitions. Subsequently, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved a transfer petition seeking consolidation of all challenges pending before six different High Courts—Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh—before the Supreme Court.

CJP’s central contention is that these laws violate Articles 21 and 25, impinging upon individual liberty, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of conscience and religion. They argue that the requirement of state approval or prior intimation before conversion is an unconstitutional burden and exposes individuals to harassment, communal targeting, and violence. Reliance is placed on precedents like KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan KM (2018), which uphold privacy, autonomy, and the right to marry a partner of one’s choice.

The petitions also emphasise that such laws are rooted in conspiracy theories like “love jihad”, and effectively deputise vigilante groups to police interfaith relationships.

Today’s order

Summarising today’s hearing, the Court ordered:

• States to file their responses within four weeks.
• Matter to be listed after six weeks for consideration of stay applications.
• Nodal counsels appointed to streamline compilations.
• Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition de-tagged.
• Pleadings to be completed swiftly, with the Attorney General asked to assist on which applications the Union may or may not oppose.

The Court made it clear that it will consider the petitioners’ prayer for staying the operation of these laws after six weeks, once responses from States and the Union are on record.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ali’s cancer was detected only on August 11, weeks after his condition had worsened inside the camp. He was initially shifted to the Goalpara Civil Hospital and later to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). Doctors informed authorities that his cancer was terminal and that he could only be given palliative care. Despite this, the state refused to release him. On September 1, his cousin Abdul Jalil petitioned the Goalpara Deputy Commissioner for his release, citing both medical necessity and the detention centre superintendent’s own advice to take him home for treatment. The plea was ignored, according to Scroll’s report.

Ali died at the State Cancer Institute, Guwahati on Sunday, leaving behind his elderly mother, wife, three sons and four daughters.

Declared Foreigner on dubious grounds

Like thousands of others, Ali’s ordeal began decades ago. Branded a “D-voter” (doubtful voter) in 1997 by the Election Commission, he faced a Foreigners Tribunal inquiry years later. In 2017, a notice was issued; in April 2021, the tribunal declared him a “foreigner.”

Family members allege he was never informed of the ruling until police arrived to detain him in May 2025. His lawyer, they say, failed to communicate the verdict. Ali had submitted the 1951 NRC showing his parents’ names and electoral rolls from 1966 and 1970 with his maternal grandparents’ names, but the tribunal dismissed these citing “inconsistencies” in linkage, as reported by Scroll. Even his mother’s sworn testimony was rejected, the tribunal claiming she was “tutored.”

This pattern mirrors other cases we have documented, where minor spelling variations, illiteracy-related memory lapses, or missing decades-old records are weaponised to strip citizenship.

Matia Detention Centre: A site of neglect and death

Ali’s death is the second in Matia this year. In April 2025, 42-year-old Md Abdul Motlib of Hojai district died at GMCH after falling ill in detention. Between 2015 and 2022, official records confirm 31 deaths of detainees branded “illegal foreigners”, according to Scroll.

The Matia detention centre, operational since January 2023, is India’s largest and has repeatedly been condemned for substandard conditions. The Supreme Court, responding to petitions, has over the past year issued a string of orders:

• In July 2024, it described conditions as a “sorry state of affairs” — citing lack of proper toilets, sanitation, medical facilities, and clean water.
• In October 2024, it directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to conduct surprise inspections of Matia to verify conditions.
• In November 2024, after reviewing SLSA’s report, it noted that even basic amenities were lacking and directed the state to improve facilities within one month.

Detailed CJP reports may be read here and here.

Beyond individual cases

Ali’s death crystallises several themes:

• Judicial rebukes unheeded: Despite Supreme Court interventions, Matia continues with inhuman conditions.
• Medical neglect and denial of release: Even terminally ill detainees are held until death.
• Structural injustice in citizenship adjudication: Tribunals disbelieve even primary records, severing families from citizenship over trivialities.
• Silencing by fear: Families too poor to litigate learn of tribunal orders only when police arrive.

Amzad Ali’s life ended not simply because of cancer, but because of a system designed to exclude and punish. His death adds to a grim tally and underscores why India’s detention regime in Assam remains one of the sharpest sites of rights violations against its own citizens.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

Supreme Court condemns appalling conditions at Matia Detention Centre in Assam, labels situation a ‘sorry state of affairs’

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

The post Death in Assam’s Detention Regime: 56-year-old Bengali Muslim succumbs to cancer amid denial of release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

They argued that such participation, along with the playing of Bollywood songs, would hurt the sentiments of Sanatan Dharma. The group warned authorities that if communal tensions escalated, the responsibility would lie with the administration.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Hindutva Watch (@hindutvawatchin)

Communal flashpoints around festivals: a pattern repeating itself

Communal tensions around festivals are no longer isolated flare-ups but part of a disturbing, repeated pattern in several parts of India. In recent years, especially in BJP-ruled states like Uttar Pradesh, Gujrat and Madhya Pradesh, right-wing groups have targeted Muslim youth and artists for participating in Hindu cultural events such as Garba during Navratri. Last year in n Jhansi, artist Baby Imran was barred from performing despite being invited, with the event’s electricity cut off as she began.

In Madhya Pradesh’s Indore, Bajrang Dal members disrupted a dandiya celebration over a Muslim youth allegedly carrying chicken, while in Dewas, Hindu Jagran Manch threatened non-Hindus with violence if they didn’t leave the event. In Guna, Muslim youths were physically assaulted and handed over to police—one even beaten on video for resisting expulsion.

These incidents reflect a larger pattern of orchestrated exclusion and hate, masked as protection of religious sentiments. Festivals, once symbols of unity, are now flashpoints of division. This rising intolerance not only alienates minorities but also corrodes India’s pluralistic spirit. If left unaddressed, it risks normalising communal hatred as a part of public celebrations.

Related:

VHP leader assaults Muslim youth attempting to enter Navratri event in UP

When Navratri’s joyous Garba dance becomes a garb for exclusion: Gujarat, MP

‘Check Aadhaar card to keep out Non-Hindus’: Bajrang Dal to Garba organisers

The post Navratri: Communal demands mark pre-festival protest in Jabalpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These divergences were evident during the ECI’s third Conference of Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs), held on September 10, 2025, at the India International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Management (IIIDEM), New Delhi. Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi assessed state-wise readiness. CEOs presented updates on elector counts, digitisation progress, voter mapping, and polling station rationalisation—capped at 1,200 electors per booth.

ECI holds conference of Chief Electoral Officers of all States/UTs to assess
preparedness for nationwide SIR

Read more : https://t.co/nZ9mVaBY7g pic.twitter.com/8QdkGBEWi0

— Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) September 10, 2025

Why the different approaches of the ECI’s SIR in Bihar and West Bengal?

The ECI is clearly applying varied approaches to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with the methodology and parameters in each state appearing to be influenced by specific legal and historical contexts. While the ECI’s stated and overarching goal is a single, nationwide exercise, the on-the-ground implementation reveals significant procedural differences from one state to another.

Parameters of the Bihar SIR: legal and procedural re-enumeration

The approach to the SIR in Bihar is defined by two key parameters, a comprehensive house-to-house (H2H) enumeration and a documentation process under judicial direction. Burden has been placed on the individual elector to ‘submit’ her/his form, in duplicate (though complaints have surfaced that only single forms have been supplied, rendering the efficacy or intent behind the house-to-house survey questionable. The methodology, as outlined by the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar, requires a complete re-enumeration of voters, with Booth-Level Officers (BLOs) visiting every household multiple time to distribute and collect pre-filled forms. This process is not a simple update but an attempt to rebuild the voter list from scratch. Conduct of some of the BLOs—and the short time span and pressure put on them –has also raised more questions than what the ECI has been inclined to answer.

The June 24 notification from the ECI outlined a mixed motive of the ECI in the entire exercise. Apart from this being sudden and hurried –especially given that a revision of rolls for the poll-bound state had already taken place in January 2025—the wording of the notification clearly indicated that the poll body was stepping outside of its statutory mandate and actually assessing/evaluating people’s citizenship.

The Election Commission, in its June 24 order stated that “in case ERO/AERO doubts the eligibility of the proposed Elector (due to non-submission of requisite documents or otherwise), he/she will start a suo moto inquiry and issue notice to such proposed Elector, as to why his/her should not be deleted. Based on field inquiry, documentation or otherwise, ERO/AERO shall decide on inclusion of such proposed Electors in the Final Rolls. In each such case, ERO/AERO shall pass a speaking order. Also, EROs will refer cases of suspected foreign nationals to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. For these purposes, AERO shall exercise ERO’s powers independently u/s 13C(2) of the RPA, 1950.”

Following the outrage caused in the launching of this exercise and several challenges to the Bihar SIR posed by organisations like the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) and political players, the course of the exercise changed.

Crucially, now, the documentation parameter in Bihar is being shaped by the Supreme Court. While the ECI initially sought a list of 11 indicative documents to be submitted by individual electors, the court directed the inclusion of Aadhaar as the 12th prescribed document at its last hearing on September 8, 2025. This court order mandates that Aadhaar can be used as a standalone form of identity, a significant deviation from the ECI’s original plan and a parameter that has been set by legal intervention rather than the poll body alone. This makes the Bihar model a test case for how judicial oversight can directly influence the operational details of the SIR.

Despite initial reservations regarding the acceptability of Aadhaar, the Supreme Court, in its order dated September 8, 2025, clarified the legal position on its use for electoral purposes. The Court stated:

“The short issue pertains to the acceptability and status of the Aadhaar card. In view of the statutory status assigned to Aadhaar under the Aadhaar Act, the Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship. However, keeping in view Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Aadhaar card is one of the documents that may be used to establish the identity of a person. Learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) has confirmed that the Aadhaar card shall be taken into consideration as one of the documents for establishing identity for inclusion or exclusion in the revised voter list for Bihar.”

The Court further held that the Aadhaar card shall be treated as the 12th document for identity verification purposes by the authorities, authorities are entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card, Aadhaar shall not be accepted as proof of citizenship and the ECI shall issue relevant instructions accordingly.

In compliance with the Supreme Court’s direction, the Election Commission of India issued instructions to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, on September 9, 2025, regarding the use of Aadhaar during the Special Summary Revision (SIR). Aadhaar shall be treated as the 12th document for establishing identity, in addition to the 11 documents listed in Annexure C and D of the SIR Order dated June 24, 2025; it is to be accepted solely as proof of identity and not as proof of citizenship, in line with Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. Under Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Aadhaar is already recognized as a valid identity document. DEOs, EROs, AEROs, and all concerned authorities were directed to ensure strict compliance, with any refusal to accept Aadhaar being treated with utmost seriousness.

ECI’s instruction on Aadhaar dated 09.09.2025 can be read here

The question that now arises is has the Supreme Court’s cautionary orders to the constitutional body governed its approach on electoral roll revision in Bengal? Then again comes the question, how come and on what justification has the ECI chosen selectively different parameters for the electoral poll revision in Assam?

Parameters of the West Bengal SIR: historical mapping and administrative overhaul

In West Bengal, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has adopted a distinct approach to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), anchored in a historical baseline. Rather than initiating a fresh enumeration, the ECI has ordered a house-to-house mapping exercise to cross-check the current electoral roll against the 2002 list—the last time an intensive revision was conducted in the state.

Booth-level officers (BLOs) have been tasked with visiting households of voters listed in the 2002 roll to verify if they still appear on the draft rolls for 2025. Electors will be informed of their original number (booth or constituency) and serial numbers, while children of those voters—if enrolled after 2002—can use their parents’ details during the upcoming SIR. BLOs will also record information about unregistered children of 2002 voters to streamline their inclusion.

According to the Telegraph, “The BLOs will verify each name on the current electoral rolls with the 2002 rolls. Those whose names figure in both the lists will not be required to submit any other documents. Their children, if they were enrolled after 2002, will also be able to use their parents’ details to fill in the forms during the SIR. The BLOs will also note down the details of the children of the 2002 electors in case they were not enrolled that year,” said a source.

Alongside this groundwork, the ECI has directed a significant administrative shift, the delinking of the Chief Electoral Officer’s office from the state’s Home and Hill Affairs Department and its relocation to Central Government premises. This move purportedly underscores the Commission’s concern over electoral integrity and highlights its intention to ensure a neutral administrative environment before launching the full-scale revision.

Delhi: on standby

Despite no imminent polls, Delhi’s electoral machinery is in high gear. Officials are training BLOs and rationalising polling stations as part of advanced-stage preparations.

“We want to be prepared whenever the exercise is launched,” an official stated, aligning with the ECI’s directive for all states to be SIR-ready, the Rediff reported. Ironically while some select media outlets have disclosed details of these varied, distinctive methodologies in the revisions, there appears to be no officially disclosed statement of the ECI endorsing these.

Assam: citizenship and political overtones

In Assam, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has taken on a distinctly political tone, closely tied to the state’s long-standing debates around citizenship and alleged “illegal entries” in voter rolls. With assembly elections expected early next year—marking the first since the redrawing of all 126 constituencies in 2023—the urgency is palpable. The ECI notification is available on social media and may be read here.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has positioned the SIR as a crucial step toward cleansing the electoral rolls, citing opposition comments as inadvertent justification for the revision. The last intensive revision in the state took place in 2005, and the updated voter list from that year is now being circulated among political parties, reported the TOI.

To meet the tight timeline, on August 4, 2025, Assam’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Anurag Goel has issued a high-priority directive instructing all district election officers to ensure full preparedness within 15 to 20 days, ahead of the Election Commission’s official schedule announcement. This includes confirming the deployment of electoral registration officers (EROs), assistant EROs, and booth-level officers (BLOs), along with identifying additional BLOs for newly formed polling stations, as reported.

The directive also prohibits reassigning election personnel or data entry staff to other duties—especially in the Bodoland Territorial Council areas, which are simultaneously gearing up for autonomous council elections, likely in September.

Bihar: judicial oversight as a national test case

Bihar’s SIR, considered the model for the national rollout, is under the microscope of the Supreme Court. Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi have warned that any legal irregularity in Bihar could jeopardise the entire nationwide exercise. The Supreme Court clarified that the publication of the final voter list would not affect the adjudication of the matter, assuring the petitioners that it would step in if any illegality were found. “What difference will it (the final publication of the list) make to us? If we are satisfied there is some illegality, we can…,” Justice Kant remarked, as reported by Live Law.

The court has scheduled final arguments for October 7 and emphasised that its verdict will apply pan-India.

The Court has also intervened on documentation as Aadhaar has now been mandated as the 12th acceptable identity document, despite ECI’s initial reluctance. While not proof of citizenship, the court clarified it can be verified for authenticity, thereby adding a critical layer of judicially enforced uniformity to an otherwise flexible process.

A ‘unified’ framework, applied differentially

The ECI is attempting to manage a multifaceted, nationwide exercise with a consistent approach, but the ground-level implementation reveals significant variations. The ECI’s conference with CEOs on September 10, 2025, confirmed its plan to roll out the SIR with a “single schedule.” The ECI’s press note from that day further details this strategy, mentioning a review of documents to ensure “ease of submission” for eligible citizens and a focus on “rationalisation of polling stations” to have no more than 1,200 electors per booth.

However, the ECI’s actions in West Bengal, with its emphasis on a 2002-based mapping exercise, stand in contrast to the broader, more exclusivist approach discussed at the CEO conference. While ECI sources stated that the “SIR order of June 24 holds for entire country,” they also hinted that the “list of documents could be made more inclusive when the schedule was announced,” suggesting a potential for state-specific adaptations.

The Election Commission’s push to delink the CEO’s office in West Bengal from state government control—invoking the Representation of the People Act, 1950—raises questions about consistency in administrative principles. West Bengal, governed by the opposition party TMC, has long had a tense relationship with the ECI, and this move appears to reflect a deeper tension rather than a neutral policy shift. Is the emphasis on administrative “independence” truly about institutional integrity—or is it shaped by the political context of an opposition-ruled state?

This apparent paradox – a single, unified plan with state-specific execution—is a defining characteristic of the ECI’s current movement. The national training program for BLOs promotes uniformity in understanding the SIR module, yet the pre-revision activities across states tell a different story. Manipur, Sikkim, Mizoram, Goa, and Arunachal Pradesh have each conducted state-specific consultations or training sessions, reflecting a decentralised pattern. However, most of these states are either governed by the BJP or its allies, casting doubt on whether this flexibility is uniformly available. The framing of these variations as tailored administrative responses should be viewed critically—especially when similar room for adaptation appears contested in states with non-BJP governments.

This approach, while perhaps practical, also raises questions about whether the final electoral rolls will be a truly uniform product, or a collection of lists prepared under different, albeit ECI-approved, methodologies.

Related

89 lakh complaints of irregularities during Bihar SIR were rejected by ECI: Congress

Bihar SIR: New elector applications doubled in just 2 days, showing a 96.6% increase

99.8% of 65 lakh voter deletions go unchallenged on 13th day of objection period

The post ECI’s nationwide SIR plan: a ‘unified’ push, applied differentially across states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While refusing to stay the Act in its entirety, the Court partially suspended certain provisions, emphasising that such intervention was necessary to prevent arbitrariness and protect all parties until the matter is decided finally.

As per reports in LiveLaw, CJI Gavai began the pronouncement by observing: “Only in the rarest of rare cases a legislation can be stayed by the Court. Though the entire Amendment Act is under challenge, the challenge is essentially to certain specific provisions. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made to stay the provisions of the entire statute.”

1. Five-year practice of Islam condition

Provision challenged: Section 3(1)(r) required that a person must have been a practitioner of Islam for at least five years before being eligible to create a Waqf.

Court’s observations:

• The condition is not per se arbitrary. The legislature’s concern was to prevent misuse, such as people converting to Islam solely to create Waqfs to shield properties from creditors:

“The possibility of any person not belonging to Muslim community, converting to the Islamic religion only in order to take benefit of the protection of Waqf Act so as to defeat creditors and evade the law under the cloak of a plausible dedication cannot be ruled out.” (Para 136)

• However, in the absence of any statutory mechanism to determine whether a person has indeed practised Islam for five years, the provision would lead to an arbitrary exercise of power.

Court’s direction:

• The provision is stayed until State Governments frame Rules to create such a mechanism.
• The stay is temporary and conditional on legislative follow-up.

2. Government power to derecognise Waqf land pending dispute

Provisions challenged:

• Proviso to Section 3C(2): Stated that if a property is disputed as encroached government land, it would not be treated as Waqf until a designated government officer submits his report.
• Section 3C(3): Empowered the officer, if determining it was government land, to order corrections in revenue records.
• Section 3C(4): Required the State Government to direct the Waqf Board to make corresponding changes.

Court’s observations:

• Entrusting the Collector or designated officer with the power to decide property rights violates the separation of powers:

“Though we have prima facie upheld the provisions of Section 3C(1) and 3C(2) of the Amended Waqf Act, we find that the question with regard to determination of title of a property being entrusted to a revenue officer would not be in tune with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. The question of determination of the title of a property will have to, in our considered opinion, be resolved by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority.” (Para 161)

• The interim suspension of Waqf status prior to judicial determination is prima facie arbitrary:

“If a property is already identified as a waqf property or is declared as waqf property, then without determination of the question as to whether such a property is a Government property or not and treating the said property not as a waqf property, in our prima facie view, is arbitrary.” (Para 158)

The final determination of title must rest with a judicial or quasi-judicial body, namely the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83, with appeals to the High Court.

“It is directed that unless the issue with regard to title of the waqf property in terms of Section 3C of the Amended Waqf Act is not finally decided in the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Amended Waqf Act by the Tribunal and subject to further orders by the High Court, neither the waqfs will be dispossessed of the property nor the entry in the revenue record and the records of the Board shall be affected. However, upon commencement of an inquiry under Section 3C of the Amended Waqf Act till the final determination by the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Amended Waqf Act, subject to further orders of the High Court in an appeal, no third-party rights would be created in respect of such properties.” (Para 209 iii)

Court’s directions:

• The proviso to Section 3C(2), Section 3C(3), and Section 3C(4) are stayed.
• Until title disputes are decided:
  • Waqfs cannot be dispossessed of disputed lands.
  • Revenue records and Waqf Board records remain unaffected.
  • Mutawallis cannot create third-party rights over such properties until final adjudication. 

3. Non-Muslims in Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards

Provisions challenged: Amended provisions allowed inclusion of a higher number of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies.

Court’s observations and directions:

• In the Central Waqf Council (22 members) – maximum of 4 non-Muslims.
• In State Waqf Boards (11 members) – maximum of 3 non-Muslims.
• This ensures that Muslim representation remains predominant in bodies managing Islamic religious endowments.

“It is directed that insofar as Central Waqf Council constituted under Section 9 of the Amended Waqf Act is concerned, it shall not consist of more than 4 non- Muslim members out of 22. Equally, insofar as the Board constituted under Section 14 of the Amended Waqf Act is concerned, it is directed that it shall not consist of more than 3 non-Muslim members out of 11.” (Para 209 iv)

4. Appointment of CEO of Waqf Boards

Provision: Section 23 permitted a non-Muslim CEO, who acts as ex officio Secretary to the Board.

Court’s observation and direction:

• Did not stay the provision.
• Issued a directive:

“Though we are not inclined to stay Section 23, we direct that as far as possible, efforts should be made to appoint the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, who is the ex-officio Secretary, from amongst the Muslim community.” (Para 209 v)

5. Registration of Waqfs

Provision challenged: Section 36 required:

• Mandatory registration of all Waqfs.
• Prohibition of creating new Waqfs without a deed.
• Six months’ compliance window.

Court’s observations:

• This is not novel — registration has been mandated under every Waqf law since 1923, including the 1954 and 1995 Acts.
• Even if a deed is missing, registration is possible by supplying particulars.
• Six months’ time has been provided, with courts empowered to condone delay.

Court’s direction:

• No stay.
• Held that this requirement is consistent with legislative history and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

“We are, therefore, of the view that if for 30 long years, the Mutawallis had chosen not to make an application for registration, they cannot be heard to say that the provision which now requires the application to be accompanied by a copy of the waqf deed is arbitrary. Further, if the legislature, on noticing misuse of the waqf properties, finds that after the enactment of the impugned Act all such applications should be accompanied by a copy of the waqf deed, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary.” (Para 149)

“sub-section (10) of Section 36 of the Amended Waqf Act itself provides a period of 6 months from the commencement of the impugned Act. As such, we are of the considered view that an ample amount of time has been given for the waqfs which are not registered to get themselves registered. Apart from that, the proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 36 of the Amended Waqf Act provides that an application may be entertained by the court by way of such a suit etc., after the period of 6 months specified under the said sub-section if the applicant specifies sufficient cause. We are, therefore, of the prima facie view that such a provision cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory.” (Para 192)

6. Abolition of “Waqf by User”

Provision challenged: The 2025 amendment abolished the doctrine of Waqf by user, which recognised a property as Waqf through consistent religious use even without a deed.

Petitioners’ argument: Many age-old Waqfs had no deeds, and their survival depended on the doctrine.

Court’s observations:

• Since registration has been required since 1923, Waqfs had 102 years to register:

“If Mutawallis for a period of 102 years could not get the waqf registered, as required under the earlier provisions, they cannot claim that they be allowed to continue with the waqf even if they are not registered.” (Para 147)

• The abolition is prospective, aimed at preventing misuse:

“If the legislature, in 2025, finds that on account of the concept of ‘Waqf by User’, huge government properties have been encroached upon and to stop the said menace, it takes steps for deletion of the said provision, the said amendment, prima facie, cannot be said to be arbitrary.” (Para 150)

Court’s direction: No stay. The abolition stands.

7. Other provisions left undisturbed

The Court refused interim interference with:

• Prohibition on Waqfs in Scheduled Areas and protected monuments.
• Restriction that only Muslims can create Waqfs.
• Application of the Limitation Act to Waqf disputes.
• Cap on women members in Waqf Councils and Boards.
• Amendments concerning waqf-alal-aulad, appeals, renaming of the Act, and structural changes.

Operative portion of the order

CJI Gavai concluded: “The prayer for stay of the impugned Act is, therefore, rejected. However, while doing so, in order to protect the interest of all the parties and balance the equities during pendency of this batch of matters, we issue the following directions…”

• Stayed:
  • Five-year Islam practice condition (till Rules framed).
  • Proviso to Section 3C(2), Section 3C(3), Section 3C(4).
• Directed:
  • Non-Muslim members capped at 4 (Central Council) and 3 (State Boards).
  • Preference for Muslim CEOs.
• Not stayed:
  • Registration mandate.
  • Abolition of Waqf by user.
  • All other provisions.

Summary of the interim order of the Supreme Court is as follows:

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Akola 2023 targeted violence: Police officers must shed communal colours when they put on their uniforms says Supreme Court

Reaffirming Open Justice: The Supreme Court on speech and contempt

Supreme Court issues notice on plea for time-bound reverification of Assam NRC over “large-scale errors”

Custodial Death of Dalit Law Student Somnath Suryawanshi: FIR registered after Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC directive

The post Waqf Act Amendments Partly Stayed: SC blocks government control, backs registration and reforms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his complaint to the NHRC, Shaikh emphasized the profound impact of his nine-year imprisonment on his personal and professional life. He explained that his delayed compensation claim was intentional, aiming to ensure that all co-accused in the 7/11 case, who were also innocent, receive similar redress. Shaikh’s demand aligns with the Bombay High Court’s recent judgment, which reaffirmed the case’s baselessness and the violation of fundamental human rights over nearly two decades.

“The wrongful imprisonment caused a severe nine-year gap in my professional and personal life. My career, education and personal development were destroyed. The stigma of being falsely branded a ‘terrorist’ continues to haunt me even after acquittal.”he wrote to NHRC

‘It was not a pleasant moment for me to seek compensation when they were still languishing behind bars, and I feared that the State could have been more brutal towards them and taken revenge for my compensation claim. I decided to wait until all my co-accused were acquitted and proven innocent. Now that these acquittals have taken place, it is clear that the entire case was a forgery, and therefore, my demand for compensation becomes even more legitimate and urgent. At this juncture, I believe it is fully justified to seek justice for myself. ‘ he said in a press note

Shaikh reiterated his long-standing position that those wrongfully incarcerated should be granted at least ₹1 crore for each year of imprisonment, though he added that no amount could ever truly compensate for the years lost.

Referring to the recent Bombay High Court judgment, Shaikh said it reaffirmed what he and others have maintained for years — that the case was “entirely bogus” and that their fundamental human rights had been gravely violated for nearly two decades.

Muhammad Aamir Khan, who spent 14 years in prison for being accused of involvement in bomb blasts in the Delhi-NCR region. Before being acquitted of all charges in 2012, told This reporter that he has continued to work on the issue of wrongful incarceration since his release. “We have even met the President regarding compensation. He expressed concern, but nothing concrete has materialized yet. Still, I remain optimistic,” he said.

Highlighting what he sees as a stark injustice,  he pointed out that in India, “militants who surrender their arms are often rehabilitated and compensated. Those who openly admit to killings or bombings are offered state support. But people who are wrongfully accused of terrorism, who lose years of their lives in jail, are almost never compensated.”

In 2014, the NHRC awarded Khan ₹5 lakh in compensation for his wrongful incarceration; he received it in 2018.

India currently lacks a statutory framework mandating compensation for individuals wrongfully accused and incarcerated, including in terrorism-related cases. Over the years, civil society organizations, legal experts, and the Law Commission of India have advocated for such a framework to ensure that victims of wrongful imprisonment receive recognition, financial relief, and a formal acknowledgment of the state’s error. Compensation in these cases serves as both an apology and a step toward accountability, acknowledging the grave injustice suffered by individuals and their families.

The Law Commission of India’s Report No. 277 (2018). highlights the absence of a statutory framework for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration. It underscores the severe social, psychological, and economic consequences endured by the wrongfully accused, including loss of liberty, livelihood, and reputation. Drawing on international practices and findings from the Innocent People’s Tribunal, the report recommends a legal mechanism providing both monetary and non-monetary relief, reflecting the duration of detention and personal losses, along with specialized courts to assess compensation claims efficiently.Civil society initiatives have complemented these efforts. Notably, the Innocent Network’s People’s Tribunal systematically examined cases of individuals acquitted in terrorism-related cases and highlighted the urgent need for state recognition and redress.

‘I’m quite hopeful I would be compensated for my lost years , especially after this case has been proven to be bogus by the Bombay High Court’, said Shaikh with a smile.

Osama Rawal holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Elphinstone College and has been actively involved in people’s movements across Maharashtra. He is a researcher and activist with the Innocence Network—an alliance of activists, lawyers, and civil society groups dedicated to securing justice for individuals wrongfully convicted, especially in terrorism-related cases

Courtesy: CounterCurrents

The post Abdul Wahid Shaikh, acquitted in 7/11 Mumbai train blast case, demands ₹9 crore as Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration appeared first on SabrangIndia.