On January 26, 2026, Deepak Kumar stepped in when a group of men, allegedly affiliated with the Bajrang Dal and the Vishva Hindu Parishad, confronted 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper Vakeel Ahmed over the use of the word “Baba” in the name of his decades-old shop. Within days, the episode spiralled far beyond the narrow dispute at its origin — triggering multiple FIRs, large-scale mobilisation by right-wing groups, a blockade of a national highway, and the registration of criminal cases not only against alleged intimidators and protestors, but also against those who intervened to defend the elderly shopkeeper.

Extensively reported by national media, the Kotdwar incident has now emerged as a test case for how the state polices communal vigilantism, protects freedom of expression and conscience, and balances claims of law and order against the constitutional obligation to safeguard equality before the law. As investigations continue and police deployment remains heightened, the episode raises an unsettling question: when ordinary citizens resist religious intimidation, does the legal system shield them — or subject them to prosecution.

The spark: January 26 and the dispute over “Baba”

According to The Indian Express, 46-year-old Deepak Kumar, who runs a gym in Kotdwar, was present at a friend’s shop on January 26 when he overheard a group of men confronting 70-year-old Vakeel Ahmed (also reported as Ahmed Wakil), a Muslim shopkeeper whose store — Baba School Dress — has existed on Patel Marg for nearly 30 years.

The men, allegedly identifying themselves as members of the Bajrang Dal and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), reportedly objected to Ahmed’s use of the word “Baba” in his shop’s name. They allegedly demanded that the name be changed, claiming the term was exclusive to Hindu religious figures.

When Kumar intervened and asked why an elderly man was being threatened, he was reportedly told not to interfere.

The viral moment: “My name is Mohammad Deepak”

A video of the confrontation — later widely circulated across social media platforms — shows Kumar directly questioning the mob’s logic. He is heard asking why other shops are allowed to use the word “Baba” but Ahmed’s shop is not, and whether a three-decade-old establishment should now be forced to change its identity.

When members of the group ask Kumar his name, he responds: “My name is Mohammad Deepak.”

Speaking later to The Indian Express, Kumar clarified that the statement was deliberate and symbolic. “I intended to convey that I was an Indian and that everyone is equal before the law,” he said.

The phrase quickly went viral, earning praise across social media — but also, according to Kumar, triggering threats against him and his family.

“My Name is Mohammed Deepak”- How this Hindu man stood between a Bajrang Dal-linked mob and ‘Baba’ an elderly Muslim Shopkeeper in Kotdwar, Uttarakhand. The Mob was demanding the shopkeeper change his shop name. Full report @themojostory pic.twitter.com/uXLTh4TJEF

— barkha dutt (@BDUTT) January 31, 2026

The shopkeeper’s complaint and the first FIR

Following the January 26 incident, Vakeel Ahmed filed a police complaint, stating that three to four men claiming to be Bajrang Dal members had entered his shop, threatened him, and warned of “serious consequences” if he did not change the shop’s name.

Based on this complaint, police registered an FIR at Kotdwar police station under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:

• Section 115(2) – voluntarily causing hurt
• Section 333 – house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint
• Section 351(2) – criminal intimidation
• Section 352 – intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of public peace

The FIR names two individuals and includes unnamed persons, as per The Hindu.

Mobilisation and backlash: Protests against Deepak Kumar

While the initial confrontation ended on January 26, the situation escalated sharply days later.

On January 31, intelligence inputs indicated that people were assembling to confront Kumar at his gym and near Ahmed’s shop. According to a complaint later filed by Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar, around 30–40 people, arriving in 12–15 vehicles, gathered in Kotdwar.

Many were reportedly from Dehradun and Haridwar and identified themselves as members of the Bajrang Dal, according to Hindustan Times.

Highway blockade, sloganeering, and police confrontation

As per the FIR registered on the sub-inspector’s complaint, the group:

• Raised slogans near Kumar’s gym
• Obstructed police personnel deployed at a barrier
• Removed police barricades
• Parked vehicles across the road, creating a traffic jam
• Blocked the National Highway for nearly an hour, affecting civilian traffic and ambulances
• Marched toward Kotdwar market and Baba School Dress, raising religious slogans and using abusive language

Deepak stood up against the Bajrang Dal activists in Uttarakhand who were harassing a muslim shopkeeper-

His house is now being attacked by Bajrang Dal members.

This is total GundaGardi.

Police must protect him.pic.twitter.com/tRZyaEy7Qz

— Arpit Sharma (@iArpitSpeaks) January 31, 2026

After being dispersed once, the group regrouped near Malviya Udyan, in front of the Municipal Council on the National Highway, where they again sat on the road and blocked traffic. The FIR records that the actions created “fear and panic” among passers-by and were aimed at disturbing communal harmony. Based on these events, according to IE, police registered an FIR against unknown persons under sections relating to:

• Unlawful assembly
• Obstruction of public servants
• Breach of peace
• Promoting enmity between groups

A parallel FIR — this time against the interveners

In a development that drew widespread criticism, Uttarakhand Police also registered an FIR against Deepak Kumar and Vijay Rawat, another local resident who had supported Ahmed on January 26.

According to The Hindu, this FIR was filed following complaints by Gaurav Kashyap, reportedly a VHP member, and Kamal Pal, identified as a Bajrang Dal member.

The complainants alleged that Kumar and Rawat:

• Assaulted them
• Snatched money, watches, and mobile phones
• Hurled caste-based slurs
• Acted as part of a violent mob

The police booked Kumar and Rawat on charges including criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, rioting, and breach of peace.

Superintendent of Police Sarvesh Panwar told The Hindu that the complainants claimed to have been conducting a “door-to-door outreach initiative” at the time of the incident.

Deepak Kumar’s response: “Why am I booked, not the harassers?”

Kumar has denied the allegations and questioned the police’s approach. Speaking to the media, he said that his life and his family’s safety were under threat and asked why action had been taken against him while those accused of harassing a 70-year-old shopkeeper remained at large.

In a subsequent Instagram video, Kumar said: “I am not Hindu, not Muslim, not Sikh, not Christian. First and foremost, I am a human being… No one should be targeted for their religion.”

He added that while hatred spreads easily, standing up for love and humanity requires courage.

Deepak Kumar, the man who confronted right wing groups harassing a Muslim shopkeeper, is getting death threats. The local administration in Kotdwar town of Uttarakhand is hands in glove with the mob, says Deepak https://t.co/bch32S1JBP pic.twitter.com/6xYbL7yKHh

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) February 1, 2026

Police position: “Law and order first”

Addressing the controversy, SSP Sarvesh Panwar stated that all FIRs were registered to prevent escalation and maintain law and order. He confirmed that police personnel were present during the protests and had directly witnessed the blockade and sloganeering.

Police said:

• Video footage is being examined to identify participants
• Statements of all involved parties are being recorded
• Additional forces have been deployed in Kotdwar following intelligence inputs about possible fresh mobilisation

A senior officer quoted by The Hindu said investigations would proceed strictly on legal grounds and that “no one found guilty will be spared.”

Political and civil society reaction

The FIR against Kumar and Rawat triggered sharp criticism from civil rights activists, lawyers, and social media users, many of whom argued that the state appeared to be penalising those who intervened against intimidation rather than those who initiated it.

Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi publicly backed Kumar, calling him a “living symbol of love in the marketplace of hate.” In a post on X, Gandhi accused the Sangh Parivar of deliberately fostering division and alleged that the Uttarakhand government was siding with “anti-social forces.”

“We need more Deepaks — those who do not bow, who do not fear, and who stand firmly with the Constitution,” Gandhi wrote.

उत्तराखंड के दीपक भारत के हीरो हैं।

दीपक संविधान और इंसानियत के लिए लड़ रहे हैं – उस संविधान के लिए जिसे BJP और संघ परिवार रोज़ रौंदने की साज़िश कर रहे हैं।

वे नफ़रत के बाज़ार में मोहब्बत की दुकान का जीवित प्रतीक हैं और यही बात सत्ता को सबसे ज़्यादा चुभती है।

संघ परिवार… pic.twitter.com/c1D4VHV5XO

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) February 1, 2026

Senior Congress leader Suryakant Dhasmana said that the Kotdwar incident, along with other recent communal and targeted attacks in Uttarakhand, had seriously damaged the state’s social fabric.

An unresolved moment

As of now, three separate FIRs remain under investigation:

1. The shopkeeper’s complaint against alleged Bajrang Dal members
2. The police FIR against unidentified protestors for highway blockade and disorder
3. The FIR against Deepak Kumar and Vijay Rawat based on right-wing complaints

Police deployment remains heightened in Kotdwar, and authorities have appealed for calm while warning against the spread of unverified information online. What began as a neighbourhood dispute over a shop name has now become a test case for how the state responds when ordinary citizens intervene against communal intimidation — and whether standing up for constitutional equality comes at a legal cost.

Related:

CJP files NBDSA complaint over Zee News’s ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’, alleging communal framing and hate tropes

From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC pulls up police over mob attack in Ramnagar, seeks action against BJP leader for inciting communal violence

Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order

‘Eid Gift’: Uttarakhand CM Dhami Renames17 Places With Muslim-Sounding Names

7-year-old Muslim boy allegedly assaulted by teachers in Uttarakhand’s govt school, FIR registered

The post How defending a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper triggered FIRs, highway blockades, and a law-and-order crisis in Uttarakhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This was the thirteenth occasion on which the petitions have been listed before the Supreme Court. The proceedings arise from a group of writ petitions pending since 2020, raising substantial constitutional questions concerning the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality, and the extent of State power to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, Advocate Srishti Agnihotri and Advocate Sanjana Thomas are representing CJP, the first and lead petitioner in the case.

Origin and expansion of the challenge

The challenge was first initiated in January 2020, when the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions questioning the constitutional validity of laws enacted by certain States to regulate religious conversion. These early petitions focused on statutes in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.

Over time, similar laws were enacted in additional States. In 2023, the Supreme Court permitted Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)—the lead petitioner in the batch—to amend its writ petition to bring within the scope of the proceedings comparable statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. As a result, the present batch now concerns nine State enactments, each styled as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” law.

The petitions contend that although framed as measures to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, the impugned statutes impose criminal, procedural, and administrative burdens on the exercise of individual choice in matters of faith and marriage.

Hearing of April 16, 2025: Applications for early hearing and interim relief

A significant procedural development occurred on April 16, 2025, when the Supreme Court heard applications filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace seeking (i) an early hearing of the long-pending petitions and (ii) interim relief in light of continued enforcement of the impugned laws.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The applications were filed against the backdrop of the ongoing operation of the anti-conversion statutes across several States and subsequent legislative amendments, including amendments enhancing penalties and expanding the scope of offences.

Appearing for CJP, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that the interim applications were necessitated by the manner in which the laws were being implemented on the ground. It was urged that certain provisions—particularly those relating to prior declarations before conversion, criminalisation of conversion associated with marriage, third-party complaints, and reversal of burden of proof—were resulting in repeated invocation of penal provisions against consenting adults. Singh requested the Court to issue notice on the interim relief application and to stay the operation of the most consequential provisions pending final adjudication.

On behalf of the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested the submission that there were instances of misuse warranting interim relief. In response, the Bench directed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to examine the applications and indicate the Union’s position on the various prayers raised therein, including identifying aspects that may not be opposed.

The Court further directed that States and non-applicants file responses to the interim applications, even in the absence of a formal notice, with a view to ensuring that pleadings are completed expeditiously. The matter was directed to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day, signalling the Court’s intent to take up the applications in a substantive manner.

Details of the proceedings may be read here.

Proceedings of September 16, 2025: Directions on pleadings and de-tagging

The batch of petitions, along with the pending interlocutory applications, came up for consideration on September 16, 2025, before a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

At this stage, the Court directed nine respondent States—Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—to file detailed responses to the applications seeking interim stay of their respective statutes.

The Court granted four weeks’ time to the States to file affidavits in reply and indicated that the matter would be taken up for consideration of interim relief after completion of pleadings. To facilitate the preparation of common compilations and streamline submissions, the Court appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the respondents.

During the same hearing, the Court considered a separate Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. The Bench clarified that the subject matter of that petition was distinct from the constitutional challenge to existing State enactments and accordingly de-tagged the Upadhyay petition from the present batch.

Detailed proceedings may be read here.

Nature of the impugned statutes

Across the nine States, the impugned laws generally contain provisions that regulate religious conversion through a combination of prior declarations, criminal penalties, and procedural presumptions. The petitioners have argued that these provisions, taken together, create a legal regime in which conversion is treated as inherently suspect, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

A central feature of many of the statutes is the requirement that a person intending to convert must give prior notice to a District Magistrate or other designated authority. In several States, this declaration is followed by a police inquiry or verification process, and in some cases, the declaration is required to be publicly displayed. The petitions argue that such requirements subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to prior executive approval, thereby altering the constitutional relationship between the individual and the State.

Another significant feature is the manner in which conversion associated with marriage is addressed. Several statutes presume that conversion undertaken for the purpose of marriage is suspect and may amount to conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. According to the petitioners, this effectively places consensual interfaith marriages under criminal scrutiny, even in the absence of any allegation by the individuals concerned.

The statutes also commonly permit persons other than the allegedly aggrieved individual to lodge complaints, thereby enabling third-party intervention in private relationships. In addition, many of the laws reverse the burden of proof, requiring the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary, and impose stringent bail conditions that can result in prolonged incarceration.

During the course of the hearings, CJP (petitioners) drew the Court’s attention to legislative amendments and judicial developments relating to individual State statutes.

Particular reference was made to amendments introduced by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2024 to its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. It was submitted that these amendments enhanced the penal consequences under the statute, including the introduction of minimum sentences extending to long terms of imprisonment and the imposition of bail conditions similar to those found in special statutes. It was also pointed out that the amendments expanded the category of persons who may lodge complaints under the Act.

The petitioners (CJP) also relied on interim orders passed by High Courts in challenges to similar laws. The Gujarat High Court has stayed the operation of certain provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act on the ground that they impinge upon the right of consenting adults to marry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed provisions requiring prior declaration to the District Magistrate. Appeals against these interim orders are presently pending before the Supreme Court.

Related proceedings and de-tagging of a connected petition

During the September 16, 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court also addressed the status of a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for the enactment of a central law regulating religious conversions. The Court directed that this petition be de-tagged from the present batch, observing that its subject matter was distinct from the challenge to the constitutional validity of existing State enactments.

Submissions on personal liberty and gender concerns

In addition to CJP, several interveners have placed submissions on record. The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) has raised concerns regarding the impact of these laws on women’s autonomy, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships. It has been contended that the statutory framework tends to treat adult women as lacking agency in matters of choice, thereby inviting State and familial intervention.

Position as of the latest listing

As of the listing on January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet heard arguments on the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief, nor has it commenced final hearing on the constitutional validity of the impugned statutes. The matter now stands listed for February 3, 2026.

The outcome of the forthcoming proceedings will determine whether interim directions are issued pending final adjudication of questions that bear on the interpretation of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, and on the extent to which the State may regulate religious conversion without infringing upon personal liberty and freedom of conscience.

Below is a table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, which provides the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

Unpacking ‘Love Jihad’ and Caste Purity

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

Join the fight against the love jihad laws

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms

The post Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His tragic death has been widely mourned but it should also lead to soul searching beyond improving VIP travel modes. They get all the attention, they choose to spend huge amounts chartering aircraft even when there is no urgency for travel, they build airports in their areas leaving State bus transport in a shambles, the bus stations are dirty, basic amenities are lacking.

Similar neglect of a train travel long distance as well travel in urban areas. In Mumbai 3,000 people fall from overcrowded trains each year, three days before Ajit Pawar’s death, a college lecturer was murdered in a local train in Mumbai due to tension caused by overcrowding.

On roads in the country over 100,000 are killed in crashes, many more are injured every year and the numbers keep rising. But there is little media attention, little discussion on TV channels which spend hours on deaths of people like Ajit Pawar or when there was the Indigo air disruption. Far more disruption is caused to millions on a daily basis to ordinary people which never gets the focus.

Our ecosystem now exists largely to serve political, corporate and VVIP clients — an ecosystem where aircraft are booked at short notice, routes change rapidly and operators compete to provide speed and reliability. This demand structure means aircraft are often flying multiple sectors in a single day, crews are working tight rotations, and planning windows are compressed. While none of this automatically implies unsafe operations, it creates an environment where margins are thinner and the system relies heavily on strict procedural discipline to compensate for Even during investigations into the Baramati crash, VSR aircraft were used to ferry politicians for funeral-related travel, underscoring the company’s continued role in high-profile political transport, points out Shreedhar Rathi, aviation writer.

Santosh Desai said in response to the Indigo, disruption, mismanagement. When airports were being built and modernised in the 1990s and 2000s, railway stations were also there, also serving millions. The choice to pour resources into airport infrastructure while leaving railway infrastructure as it was did not arise from abstract economic reasoning. It reflected a clear judgment about whose comfort mattered, whose complaints would be heard and which spaces needed to perform India’s modernity to the world.

Even when stations are redesigned, the aesthetic choices tell their own story. They gain glass facades, retail units and food courts. They are remade to resemble consumption spaces rather than transportation hubs.

What is being modernised is not only travel but the traveller. The aim is to turn them into a new category of person, someone who buys a latte, a fancy coffee cup, rather than someone who sits on a platform eating from a tiffin. It is a prefab vision of modernity often unconcerned with what railway users actually need.

When passengers complained that airports looked like railway stations, they were not merely pointing out operational failures. They were confronting the fear of category collapse, the discovery that their status as air travellers rested on fragile foundations and that a system breakdown could render them ordinary again. They had paid for elevation but found themselves in conditions they recognised from the category they believed they had left behind. Without the confirming architecture, they became just people in a crowded building, shouting to be heard.

When IndiGo flight cancellations caused massive chaos, newsrooms called in panels to discuss the ‘crisis’. But delays on trains, including the Rajdhani whose fares now match those of a budget flight, feels ‘normal’. Over 23 million people take trains every day, which is 51 times the number of air passengers, and an estimated 20% of long-distance trains experience delays of several hours.

Passengers inconvenienced by the flight crisis were described as the ‘stranded middle class’, officially numbering 4.5 lakh daily flyers according to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. But what about the beedi-roller in Bihar rushing to a clinic or the daily wage worker from Patna standing for 12 hours in a general compartment? As the sociologist, Ashis Nandy, points out in The Intimate Enemy, the post-colonial elite’s sense of time favours the clock of capital over the rhythms of the struggling classes. This makes waiting seem like a normal part of life for the impoverished.

daily wage worker from Patna standing for 12 hours in a general compartment, pointed out Ankita Jain in an article in the Telegraph earlier this month.

Ajit was also known as Ajitdada

The original Dada in Maharashtra’s politics was Vasantdada Patil, former chief minister, whose government was toppled by Mr Sharad Pawar through defections and alliances in 1978.  SP (Sharad Pawar) was then a young man, I was recently looking at all the names in his ministry, all are gone, he remains but clearly now he has really aged.

Vasantdada came to acquire the respectful way of address (Vasantdada) through love: he was a freedom fighter, knew difficult days, there were times when he travelled second class by train to attend Congress meetings.

Sharad Pawar never acquired the title dada, he remained Sharad Pawar in the media, at best during personal meetings people would call him, saheb, Sharad rao, sir etc. He never instilled fear.

Ajitdada grew in entirely different circumstances, he acquired power at a very young age becoming a minister in SP’s ministry when I met him a few times, never later. His becoming a dada is relatively a later phenomenon.

Politics has changed so much in the last few weeks. I saw Supriya Sule in a jovial mood at the inauguration of the golden jubilee of Stree Mukti Sanghatana at Y.B. Chavan Centre last month.

She cracked jokes about there being both Pawar and Shinde in her family, her mother is originally a Shinde (the daughter of cricketer Sadu Shinde.). She was referring to the two deputy c.ms, Pawar and Shinde. She said people should not draw any conclusions from what she was saying.

Subsequently there were reports that she may be drafted into the ministry at the Centre following the alliance with the AP (Ajit Pawar) faction.

Sanjay Raut of the Uddhav Sena made a valid point in a news conference that top ministers should not exert too much, should not travel too much by air, they should leave decisions to other leaders, they themselves need not campaign in every lower level election. All this was taking toll of their health.

After all these years in the profession, I get a feeling that journalists can be too liberal in their understanding of politicians, even naïve. They get easily carried away with all the hospitality they enjoy, they must realise that the politician treats you well because you have clout, you are from the media. They may give you a scoop, but in that also they have a motive, else they would just keep their mouth shut. The question is how the politician treats common people, that is the real test.

These journalists praise some politicians for working hard, the question is working hard for whom? They are busy enriching themselves, average politicians with some standing now have assets running into crores of rupees.

If the politicians were so competent, why are their constituencies getting, worse, unliveable?

(The author is a senior journalist and commentator; the present text is from his post on Facebook on January 31, 2026 that may be read here)

Related:

Catch people’s attention on pollution narrative: “Switching to public transport can lower your heart attack risk by 10%.”

Government and automobile lobby are in a cosy affair while public transport is treated like filth

The post Ajit Pawar’s death and the deprivation of everyday connectivity & transport appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Located in the Hanumangarh district of northern Rajasthan, near the fringes of the Thar Desert, Gogamedi is not merely a pilgrimage site but a living archive of north-western India’s syncretic past. The shrine, popularly known as Gogamedi, is dedicated to Gogaji Chauhan, also revered as Jaharveer Gogga, a 11^th century medieval Rajput warrior-saint whose veneration cuts across religious boundaries. For centuries, Gogamedi has drawn Hindu and Muslim devotees alike—peasants, pastoralists, warriors, and traders—making it one of the rare sacred spaces in Rajasthan where religious identity has historically been secondary to lineage, memory, and shared devotion.

It is precisely this inclusive character that has recently come under strain. On January 26 this year, Riddhima Sharma, a Jaipur-based social media influencer, visited Gogamedi and posted videos and statements that were widely perceived as communal and inflammatory. Circulated extensively on social media, the content appeared to question the legitimacy of Muslim participation at the shrine and deployed a language of exclusion alien to Gogamedi’s lived traditions. The episode led to public confrontations at the site and drew condemnation from local devotees and Rajput organisations like Kshatriya Parishad , who accused Sharma of attempting to communalise a shrine historically rooted in Hindu–Muslim coexistence.

What unfolded at Gogamedi was not an isolated provocation by an individual influencer. It was symptomatic of a broader political project—one that seeks to recast shared folk shrines into narrowly defined, Brahminical Hindu spaces, erasing inconvenient histories and displacing long-standing custodial communities. Gogamedi, with its Rajput genealogy and Muslim priesthood, stands as a stubborn obstacle to this project. Hindutva, the political project that this country is under siege currently from, is both Brahmanical and exclusivist.

Gogamedi, Gogaji Chauhan, and the Rajput Custodianship of a Shared Cult

Gogaji Chauhan, also known as Jaharveer Gogga, occupies a distinctive place in north-western India’s folk-historical memory.

To understand why Gogamedi resists easy communal categorisation, one must return to the figure of Gogaji Chauhan himself. Remembered in bardic traditions, oral epics, and folk memory as a protector of pastoralists and farmers, Gogaji was a Chauhan Rajput chief of Jangaldesh or Dadarewa (present-day Churu district) and a contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni as per historians like Dasarath Sharma, RC Temple and sources like Kayamkhan Raso and Jain text Shrawak-Viatudi-Atichar. These historical references tell us that he was a feudal under the Imperial Chauhans of Rajasthan and the region he ruled, from Fazilka in Haryana to Dadrewa in Churu was called Chayalwara, after the Chauhan subclan – Chayal, to which he belonged.

During the era of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, many Chayal chiefs embraced Islam under the influence of Sufis, one of which was Dadrewa’s Raja Karamchand Chauhan, who became Kayamkhan. His and his brother’s descendants, collectively called Kayamkhanis, have produced excellent soldiers to this day, including many who have been awarded Vir Chakras and Sena Medals. The cities of Jhunjhunu and Fatehpur (near Sikar) were founded by Nawab Mohammad Khan and Nawab Fateh Khan – both Kayamkhani rulers.

Hence, unlike Sanskritic deities absorbed into Brahminical ritual hierarchies, Gogaji belongs to the world of historical figures turned folk hero-saints—figures whose authority emerged from martial ethics, local sovereignty, and popular reverence rather than scriptural sanction.

A crucial, often deliberately obscured fact is that the chief priests of Gogamedi have historically been Muslim Rajputs of the Chayal (Chauhan) lineage, regarded as descendants of Gogaji himself. Their presence is not a later “accommodation” but intrinsic to the shrine’s history. In Rajasthan’s folk religious landscape, lineage frequently outweighs doctrinal religion, and Gogamedi exemplifies this logic. The priesthood here is hereditary, tied to blood and ancestry rather than to Brahminical ritual qualifications.

Gogamedi is also part of a wider constellation of shrines associated with the five Panchpirs of Rajasthan, all of whom are remembered in regional tradition as Rajput warrior-saints – some of them are Pabuji Rathore, Mehaji Mangliya, Ramdevji Tomar and Harbuji Sankhla. In each of these shrines, custodianship has historically remained with the saint’s own descendants, irrespective of whether they identify today as Hindu or Muslim. This pattern unsettles modern communal frameworks but makes perfect sense within the pre-colonial social world of the region.

Far from being a marginal or neglected site, Gogamedi has repeatedly served as a space of political and social convergence. In June 2025, the town hosted a meeting attended by members of BAMCEF (an Ambedkarite organization) and its Rajput offshoot-wing KMM, with participation from both Hindu and Muslim Rajputs. These gatherings underscored Gogamedi’s continuing role as a node of Rajput solidarity cutting across religious lines—an aspect rarely acknowledged in mainstream narratives.

The shrine’s inclusive ethos was also formally recognised by the princely state. In 1911, Maharaja Ganga Singh Rathore of Bikaner undertook the renovation of the Gogamedi complex. Importantly, this was a vital act of historical preservation. Ganga Singh ensured that the Muslim priests of Chayal Chauhan ancestry were accorded due respect by Hindu devotees, granted state patronage, and paid for their maintenance as descendants of Gogaji Chauhan. The Bikaner ruler’s intervention reinforced the shrine’s syncretic and Rajput-centric character.

Gogamedi, therefore, is not simply a symbol of abstract Hindu–Muslim harmony. It occupies a unique socio-political position, binding Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs—particularly Kayamkhanis—into a shared sacred and historical universe. Any attempt to communalise the shrine necessarily threatens this fragile but enduring bond.

Influencer Politics, Brahminical Assertion, and the Targeting of a Rajput Shrine

Against this historical backdrop, the actions of Riddhima Sharma acquire a sharper political meaning. Sharma is not a local devotee shaped by Gogamedi’s traditions but a Brahmin influencer from Jaipur, whose social media persona is built around performative religiosity and viral provocation. Her intervention at Gogamedi was not an innocent act of devotion but an intrusion into a space structurally and historically divorced from Brahminical authority. What was at stake was more than a generic Hindu–Muslim tension.

The language deployed, and the specific focus on Muslim priests, pointed towards an attempt to engineer fissures between Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs, particularly Kayamkhanis, who have long been integral to the region’s political and social fabric. By questioning Muslim custodianship, such interventions seek to delegitimise Rajput lineage-based authority and replace it with a Brahmin-centred religious hierarchy.

This is a familiar pattern. Across north India, shared folk shrines—whether associated with warrior-saints, pastoral deities, or local pirs—are increasingly being targeted for “purification”. The process typically involves reframing the shrine within a Sanskritic idiom, introducing Brahmin priests, marginalising hereditary custodians, and reinterpreting history to align with a homogenised and Brahminised Hindu identity. Gogamedi’s resistance to this process lies precisely in its Rajput genealogy and Muslim priesthood, which together obstruct the consolidation of Brahminical socio-political supremacy.

Seen in this light, the Gogamedi episode is less about one influencer’s statements and more about a struggle over power, memory, and control. Control over the shrine implies control over donations, narratives, and regional influence. Displacing Muslim Rajput priests would not only communalise the site but also dismantle a long-standing Rajput polity in the region—one that has historically operated outside Brahminical mediation.

The backlash therefore, should not be read as a mere defensive reflex. It represents a conscious assertion that Gogamedi belongs to a non-Brahminical, lineage-based sacred order, and that attempts to hijack the Gogaji cult into a Brahminical socio-political structure amount to historical distortion and cultural aggression.

Conclusion: Defending Gogamedi Is Defending History Itself 

The controversy surrounding Gogamedi is a reminder that India’s religious past is far messier, richer, and more plural than contemporary political projects allow. Shrines like Gogamedi survived precisely because they resisted rigid boundaries—between Hindu and Muslim, between priest and warrior, between devotion and lineage. To communalise such spaces is not to “protect” tradition but to falsify it.

What is unfolding at Gogamedi today is a test case.

Will shared sacred spaces be allowed to exist on their own historical terms, or will they be forcibly assimilated into a homogenised religious order that privileges one caste and one narrative over all others? Defending Gogamedi is not merely about preserving harmony; it is about defending the right of history to remain complex, uncomfortable, and inclusive. In that sense, the struggle over Gogamedi is not peripheral.

It goes to the heart of how India chooses to remember itself.

Related:

गोगामेड़ी: राजपूत–मुस्लिम परंपरा और उस पर होते सांप्रदायिक दावे

The post Rajasthan: Gogamedi, a Rajput-Muslim shrine and the politics of communal capture appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the present time, Uttarakhand has become a centre of hate crimes. A few days ago, a report by a US-based think tank was released, which stated that the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, Pushkar Singh Dhami, delivered the highest number of hate speeches in the year 2025. In 2025 alone, he gave a total of 71 hate speeches, which included terms such as spit jihad, land jihad and love jihad.

In Uttarakhand, under the protection of the government, dargahs are being continuously targeted. Sometimes the administration itself reaches the spot with bulldozers, and at other times anti-social elements arrive with hammers to demolish them. In one of his speeches, Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami himself claimed that his administration has demolished 600 dargahs. This is the official figure; apart from this, hundreds of other dargahs have already been demolished so far.

Something similar happened when, influenced by the Chief Minister’s provocative speeches, anti-social elements themselves vandalised an over 100-year-old shrine dedicated to Syed Baba Bulleshah in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, on 24 January 2026. Approximately 25 to 30 people arrived at the shrine early in the morning and damaged the site using hammers. The group reportedly chanted religious slogans during the act, and a video of the incident has been circulated on social media. The police have taken the video as evidence for their ongoing investigation.

Perhaps the attackers do not know, O ignorant hammer-wielders, which personality’s shrine they went to demolish. They do not know who that great personality was. That shrine belongs to Hazrat Bulleh Shah, the great 17th-century Sufi, poet and philosopher.

Hazrat Sayyid Abdullah Shah Qadiri, also known as Hazrat Baba Bulleh Shah, is universally acknowledged as the greatest of the Punjabi mystics. No Punjabi mystic poet enjoys wider fame and a greater reputation. His kafis have gained unique popularity. In truth, he is one of the greatest Sufis of the world, and his thought equals that of Jalal al-Din Rumi and Shams Tabriz of Persia.

About Hazrat Bulleh Shah, Shah Inayat Qadiri writes:

Hazrat Shah Inayat, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

Bullhia rabb da pan ai

edharo puttan odharo lan hai.

“O Bulleh! This is the secret of Almighty Allah: on this side He uproots, on the other side He creates.”

“This,” says the tradition, “so deeply impressed Baba Bulleh Shah that, forgetting his family and its status, he became Inayat Shah’s disciple.”

Hazrat Bulleh Shah always stood for humanity and peace. In his life, we find many such incidents that prove that he was a humanist.

He emphasised universal love, tolerance, and the transcendence of sectarian identities, viewing humanity as inherently united under a single divine essence. His teachings advocated equality and rejected caste, creed, and ritualistic barriers that separated people, especially Hindus and Muslims, during a time of communal tensions under Mughal rule.

Influenced by Sufi traditions and elements of Hindu philosophy such as Vedanta, Bulleh Shah promoted humanism, urging followers to prioritise inner spiritual connection over external religious labels, and to see God in every individual regardless of faith.

He was revered across communities, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike, for his role as a beacon of peace, denouncing dogma and social stratification while fostering fraternity and oneness.

Bulleh Shah’s time was marked by communal strife between Muslims and Sikhs. But in that era, Baba Bulleh Shah was a beacon of hope and peace for the people of Punjab. While Bulleh Shah was in Pandoke, Muslims killed a young Sikh man who was riding through their village, in retaliation for the murder of some Muslims by Sikhs. Baba Bulleh Shah condemned the murder of the innocent Sikh and was censured by the mullas and muftis of Pandoke. Bulleh Shah maintained that violence was not the answer to violence. He also hailed Guru Tegh Bahadur as a ghazi (an Islamic term for a religious warrior), which earned him the wrath of the fanatical Muslims of that time.

Banda Singh Bairagi was a contemporary of Bulleh Shah. In retaliation for the murder of Guru Gobind Singh’s two sons by Aurangzeb, Banda Singh Bairagi sought revenge by killing ordinary Muslims. Baba Bulleh Shah tried to persuade Banda Singh Bairagi to abandon his campaign of revenge. Bulleh Shah told him that the same sword which fell upon Guru Gobind Singh’s sons and innocent Sikhs had also fallen upon innocent Muslims. Therefore, killing innocent Muslims was not the answer to Aurangzeb’s oppressive rule.

Hazrat Bulleh Shah’s famous poem “Neither Hindu Nor Muslim” (original Punjabi: Na Hindu na Musalman) is a powerful critique of religious labels. This poem calls for discarding pride and walking on the path of peace, transcending binaries such as sin and virtue, or believer and non-believer, in order to embrace universal love.

Neither Hindu nor Muslim,

Sacrificing pride, let us sit together.

Neither Sunni nor Shia,

Let us walk the road of peace.

We are neither hungry nor full,

Neither naked nor clothed.

Neither weeping nor laughing,

Neither ruined nor settled.

We are not sinners nor pure and virtuous;

What is sin and what is virtue, I do not know.

Says Bulleh Shah, the one who attaches his self to the Lord

Gives up both Hindu and Muslim.

Bulleh is neither Rafzi nor Sunni,

Nor learned, nor an intellectual, nor a Jaini.

I have learnt only the lesson of the love of God.

People say: Bulleh is an infidel (kafir)

And an idol-worshipper.

But in the Lord’s court, both the momin and the kafir

(Believer and non-believer) are treated alike.

Here was Ramdas (a Hindu) and there Fateh Muhammad (a Muslim),

What an ancient quarrel there was between them,

But now their dispute has vanished,

And something new has emerged!

Makkay gayaan, gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow jummay parrh aaeey

Ganga gayaan, gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow gotay khaeeay

Gaya gayaan gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow pand parrhaeeay

Bulleh Shah gal taeeyon mukdee

Jadon Mai nu dillon gawaeeay

~In English

Going to Makkah is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of prayers are offered.

Going to River Ganges is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of cleansing (Baptisms) are done.

Going to Gaya is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of worships are done.

Bulleh Shah the ultimate is

When the “I” is removed from the heart!

This composition subverts orthodox identities and aligns with Sufi concepts such as wahdat al-wujud (the unity of being), where religious multiplicity dissolves into divine oneness, promoting interfaith reconciliation and humanistic equality.

In some of his verses, the Vaishnava colour is so dominant that one hesitates to accept them as the compositions of a Muslim. The vocabulary, metaphors, atmosphere, and thought are all Vaishnava. In the following verses, the gopis of Krishna’s devotees speak:

Murlī baj uthi aghatan, sun sun bhul gaian sab batan;

Sun sun Sham Sundar dian batan……

(Lord Krishna is playing the flute. Hearing its sound, I have forgotten everything.)

Bullhe Shah main tad birlai;

Jad di Murli Kanha vajai;

Bauri hoe ke tain val dhai,

Kaho ji kii val dast baratan.

(When Lord Krishna sounded the flute and I heard its voice, says Hazrat Bulleh Shah, I cried in agony. Since then I have been wailing in the pain of separation. Bulleh, the gopi, turned mad and ran towards Lord Krishna. The gopi asks where else she should go.)

Bulleh Shah sees God in Krishna, who grazed cows in Brindavan, and in Rama, who invaded Lanka:

Bindraban vich gauan charaen;

Lanka charh ke nad vajaen;

(O God, it was You who grazed the cows in Brindavan in the form of Krishna, and it was You who blew the trumpet of victory and invaded Lanka.)

In the verses where Islamic terminology appears, the spirit remains undeniably Vaishnava. Hazrat Bulleh Shah adored Prophet Muhammad not merely as a messenger of God, but as an incarnation of God.

He died in 1757 at the age of 77 and was buried in Kasur, where he had spent most of his life.

A regular contributor to New Age Islam, Sahil Razvi is a research scholar specialising in Sufism and Islamic History. He is an alumnus of Jamia Millia Islamia.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Hate Politics and the Message of Hazrat Bulleh Shah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to CJP’s complaint, the show in question surrounded the tragic incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, which the program used as a pretext to incite communal tension within India. It is important to mention that while the professional identities of the Muslim panellists—including Islamic scholars and researchers—were acknowledged in the introductions, the channel systematically reduced them to a religious monolith by utilising the sensationalist and confrontational title “Kalicharan Maharaj Vs 4 Maulana.”

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

The show may be viewed here:

The complaint argues that the format, framing, selection of panellists, choice of questions, and on-screen graphics collectively abandoned journalistic neutrality and elevated unverified conspiracy-laden assertions into national discourse without editorial scrutiny. CJP has asserted that the show not only misrepresented facts regarding violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also used such incidents as a pretext to frame Indian Muslims as a civilisational threat.

From cross-border violence to domestic polarisation

According to the complaint, the broadcast opened by linking violence against Hindus in Bangladesh with the purported rise of “Islamist aggression” globally. However, instead of exploring geopolitical circumstances or international minority protections, the show allegedly shifted its focus toward a domestic communal binary. The choice to present the debate as “Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulana” formed the foundation of this shift, CJP states.

Despite introducing the Muslim speakers as an Islamic scholar, political analyst, researcher, and commentator, the anchor and graphics repeatedly referred to them simply as “Maulana,” thus transforming a discussion that could have been political or geopolitical into a religious contest. CJP describes this as “misclassification for ideological staging,” intended to create a perception of siege, in which a solitary Hindu ascetic was portrayed as battling an institutionalised Muslim clerical bloc.

Six-question format framed as leading accusations

Throughout the program, the anchor posed six structured questions with the duration of the program revolving not strictly around them. The title and the overarching theme of the show were entirely misleading, communal, and provocative in nature;

• Why are Maulanas selective regarding the lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh

• Is there a conspiracy to defame India by labelling it ‘Lynchistan’?

• What is the need for a ‘new Babri’ in India?

• Why the deception of Hindu daughters by hiding one’s identity?

• What is the cure for the extremist mindset of ‘Spit Jihad’?

• Is this an attempt to incite Muslims using threats of Jihad?

The debate concluded with a final question from the host that was intentionally biased and communally charged:

• Will the country be governed by the Constitution or by Sharia?

Rather than clarifying the issue, CJP contends that these questions acted as “leading indictments” that presumed collective Muslim culpability. Queries such as “Why are Maulanas selective regarding lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh?” presupposed silence or complicity, while the final question — “Will the country be governed by the Constitution or Sharia?” — framed Indian national identity in existential religious terms.

The complaint argues that such formulations not only lacked neutrality but also “prime viewers toward moral panic,” presenting Muslims as inherently disloyal or hostile to constitutional order.

Unchecked hate speech and historical tropes

CJP identified the segment between timestamps 03:47 and 05:50 as particularly problematic. According to the complaint, Kalicharan Maharaj used this interval to allege that Quranic verses command violence against non-Muslims, that a “Ghazwa-e-Hind” war was imminent, and that Indian Muslims were celebrating terrorism, foreign defeats, and the “endangerment of Hindus.”

The complaint stated that the host refrained from interrupting or contextualising these claims, nor did he correct doctrinal misinterpretations or historical inaccuracies. This lack of intervention, CJP argues, amounted to “editorial acquiescence” and violated NBDSA’s guidelines on anchor conduct, which require moderators to prevent communal provocation and ensure fair debate.

Ticker graphics as messaging devices

Beyond the spoken exchanges, CJP drew the NBDSA’s attention to ticker text such as “थूक जिहाद वाली कट्टर सोच का इलाज क्या?”, which the complaint argues acted as subliminal messaging designed to reinforce conspiracy theories regarding Indian Muslims.

According to CJP, such graphics, appearing independently of verbal debates, functioned as “parallel instruments of communal persuasion,” circumventing potential rebuttal from panellists.

Rebuttals marginalised, counter-narratives interrupted

The four Muslim panellists reportedly condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, referenced Quranic principles of humanity, and questioned the logic of demographic threat narratives. However, the complaint contended that these rebuttals received limited airtime, often collapsed mid-sentence, or were reframed by the anchor to suit the original premise.

This, CJP argues, transformed the broadcast from a debate into a performance of polarisation, where countervailing facts were permitted only insofar as they sustained spectacle.

Constitutional vs. civilisational framing

The complaint pays particular attention to Zee News’ repeated invocation of a “civilisational clash” premise, perpetuated through references to “New Babri,” “Land Jihad,” and demographic fear-mongering. This framing intentionally juxtaposed constitutional citizenship against religious identity, portraying Indian Muslims as aligned with transnational Islamist forces rather than as domestic citizens.

According to the complaint, this framing not only essentialised Indian Muslims into a singular political category but also presumed collective disloyalty, a hallmark feature in scholarly definitions of hate speech.

Journalistic responsibilities and democratic stakes

The complaint stresses that broadcasters hold heightened responsibility during prime-time debates, which significantly influence public discourse and Zee News neglected established standards requiring accuracy, fairness, and avoidance of communal colour, thereby violating both NBDSA guidelines and the basic tenets of responsible media conduct.

The broadcast “an act of manufactured communal crisis,” warning that such content corrodes democratic deliberation by replacing informed public reasoning with fear-driven binaries, the complaint reads

Relief sought

In its prayer for relief, CJP has requested corrective action, including takedown of the broadcast, broadcast of a public apology, and institutional compliance directives aimed at preventing recurrence of such programming. The petition argues that accountability is essential not merely for redress but for restoring ethical norms within India’s broadcast ecosystem.

The copy of complaint dated January 20, 2026 may be accessed from here

A complaint had earlier addressed to Zee News on January 7, 2026, seeking a response and corrective action. As the broadcaster did not engage, CJP subsequently escalated the case to the NBDSA on January 20, 2026.

Related

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

NBDSA ने ‘मिया बिहू’ पर सांप्रदायिक, एजेंडा–आधारित ब्रॉडकास्ट के लिए टाइम्स नाउ नवभारत को फटकारा; भड़काऊ कंटेंट हटाने का आदेश दिया

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

The post CJP files NBDSA complaint over Zee News’s ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’, alleging communal framing and hate tropes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per Bar & Bench, the order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a batch of three writ petitions challenging the 2026 Regulations. Though interim in nature, the order is notable both for the breadth of constitutional concerns flagged by the Court and for the decision to suspend a regulatory framework expressly designed to address caste-based discrimination in higher education.

What follows is not merely a recounting of the proceedings, but a critical examination of why a stay was granted, whether settled principles governing interim interference were adhered to, and how the Court’s reasoning engages—sometimes uneasily—with the constitutional understanding of caste, equality, and structural disadvantage.

Background: From the 2019 PIL to the 2026 Regulations

The 2026 Regulations were framed pursuant to proceedings in a 2019 writ petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom reportedly died by suicide after facing sustained caste-based discrimination within their educational institutions. According to LiveLaw, the PIL sought the creation of a robust institutional mechanism to address caste discrimination on campuses, contending that existing safeguards—particularly the 2012 UGC Regulations—had proved insufficient.

The petition may be read here.

Over the years, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasised the need for a stronger, more effective framework, even inviting stakeholder suggestions while the draft regulations were under consideration. After this consultative process, the UGC notified the 2026 Regulations in January 2026, expressly superseding the 2012 framework.

A close reading of the orders passed in that matter reveals a judicial trajectory that sits in visible tension with the later decision to place the 2026 Regulations in abeyance.

1. January 3, 2025: Court acknowledges systemic failure and demands data, enforcement, and redesign

In its order dated January 3, 2025, the Court expressly recognised that adjudication could not proceed without assessing how universities had implemented the 2012 Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, and whether those mechanisms had actually worked in practice.

The order may be read below:

Crucially, the Bench:

• directed the UGC to collate nationwide data on Equal Opportunity Cells,
• sought disclosure of complaints received and Action Taken Reports, and
• required the UGC to place its newly formulated draft regulations on record.

This was not a neutral procedural step. It reflected a judicial acknowledgment that formal regulatory existence had not translated into substantive protection for marginalised students. The Court was, at this stage, explicitly concerned with implementation failure, not over breadth or misuse.

2. April 24, 2025: The Court permits notification — and treats the Regulations as additive, not suspect

By April 24, 2025, the Court went further. While disposing of an application seeking to restrain the notification of the draft regulations, the Bench refused to halt the regulatory process. Instead, it clarified that the UGC was free to notify the regulations and that they would operate in addition to the recommendations of the National Task Force constituted in Amit Kumar v. Union of India.

The order may be read below.

Two aspects of this order matter for present purposes:

First, the Court expressly noted that the steps taken by the UGC pursuant to the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula petition were “in the right direction,” signalling judicial approval of a stronger, institutionalised framework to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health crises in universities.

Second, the Court treated the regulations as iterative and corrigible—open to additions, deletions, and refinement based on stakeholder input and the Task Force’s findings. There was no suggestion that the very idea of a caste-conscious equity framework was constitutionally suspect.

3. September 15, 2025: Court endorses a robust, explicitly caste-conscious regulatory vision

The September 15, 2025 order is perhaps the clearest articulation of what the Court itself considered necessary to remedy caste-based discrimination in higher education.

The order may be read below.

After recording detailed submissions by senior counsel Indira Jaising, the Court flagged — without rejection — a set of far-reaching structural safeguards, including:

• a clear prohibition on all known forms of discrimination,
• an express ban on segregation based on rank or performance,
• grievance redressal bodies with mandatory representation from SC/ST/OBC communities,
• personal liability of institutional heads for negligence,
• caste-sensitive mental health counselling,
• NAAC-linked audits and social data collection, and
• withdrawal of grants for non-compliance.

What is striking is that many of these proposals go well beyond the minimal guarantees under the 2012 framework. The Court did not characterise them as excessive, divisive, or constitutionally dubious. Instead, it treated them as necessary correctives to entrenched structural discrimination.

The contradiction: Seen in this light, the later stay of the 2026 Regulations marks a sharp doctrinal and institutional turn.

In the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula petitiom, the Court:

• acknowledged caste-based discrimination as systemic and institutional,
• accepted that neutrality and general anti-ragging norms were inadequate,
• encouraged regulatory expansion and refinement, and
• emphasised accountability, representation, and enforceability.

Yet, in staying the 2026 Regulations, the Court shifted focus to concerns of vagueness, misuse, and over breadth—without explaining why these concerns could not be addressed through interpretation, amendment, or guidelines, the very tools it had earlier endorsed.

This creates a deeper constitutional unease: how does one reconcile a jurisprudence that recognises caste as a structural axis of harm with an interim order that treats caste-specific regulation as inherently suspect? The stay order appears to privilege abstract equality concerns over the lived realities that animated the original petition — the deaths of students failed by institutional indifference.

The Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula proceedings were premised on the understanding that caste discrimination in universities is not episodic, but embedded in evaluation systems, hostel allocation, disciplinary processes, and grievance mechanisms. The Court’s own directions repeatedly moved towards differentiated, targeted protections.

Against that record, the suspension of the 2026 Regulations risks flattening constitutional analysis into a question of formal symmetry—treating all students as equally situated—precisely the approach that the Court itself had earlier found wanting.

It is against this backdrop—of Court-monitored reform aimed at addressing demonstrable institutional failures—that the interim stay assumes particular significance.

The Present Proceedings: What transpired before the Court

The challenge to the Regulations came by way of three writ petitions, filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan. The principal target of challenge was Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination on the basis of caste against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

According to LiveLaw, the petitioners contended that:

• The definition is restrictive and exclusionary, as it does not recognise caste-based discrimination against persons belonging to non-reserved or “general” categories;
• This exclusion renders such persons remediless, even if subjected to caste-linked harassment or institutional bias;
• The provision violates Article 14 by creating an unreasonable classification lacking a rational nexus with the stated objective of promoting equity.

From the outset, the Bench subjected the Regulations to close scrutiny. Three issues dominated the hearing:

1. The dual definitions of “discrimination” (Regulation 3(1)(e)) and “caste-based discrimination” (Regulation 3(1)(c));
2. The omission of ragging from the 2026 Regulations, despite its inclusion in the 2012 framework; and
3. The use of the term “segregation” in Regulation 7(d), particularly in relation to hostels, classrooms, and mentorship groups.

The Court repeatedly remarked that the Regulations appeared vague, capable of misuse, and potentially productive of social division rather than cohesion.

The Interim Order: What the Court did

By its interim order dated January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court:

• Issued notice to the Union of India and the UGC, returnable on March 19, 2026;
• Directed that the 2026 Regulations be kept in abeyance; and
• Exercising powers under Article 142, ordered that the UGC Regulations of 2012 would continue to operate in the meantime.

As per Bar&Bench, the Court framed four substantial questions of law, broadly concerning:

• The rationality and necessity of defining “caste-based discrimination” separately;
• The impact of the Regulations on sub-classifications within backward classes;
• Whether “segregation” envisaged under the Regulations violates constitutional equality and fraternity; and
• Whether the omission of ragging constitutes a regressive and unconstitutional legislative choice.

While these questions undoubtedly merit careful adjudication, the grant of an interim stay itself demands closer scrutiny.

Why was a stay granted — and was it justified?

Ordinarily, courts exercise considerable restraint while staying statutory or delegated legislation, especially when such legislation is aimed at addressing systemic discrimination. The established standard requires a strong prima facie case, demonstrable irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring suspension.

In the present case, the Court relied primarily on:

• Ambiguity in drafting,
• Possibility of misuse, and
• The perceived exclusion of general category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination.

However, ambiguity and potential misuse have traditionally been treated as grounds for interpretation, not suspension, particularly in the context of welfare or protective legislation. The order does not demonstrate how the continued operation of the Regulations would cause irreversible harm sufficient to justify a blanket stay. Notably absent is any engagement with the harm caused by suspending a framework designed to respond to caste-based exclusion—an exclusion that is neither hypothetical nor speculative.

The Court’s reliance on the revival of the 2012 Regulations as a safeguard also assumes that the earlier framework was adequate, despite the fact that the 2019 PIL itself was premised on its failure to prevent institutional discrimination.

The Conceptual Problem: What is “caste-based discrimination”?

At the heart of the Court’s concern lies an unresolved conceptual question: is caste-based discrimination symmetrical?

The petitioners — and, to some extent, the Court — appear to approach caste as a neutral identity marker, capable of disadvantaging any individual depending on circumstances. This framing overlooks the constitutional understanding of caste as a structural system of hierarchy, not merely a personal attribute.

Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently recognised that caste-based discrimination is not simply discrimination involving caste, but discrimination arising from historical, social, and economic subordination of specific communities. To ask why upper-caste individuals are not explicitly protected under a provision addressing caste-based discrimination is to ignore this asymmetry.

Importantly, the Regulations already define “discrimination” broadly and in caste-neutral terms. Any harassment, humiliation, or unfair treatment faced by individuals from non-reserved categories is squarely covered under this definition. The absence of a separate label of “caste-based discrimination” for such individuals does not render them remediless.

The Court’s concern, therefore, risks collapsing the distinction between structural oppression and interpersonal conflict, treating unequal social realities as constitutionally equivalent.

The Slippery Comparison: “Upper castes” and de-notified or extremely backward communities

As noted by legal scholar Gautam Bhatia, one of the petitioners has argued that the impugned regulation suffers from a constitutional flaw comparable to the presumption underlying the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which stigmatised entire communities as inherently criminal and was later repealed for violating principles of equality and constitutional morality. This submission, however, appears to rest on an analogy that implicitly places socially dominant or ‘upper’ caste groups on the same constitutional footing as communities that were historically criminalised and later de-notified.

De-notified tribes, in particular, have faced:

• Colonial-era criminalisation;
• Persistent social stigma;
• Economic exclusion; and
• Institutional invisibility even within reservation frameworks.

To suggest that excluding general category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination creates an equal protection problem risk flattening historical injustice into abstract formalism. Constitutional equality does not require identical treatment of groups situated in radically unequal positions. Indeed, such an approach may itself violate the principle of equality by treating unequal’s alike.

The Court’s rhetorical invocation of a “casteless society,” while normatively appealing, sits uneasily with judicial precedent cautioning that claims of castelessness often precede, rather than follow, the dismantling of caste hierarchies.

Vagueness, misuse, and the burden on protective legislation

The Court’s repeated emphasis on the “possibility of misuse” raises a familiar but contested trope in Indian constitutional adjudication. It is well settled that: The possibility of abuse of a law is no ground to strike it down.

This principle assumes even greater importance in the context of protective regulations, which have historically been diluted through misuse arguments advanced by socially dominant groups. The order does not explain why ordinary safeguards—such as inquiry mechanisms, appellate review, and judicial oversight—would be insufficient to address misuse on a case-by-case basis.

By foregrounding speculative misuse over structural exclusion, the order risks imposing a higher justificatory burden on equity-oriented regulations than on other forms of delegated legislation.

Ragging, non-regression, and judicial overcorrection

The Court’s concern regarding the omission of ragging from the 2026 Regulations is doctrinally significant, particularly in light of Justice Bagchi’s invocation of the principle of non-regression, as reported by LiveLaw. However, even assuming the omission is a serious flaw, it is not self-evident that the appropriate response was to stay the entire regulatory framework, rather than:

• Read the Regulations harmoniously with existing anti-ragging norms;
• Issue interpretative directions; or
• Direct limited corrective amendments.

The chosen course reflects a form of judicial overcorrection, where legitimate concerns about incompleteness lead to wholesale suspension.

Article 142 and the revival of the 2012 Regulations

The use of Article 142 to revive the 2012 Regulations raises further questions. While intended to prevent a regulatory vacuum, the move effectively substitutes judicial preference for executive policy, without a finding that the earlier framework better advances constitutional values.

This is particularly striking given that the 2026 Regulations were framed pursuant to Court-monitored proceedings and stakeholder consultations following the 2019 PIL. The revival thus appears less as a neutral stopgap and more as a normative rollback, albeit temporarily.

What the Supreme Court Directed in the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula PIL — and why the stay order sits uneasily with it

The Supreme Court’s interim stay of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 must be read against the backdrop of the Court’s own continuing supervision in Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India—the petition arising from the institutional failures that culminated in the deaths of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula.

Conclusion: interim caution or substantive retreat?

The Supreme Court’s interim order undoubtedly reflects a desire to prevent social fragmentation and regulatory excess. Yet, in its emphasis on neutrality, symmetry, and speculative misuse, the Court risks diluting the constitutional logic of substantive equality that has long justified differentiated protections for caste-oppressed communities.

The deeper danger lies not merely in staying one set of regulations, but in the judicial reframing of caste-based discrimination as a universally symmetrical phenomenon, detached from history and structure. Whether this framing endures at the final stage will determine whether the Court’s intervention is remembered as a moment of careful constitutional recalibration—or as a cautious but consequential retreat from the promise of transformative equality.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

A Cultural Burden: The ascending hierarchy of caste warfare and the crisis of the Indian republic

Freedom Deferred: Caste, class and faith in India’s prisons

Everyday Atrocity: How Caste Violence Became India’s New Normal

Two Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Pattern of caste violence exposes deep-rooted injustice

Caste Cloud Over Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

CJP Maharashtra: Surge in communal and caste-based violence with six incidents in January 2025

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

The post The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The gun-wielding terrorists and conspirators who assassinated Gandhiji not only shared the ideological world-view of the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS),  led by VD Savarkar and the RSS’ own brand of Hindu nationalism but were also closely connected with these organisations. Instead of being ashamed of such this heinous crime, the inheritors of this worldview resort to lies —the pot calling the kettle black!

Let us compare the RSS’ claim of innocence in Gandhiji’s assassination with the views of the first home minister and deputy Prime Minister (PM) of Independent India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the perpetrators of this crime. It needs no reminding that Sardar continues to be a favourite of both the RSS and the present prime minister, Narendra Modi. Modi got Patel’s statue erected in Gujarat, the tallest in the world. Modi did not ever think Gandhi befitting of such a monument. Though a vocal proponent of ‘atma-nirbhar Bharat’ (self-relying India, ‘Make in India’) Sardar Patel’s statue was moulded in an iron foundry of China!

Following is the compilation, in chronological order, of the communication between the Indian Home Ministry under Sardar Patel, to Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Syama Prasad Mookerjee (the then head of Hindu Mahasabha) and MS Golwalkar (the then Supremo of the RSS) on and after Gandhiji’s assassination.

This chronological presentation clearly reveals how Sardar Patel developed his understanding (based on facts supplied by his officials) on the Role of the Organisations Involved/Responsible for Gandhiji’s Assassination:

(1) February 4, 1948, Government of India Communique Banning the RSS

The order banning the RSS issued by Sardar’s Home Ministry was unequivocal in holding the former responsible for terror activities.

It read:

“Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of the RSS have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 65-66.]

(2) February 27, 1948: Sardar Patel letter to Prime Minister Nehru

In the early days of investigation when not all facts were known Sardar told Nehru:

“All the main accused have given long and detailed statements of their activities. In one case, the statement extends to ninety typed pages. From their statements, it is quite clear that no part of the conspiracy took place in Delhi…It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all. It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through. It also appears that the conspiracy was limited to some ten men, of whom all except two have been got hold of.” [Bold for emphasis]

The RSS and its supporters quote a part of the above letter, which read: “It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all” but hides the following text of the same letter, which is very significant. The letter continues:

“In the case of secret organisation like the RSS which has no records, registers, etc. securing of authentic information whether a particular individual is active worker or not is rendered a very difficult task.”

[Shankar, V., Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence 1945-50, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, p. 283-85.]

How does one identify a member of the RSS?

Sardar Patel raised a highly significant question about knowing whether a criminal or terrorist is a member of RSS or not. Whenever a linkage between a criminal activity and RSS is exposed, the latter comes out with the patent answer that the criminal is not RSS member. How do we know it? Is there an authenticated list of RSS members, which can be perused for such an investigation by the State? If it is not there, how RSS can file cases against those who find RSS members indulging in the assassinations and terrorist activities.  In such cases, the police and judiciary should demand from RSS proof that such persons were not its members.

(3) July 18, 1948: Sardar Patel’s letter to Shyama Prasad Mookerjee

As investigation progressed, Sardar found that Hindu Mahasabha and RSS were jointly responsible for the murder of Gandhiji, which was corroborated by him in a letter to a prominent leader of Hindu Mahasabha, Syama Prasad Mookerjee. On July 18, 1948, Sardar wrote:

“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organisations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure. ”

[Letter 64 in Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence1945-1950, volume 2, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, pp. 276-77.]

(4) September 19, 1948: sardar Patel letter to MS Golwalkar, RSS Sarsanghchalak

By September 19 (1948), exactly 214 days after the murder of Gandhiji when Sardar wrote this letter, the role of the organisations in the assassination of Gandhiji was clearer to him. Without mincing words, he told Golwalkar:

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress,that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right path.” But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 26-28.]

Do we need more proof to prove the RSS involvement in the murder of Gandhiji?

Another contemporary, a senior member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS)–predecessor of IAS– who was the first home secretary of Uttar Pradesh corroborated the fact that RSS was involved in this anti-national heinous crime. According to him:

“Came January 30, 1948 when the Mahatma, that supreme apostle of peace, felt to a bullet fired by an RSS fanatic. The tragic episode left me sick at heart.”

[Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of Our Times, Orient Longman, 94.]

Hatred for Gandhiji is a fundamental element in the Hindutva-RSS discourse

The RSS’ hatred for Gandhi is as old as the formation of the RSS itself. Dr K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, was a Congress leader but parted company with the latter in 1925. After meeting the Hindutva icon V.D. Savarkar, he realised that Gandhi was the biggest hurdle in the Hindutva project of organising Hindus separately. According to an RSS publication, since Gandhi worked for Hindu-Muslim unity,

“Doctorji sensed danger in that move. In fact, he did not even relish the new-fangled slogan of ‘Hindu-Muslim unity”. Another RSS publication corroborates the fact that the main reason behind Hedgewar’s parting with the Congress and formation of the RSS was because the “Congress believed in Hindu-Muslim unity”.

[Seshadri, H.V. (ed.), Dr Hedgewar, the Epoch-Maker: A Biography, p. 61. & Pingle, H.V. (ed.), Smritikan: Parm Pujiye Dr Hedgewar ke Jeevan kee Vibhinn Ghatnaon kaa Sankalan, p. 93.]

The RSS launched its English organ, Organiser, in July 1947 and a perusal of its issues until the murder of Gandhi on January 30, 1948 shows a flood of articles and sketches full of hatred for Gandhiji. The RSS seemed to be competing with the Hindu Mahasabha leader, Savarkar, and the Muslim League English organ, The Dawn, in denigrating Gandhi.

Modi as Chief Minister, Gujarat sent congratulatory messages to Janajagruti Hindu Samiti, Goa Conference held with the Objective of turning India into a Hindu State. The Conference celebrated ‘Vadh’ –Killing of Gandhiji.

Modi was in Goa in June 2013 for the BJP executive committee meeting. He as Gujarat CM sent a message to the ‘All India Hindu Convention for Establishment of Hindu Nation’ organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) at Goa from June 7. Modi’s message lauding the conference for establishing a Hindu nation read:

“It is our tradition to remain alert and raise a voice against persecution…Only by protecting our culture, can the flag of ‘dharma’ and unity be kept intact. Organisations inspired by nationalism, patriotism and devotion for the Nation are true manifestations of people’s power.”

[ORIGINAL LETTER REPRODUCED AT THE END]

On the third day from the same podium in this convention from where Modi’s felicitation message was read, one of the prominent speakers, K.V. Sitaramiah, a seasoned RSS cadre declared that Gandhi was ‘terrible, wicked and most sinful’. Rejoicing the killing of M.K. Gandhi, he went on to declare,

“As Bhagwan Shri Krishna said in the Gita, Paritranaya SadhunamVinashaya Cha Dushkritam/ DharamasansthapnayaSambhavamiYuge-Yuge (For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age) On…30th January 1948 evening, Shriram came in the form of Nathuram Godse and ended the life of Gandhi.”

[ORIGINAL DOCUMENT REPRODUCED AT THE END]

It is to be noted that K.V. Sitaramaiah has also authored two books titled ‘Gandhi was Dharma Drohi [anti-religion] and Desa Drohi [anti-religion]’ and ‘Gandhi was Murderer of Gandhi’ in which the back cover text of the first book, quoting from the epic Mahabharat, demands “Dharma Drohis must be killed“, “Not killing the deserved to be killed is great sin” and “where the members of Parliament seeing clearly allow to kill Dharma & truth as untruth, those members will be called dead“.

The death-knell of democratic-secular India, established after a rigorous and robust freedom struggle, is to be ruled by those very forces that militate against inclusive nationalism, values that Gandhiji lived, and eventually died for. The forces that rule today were born out of a hatred for him, many played a lead role in Gandhiji’s assassination and continue to celebrate his ‘vadh’; sacrifice done for a good cause.

Let us take a firm vow on the 78^th martyrdom anniversary of Gandhiji. That all of us will rise up to challenge this Hindutva juggernaut.

January 30, 2026

Documentary Evidence

Before Gandhi’s assassination, Hindutva organizations, in their publications, especially through cartoons, portrayed him as anti-Hindu and a stooge of Muslims. This created an atmosphere of hatred and violence against him, a fact Sardar Patel also mentioned in his letter mentioned above. Some examples of these cartoons:

Related:

Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India

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

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post 78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr Patil was questioned on January 21, 2026 for six hours and this was the third time that he was being interrogated by the authorities after being suddenly and summarily detained on his arrival from the United Kingdom (UK) on January 10, 2026 while on a visit to his family in Erandol, Maharashtra.

He had first been summoned for interrogation on January 16. He participated in the questioning and while, on the same day, he formally requested and appealed for the withdrawal of the LOC, as he was scheduled to return to the United Kingdom on 19 January there was no clear response from the authorities. Thereafter when he arrived at the airport on the scheduled date of departure, he was informed that the LOC had not been quashed. Notably, no prior intimation regarding the continuation of the LOC was provided to him. Dr Patil was accompanied by his wife on his trip to India.

Besides Dr Patil has stated that he has incurred financial loss as he missed his flight and the opportunity cost of working at his destination workplace. The continuation of LOC is a continuation of harassment by way of using the procedure as punishment. In any case, the FIR that has sought to be quashed, the Petition states, “an instance of misuse of criminal law to achieve a political vendetta and suppress any kind of different political view or opinion.[Read more about this on our page]

Single Judge Bench Justice Ashwin Bhobe is hearing Patil’s petition which sought to quash the FIR and cancel the LOC. The next hearing is posted on February 4. Senior Adv Sudeep Pasbola is appearing for the petitioner while Adv general Milind Sathe is appearing for the state.

Details of his detention and the FIR against him including his petition in the High Court challenging both the LOC and FIR may be read here.

Legal Analysis of the case

Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita under which the FIR has been registered provides that:

“Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

For the offence under Section 353(2) to be made out, the following elements must be established:

A] Publication or circulation of false or alarming information

B] Intent or likelihood to promote enmity or hatred;

C] Such enmity must be between identifiable groups based on religion, caste, language, race, or community

Since the original social media post is presently inaccessible, it is not possible to make definitive contentions regarding its contents. The actions taken appear arbitrary and unjust.

This raises a crucial legal question: whether criticism of the existing government, in and of itself, can amount to the circulation of false information within the meaning of the applicable penal provision.

The FIR lodged against Dr. Sangram Patil alleges that his social media post had the potential to generate hatred and friction between individuals who support the BJP and those who do not. It is contended that the post was intended to promote enmity between persons holding differing political ideologies.

Such an allegation, however, raises a serious constitutional concern. Mere expression of political opinion, even if sharply critical, does not by itself amount to the promotion of enmity between legally recognisable groups as contemplated under the penal law. The expression of one’s opinion is protected as an essential facet of personal liberty and freedom of expression under Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The FIR alleges that Dr Patil made statements against current BJP leaders and attempted to create political friction through his Facebook post. It also vaguely alleges derogatory remarks against an unknown woman, though the content of such statements remains unavailable.

In the words of justice K Subba Rao himself in the judgement in the Satwant Singh case [Satwant Singh Sawhney vs Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India 1967 SCR (2)] case, “ personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law.” [excerpt from Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on March 12, 2015]

The Constitution of India extends the protection of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, to foreign nationals as well.

As affirmed in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1978 SCR [2]621, the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 is not confined to citizens alone but applies to all persons, subject only to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. “Freedom to go abroad incorporates the important function of an ultimum refunium liberatis when other basic freedoms are refused. Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents a basic human right of great significance. It is in fact incorporated as inalienable human right in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spirit of Man is at the root of Art. 21 Absent liberty, other freedoms are frozen. Procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus, understood, ‘procedure’ must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre.’ (Para D, Page 336). What is fundamental is life and liberty. What is procedural is the manner of its exercise Fairness.

Dr. Sangram Patil’s prevention from returning to his home country amounts not only to a violation of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also to a breach of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which India is a signatory. India has supported the UDHR since its drafting and played a significant role in shaping its framework. The principles embodied in the UDHR are also reflected in, and have informed the interpretation of, the Constitution of India.

LOC stands for Lookout circular, it’s a document issued by the government as directive to immigration authorities to restrict and regulate physical movement of a person. This oft-used restrictive step in present times is not governed by any statutes but certain office memorandums which are released from time to time to lay down the rules concerning the same. The latest LOC Consolidated Guidelines were released in the 2021 Office Memorandum by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreign Division.

According to the Guidelines the recourse of LOC’s can be taken by investigating agencies in any cognizable offence under BNS or any other Penal Laws when the accused was deliberately evading arrest or may not be appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warant(NWB) and other coercive measures and there was a likelihood that the accused leaving the country to evade arrest. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued it or can be rescinded by the trial court. The request for issuing an LOC must be invariably issued with the approval of Originating Agency of an officer not below the rank of –

1. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or
2. Joint Secretary in the State Government;or
3. District Magistrate of the Concerned District;or
4. Superitendent of Police of the District concerned;or
5. SP in CBI; or
6. Zonal Director of NCB;or
7. Deputy Commissioner;or
8. Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau;or
9. Deputy Secretary of Research;or
10. SP of NIA;or
11. Chairman/ Managing Director / Chief Executive of PSU’s;or
12. Designated Officer of Interpol;or
13. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate;or

Several judgements, for instance(Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and vs The State Of Madras And Others 1960 AIR 1080) have laid down that any provisions which restraint upon on the liberty of locomotion must take into account processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness,’ bill.

The evaluation of fairness of the restrictions applied upon locomotion of a person are extremely important. The curbing of the right to travel which comes under right to life should not be arbitrary in the words of Justice PN Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi vs UOI 1978 SCR [2]621

                 “Hearing is obligatory-meaningful hearing, flexible and realistic, according to circumstances’ but not ritualistic and wooden. In exceptional cases and emergency situations, interim measures may be taken, to avoid the mischief of the passportee becoming an. escape before the hearing begins. “Bolt the stables after the horse has been stolen” is not a command of natural justice. But soon after the provisional seizure, a reasonable hearing must follow, to minimise procedural prejudice. And when a prompt final order is made against the applicant or passport holder the reasons must be disclosed to him almost invariably save in those dangerous cases, where irreparable injury will ensue to the State. A government which revels in secrecy in the field of people’s liberty not only acts against democratic decency but busies itself with its own burial. That is the writing on the wall if history were a teacher, memory our mentor and decline of liberty not our unwitting endeavour. Public power must rarely hide its heart in an open society and system. – maneka gandhi Like stated in miss pillai judgement ‘Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti-national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.” (Para- B, Page 637).

Similarly, the Court, in Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 March, 2015 states that,

“Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti

national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.”

Likewise, speaking against a particular ideology or leaders of a particular party cannot be the sole cause to detain anyone let alone detaining a foreign national, it can in no way be considered to be inciting hatred amongst people of different ideologies.”

The court in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621 case has observed that it was only exceptional cases that required the issuance of an LOC.

“Spies, traitors, smugglers, saboteurs of the health, wealth and survival or sovereignty of the nation shall not be passported into hostile soil to work their vicious plan fruitfully. But when applying the Passports Act, Over-breadth, hyper-anxiety, regimentation complex, and political mistrust shall not sub-consciously exaggerate, into morbid or neurotic refusal or unlimited imponding or final revocation of passport, facts which, objectively assessed, may prove tremendous trifles. That is why the provisions have to be read down into constitutionality, tailored to fit the reasonableness test and humanised by natural justice. Whether the holder of the passport was heard ? A passport may be impounded without notice but before any final order is passed, the rule of audi alteram partem, would apply and the holder of the passport will have to be heard.

Maneka Gandhi vs UOI, 1978 SCR [2]621, Purtabpur v. Cane Commissioner, Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 807 and Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to in that case.

Recently Justice N Seshasayee of Madras High Court observed that Look Out Circulars should not end up violating a person’s fundamental right to grow and prosper.

Conclusion

The detention of Dr. Sangram Patil raises grave and interlinked legal concerns, including the questionable invocation of Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, the curtailment of his right to travel abroad/or back to his home country, serious procedural irregularities, violations of the principles of natural justice, and non-compliance with India’s international consular obligations toward a foreign national. Taken together, these actions point to a disturbing departure from constitutionally mandated standards of fairness, proportionality, and due process.

At its core, this case exemplifies a troubling trend of criminal law and executive mechanisms being deployed in response to political expression, rather than to address any demonstrable threat to public order or national security. The continued restraint on Dr. Patil’s liberty, despite cooperation with the authorities and the absence of transparent justification,underscores the urgent need for strict judicial scrutiny. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the exercise of state power, particularly where personal liberty is at stake, must remain accountable, reasoned, and firmly tethered to constitutional principles.

As stated by judges in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621

“In Many countries the passport and visa system has been used as a potent paper curtain to inhibit illustrious writers, outstanding statesmen, humanist churchmen and renowned scientists, if they are dissenters, from leaving their national frontiers. Things have changed, global awareness has dawned. The European Convention on Human Rights and bilateral understandings have made headway to widen freedom of travel abroad as integral to liberty of the person. And the universal Declaration of Human Rights has proclaimed in Article 13,”that every one has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.” (Para D, Page 717)

Lord Denning, on the theme of liberty, observed in [Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to]”

“Where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it is not to be done without hearing.

It is a mark of interpretative respect for the higher norms our founding fathers held dear in affecting the dearest rights of life and liberty so to read Art. 21 as to result in a human order lined with human justice. And running right through Arts. 19 and 14 present this principle of reasonable procedure in different shades. A certain normative harmony among the articles is thus attained, and holds Art. 21 bears in its bosom the construction of fair procedure legislatively sanctioned. No Passport Officer shall be mini-Caesar nor Minister incarnate Caesar in a system where the rule of law reigns supreme.”

“Establishment and passport legislation must take processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials, oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness’ bill-subject, of course, to just exceptions an

to just exceptions and critical contexts. This minimum once abandoned, the Police State slowly builds up which saps the finer substance of our constitutional jurisprudence. Not party but principle and policy are the key-stone of our Republic.”

(Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621) (Para B, Page 726)

Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democracy and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to its fundamentals. It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication media advance public interest by informing the public of events and developments that take place. Free and critical expression educates citizens, a crucial component of a functional democracy. A citizen who enjoys the fundamentals of free expression also enjoys the right for the free and open propagation of his or her ideas, a right to publicise these in periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media. Any such attempt to thwart or deny the same gravely offends Article 19 (1) (a).

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

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR | SabrangIndia

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned | SabrangIndia

Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India and Others | CJP

CJP & PUCL, M’tra release a Citizens Human Rights Manifesto for India 2024, demand a free and just India for all | CJP

Kalicharan delivered speech espousing a hard, right-wing, exclusionist ideology in Maharashtra, CJP urges Maha Police to take action | CJP

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos | SabrangIndia

The post British Citizen of Indian Origin detained in India: A Legal Analysis of Dr Sangram Patil’s Detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Court sought the stand of the petitioner, the request was strongly opposed by Advocate Dr. Ujjwalkumar Chavhan, appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Sangram Patil, a UK-based doctor and YouTuber. Counsel submitted that the petitioner continues to be illegally restrained within India due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) that remains in force, despite no final adjudication on its legality. He further pointed out that during the previous hearing, the February 4 date had been fixed after confirming the availability and convenience of the Advocate General, Mr. Sathe, yet the State had failed to file its reply till date.

Emphasising the grave consequences of delay, Dr. Chavhan informed the Court that the petitioner is an MD in Anaesthetics and is employed in the United Kingdom, and that prolonged pendency of the matter is jeopardising his professional career and livelihood. He argued that continuing to restrain the petitioner’s travel without timely hearing effectively amounts to turning the legal process itself into punishment, a practice that runs contrary to established principles of criminal jurisprudence. In view of these submissions, he urged the Court not to entertain any further adjournment.

Accepting the objections raised by the petitioner, the Bombay High Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, directing that the matter proceed as scheduled.

The case arises from an FIR registered against Patil at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, based on a complaint filed by Nikhil Bhamre, head of the BJP’s Media Cell. The FIR, lodged on December 18, 2025, alleges that Patil shared or amplified “objectionable” content on social media that amounted to “disinformation” against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its senior leaders. The content was allegedly hosted on a Facebook page titled “Shehar Vikas Aghadi.”

Based on the complaint, police invoked Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which penalises acts intended to spread false information so as to incite enmity between groups. The offence is classified as non-bailable.

Patil, a British national of Indian origin, had travelled to Mumbai from London on January 10, where he was detained by Mumbai Police upon arrival at the international airport. Subsequently, on January 19, immigration authorities prevented him from boarding a return flight to the UK, citing the existence of a Look Out Circular. He was eventually permitted to record his statement before the police on January 21, but continues to remain in India due to the travel restrictions.

On January 22, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Ashwin Bhobe, issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on Patil’s plea challenging both the FIR and the LOC. The Court directed the State to file its reply by the next date of hearing.

Patil has approached the High Court through Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, seeking quashing of the FIR and the Look Out Circular. He has also prayed for interim relief, urging the Court to stay the investigation and restrain the prosecution from taking any coercive steps, including filing a chargesheet, until further orders. Additionally, Patil has sought permission to travel back to the United Kingdom, where he is employed.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up next on February 4, with the High Court having made it clear that no further delay will be entertained.

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned

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

From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand

The post Bombay High Court rejects State’s adjournment plea in Sangram Patil case; hearing to proceed on February 4 appeared first on SabrangIndia.