Uttarakhand has been, since 2022, the seat of such acts of vigilantism unchecked. Deepak did not allow his city to be overcome by the act of hate-filled bullies. He spoke up, intervened even at the risk of FIRs being filed against him and the membership of his gym (charmingly named The Hulk Zym) plummeting to 15 from 150. Eager peace loving netizens and citizens chipped in with support (including some Supreme Court lawyers), purchasing memberships so Kumar could offer free access to others. They all enrolled for the annual membership of Rs 10,000 cocking a snook at the hate-filled motivators in Kotdwar.

Now he is set to do more. Over the last weekend, the Kotdwar-based gym owner Deepak Kumar, or “Mohammad Deepak”, as he has come to be known, and his friend Vijay Rawat have announced that they will –very soon–jointly undertake an ‘Insaniyat Jodo Yatra‘ (Unite Humanity March) to spread the message of love and brotherhood against what they describe as rising hatred in the country.  “Instead of talking about important issues like development, education and unemployment, people are increasingly indulging in communal matters, which are destroying harmony and brotherhood in the country. During our yatra, we will travel across the country, meet people, and urge them to stay united and fight hatred,” Kumar told the media including The Times of India.

Deepak clarified that the yatra would have no political affiliation. “However, we will welcome anyone who wants to join us, irrespective of religion, caste, creed or political allegiance. It will be about coming together for the betterment of the country,” he added. Both Deepak and Rawat have also said that they had begun preparations and were inviting public suggestions. “We uploaded a video on social media on Friday and have received encouraging responses so far. We will soon finalise the route and funding details, and will most likely begin the yatra after the ongoing board exams and Ramadan,” Rawat said.

The duo also said they were aware of the risks involved. Rawat said they had earlier received threats from various organisations after supporting the shopkeeper but remained undeterred. “We were never afraid because we knew we had done nothing wrong. This initiative is for humanity and to promote brotherhood among all,” he said. Both he and his friend are facing charges under BNS sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace), and 191(1) (unlawful assembly), after Bajrang Dal member Kamal Pal filed a complaint alleging they assaulted members of the group during what he described as a public outreach event.

SabrangIndia, had on February 26, had reported how everyday defiance was –periodically at least–reshaping public discourse, hitherto driven by hate, in India. This may be read here.

Related:

Against the Script of Hate: How ordinary citizens are reclaiming public space

Mohammad Deepak: Upholding fraternity amidst a sea of hate

How defending a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper triggered FIRs, highway blockades, and a law-and-order crisis in Uttarakhand

The post Making Waves: After inspiring swathes of peacemakers all over India, ‘Mohammed’ Deepak and his friend will launch a nationwide ‘Insaniyat Jodo Yatra’ to fight hatred appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The paper has been published by the by the non-profit National Bureau of Economic Research based in Massachusetts. The authors of the paper – Sam Asher, Kritarth Jha, Anjali Adukia, Paul Novosad and Brandon Tan – have observed that while the data analysed in the study dates back to 2011-13, the “neighbourhood patterns described in the paper are likely to be persistent and have emerged over decades of migration and policy.”

According to the observations and findings in this paper, 26% of India’s Muslims live in neighbourhoods that are more than 80% Muslim, while 17% of SCs live in neighbourhoods that are more than 80% SC. Scheduled Caste segregation in cities is just as high as it is in rural areas, and it is even higher for Muslims, the data shows.

The paper also found that government services – like secondary schools, clinics and hospitals, electricity, water, and sewerage – were all “systematically worse” in marginalised neighbourhoods as compared to other localities in the same cities. The paper said that such differences in service access were “statistically significant and substantial”.

Besides, the study has found that children from such segregated neighbourhoods are likely to fare worse than those from non-marginalised localities. “A child growing up in a 100% Muslim neighbourhood can expect to obtain two fewer years of education than a child growing up in a 0% Muslim neighbourhood. Kids living in SC neighbourhoods face a penalty only slightly smaller. The neighbourhood effect explains about half of the urban educational disadvantage of SC and Muslim children,” the paper said.

Related:

Gujarat’s Disturbed Areas Act: Largest Muslim Ghetto Glaring Contrast to Hindu Settlement

The ‘Harijans’ of Bangladesh: Victims of constitutional neglect and social isolation

Gujarat Polls: Juhapura, The Largest Muslim Ghetto In Gujarat, Is A Picture Of Deliberate Neglect

The post SCs, Muslims both live in highly segregated neighbourhoods with poorer public services: International Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an open communication to Mritunjay Kumar Narayan, Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, New Delhi the collective has recorded its objections to “why the Census could not have been carried out by 2023, as was done in 143 other countries. The reasons for delaying the Census by six years instead of two to three years have not been made public. This lack of transparency gives rise to unnecessary apprehensions in the public mind that the Census is being conducted at this juncture to enable the completion of the exercise of delimitation of constituencies in 2027-28, in time for the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.” The collective has expressed the hope that no such extraneous considerations have influenced the timing of the 2027 Census.

Besides, the open communication has stated that “We sincerely expect that the Census exercise will be unexceptionable and in conformity with the United Nations guidelines laid down in the Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses (Revision 4 March 2025), to which India is a signatory. We understand that the main reasons for the delay in the processing and release of the data of past Censuses were: (a) the need for coding of descriptive answers to several questions; and (b) the lack of sufficient expertise within the Census Commissioner’s office to check the quality of data. Providing mobile phones to code everything at field level, where the enumerator is required to select the correct option from a dropdown menu, does not allow for correction of errors in the recorded code. Past experience, especially in the 2001 and 2011 Censuses, has shown that mere technological advance in computing facilities does not necessarily speed up release of data. There is need to be open to the possibilities of errors, with effective measures being put in place to ensure data quality.”

“Dropping questions on data items that are not required cannot be collected or where alternate sources of data are available would help in streamlining the data collection process, reducing respondent fatigue and resulting in better quality data. For example, the questions on children born/surviving are better collected in the National Family Health Surveys.

“Other Backward Classes (OBC) have not been specifically classified in the Census. The methodology for caste enumeration is yet to be announced. While one option could be to compile a list of castes for people to select from (as was done in the Bihar caste survey), we feel the better option is to leave the field open in the Census form, as was done in the 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC). The methodology of surveying and enumerating languages could be used for condensing the Census data. However, this would require the government to keep the data open for scrutiny by scholars and involve institutions like the Anthropological Survey of India. The process can begin with collecting information on the 1369 mother tongue languages listed in the 2011 Census. An institution like the ASI could then certify the caste based on markers of common language, ancestry, lifestyle, relatives, marriages and kinship bonds.

“Data on tribes were being collected in past Censuses only from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) population. If all tribes, other than those in the ST list, are classified and recorded, a long existing injustice to the Denotified Tribe communities, which account for more than 100 million people, would be rectified.

“The issue of religion is, and has been in the past, a sensitive area for the Census. At a time when political leaders openly express their opposition to the inclusion of so-called “Bangladeshi Muslims” in the electoral rolls, care must be taken to ensure that the Census fully records the population of various minority groups in the country, covering religion, caste and tribe.

“As former civil servants, many of us have been, during our careers, involved in the Census exercises at district, state and national levels. We are sure that you will exercise the highest level of professional competence in ensuring that the upcoming Census meets the threefold goals of accuracy, transparency and accessibility.

The entire letter may be read here:

CCG LETTER TO THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND CENSUS COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

23 February 2026

To

Shri Mritunjay Kumar Narayan

Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India

New Delhi

Dear Shri Narayan,

We are members of the Constitutional Conduct Group, a collective of former civil servants belonging to the All-India Services and the Central Services. Our group, which has no political affiliation, is committed to the promotion of the foundational values of our Republic and the observance of norms of Constitutional conduct.

We wish to bring to your attention some aspects of the 2027 Census currently under way.  The Decennial Census exercise was carried out in independent India every ten years from 1951 to 2011. While we can understand that the Census could not be carried out in 2021 because of the COVID pandemic, we fail to comprehend why the Census could not have been carried out by 2023, as was done in 143 other countries. The reasons for delaying the Census by six years instead of two to three years have not been made public. This lack of transparency gives rise to unnecessary apprehensions in the public mind that the Census is being conducted at this juncture to enable the completion of the exercise of delimitation of constituencies in 2027-28, in time for the 2029 Lok Sabha elections. We would certainly hope that no such extraneous considerations have influenced the timing of the 2027 Census.

We sincerely expect that the Census exercise will be unexceptionable and in conformity with the United Nations guidelines laid down in the Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses (Revision 4 March 2025), to which India is a signatory. We understand that the main reasons for the delay in the processing and release of the data of past Censuses were: (a) the need for coding of descriptive answers to several questions; and (b) the lack of sufficient expertise within the Census Commissioner’s office to check the quality of data. Providing mobile phones to code everything at field level, where the enumerator is required to select the correct option from a dropdown menu, does not allow for correction of errors in the recorded code. Past experience, especially in the 2001 and 2011 Censuses, has shown that mere technological advance in computing facilities does not necessarily speed up release of data. There is need to be open to the possibilities of errors, with effective measures being put in place to ensure data quality.

Dropping questions on data items that are not required cannot be collected or where alternate sources of data are available would help in streamlining the data collection process, reducing respondent fatigue and resulting in better quality data. For example, the questions on children born/surviving are better collected in the National Family Health Surveys.

Other Backward Classes (OBC) have not been specifically classified in the Census. The methodology for caste enumeration is yet to be announced. While one option could be to compile a list of castes for people to select from (as was done in the Bihar caste survey), we feel the better option is to leave the field open in the Census form, as was done in the 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC). The methodology of surveying and enumerating languages could be used for condensing the Census data. However, this would require the government to keep the data open for scrutiny by scholars and involve institutions like the Anthropological Survey of India. The process can begin with collecting information on the 1369 mother tongue languages listed in the 2011 Census. An institution like the ASI could then certify the caste based on markers of common language, ancestry, lifestyle, relatives, marriages and kinship bonds.

Data on tribes were being collected in past Censuses only from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) population. If all tribes, other than those in the ST list, are classified and recorded, a long existing injustice to the Denotified Tribe communities, which account for more than 100 million people, would be rectified.

The issue of religion is, and has been in the past, a sensitive area for the Census. At a time when political leaders openly express their opposition to the inclusion of so-called “Bangladeshi Muslims” in the electoral rolls, care must be taken to ensure that the Census fully records the population of various minority groups in the country, covering religion, caste and tribe.

As former civil servants, many of us have been, during our careers, involved in the Census exercises at district, state and national levels. We are sure that you will exercise the highest level of professional competence in ensuring that the upcoming Census meets the threefold goals of accuracy, transparency and accessibility.

We wish the Census exercise all success.

SATYAMEVA JAYATE

Yours sincerely,

Constitutional Conduct Group (90 signatories, as at pages 3-6 below)

The post Ensure transparency and inclusion in the 2027 Census: CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through a series of strategic legal interventions, CJP has challenged the normalisation of “state-sponsored demonisation” and the blatant misuse of administrative authority. By filing rigorous complaints with the Election Commission of India and State authorities, CJP has sought to remind those in power that welfare is a right, not a partisan incentive, and that the pulpit of a campaign rally is subject to the rule of law. Our 2025 interventions highlight a commitment to ensuring that the focus of Indian democracy remains on governance, equality, and the dignity of every citizen, regardless of their faith or political affiliation. This 2025 report details our key actions against hate offenders and the corruptive influence of communal propaganda in the democratic process.

1. Combating communal polarisation in the Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025

Complaint against Habitual Hate Offender Nazia Elahi Khan

On January 20, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with Delhi’s Chief Electoral Officer, R. Alice Vaz, against BJP leader and hate offender Nazia Elahi Khan for an inflammatory speech delivered in Rohini, Delih. The complaint detailed how she targeted the Muslim community with dehumanising stereotypes, falsely associating and targeting the community with inherent violence, terrorism, and “love jihad.” CJP argued that these baseless generalisations, including derogatory remarks about the Koran, were a calculated attempt to polarise voters along religious lines and disrupt communal harmony during the critical pre-election period.

The speech was flagged as a severe violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A), which prohibit using religious appeals to influence voters. CJP emphasised that such rhetoric shifts the focus from governance and policy to divisive identity politics, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. By calling for a public censure and a ban on Khan’s future campaigning, CJP sought to protect the integrity of the democratic process and ensure that the Delhi elections remained focused on developmental issues rather than communal anxieties.

CJP seeks action against BJP Councillor for communal campaigning

Similarly, on January 10, 2025, CJP also filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer of Delhi against BJP Councillor Ravinder Singh Negi for an inflammatory speech delivered during a January 6 election event in Patparganj. The complaint outlines that Negi utilised divisive communal narrative for electoral gain, referring to Muslims as “descendants of the Mughals” and asserting that only “Jai Shree Ram” would dominate India. CJP argued that these remarks were a deliberate attempt to communalise the election process, painting the Hindu community as victims in need of protection from an alleged Muslim threat.

The complaint highlights that Negi’s speech stigmatises Muslims by linking them to past rulers and spreads fear regarding population growth, specifically citing West Bengal. By invoking the Kashmiri Pandit exodus and events in Bangladesh, the speech exploited communal sentiments to stoke fear rather than addressing policy issues.

CJP emphasised that such language violates Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibit undue influence and religious appeals. Furthermore, CJP noted that this discourse aggravates communal tensions and breaches the Model Code of Conduct, challenging the democratic integrity of the Delhi elections.

2. Intervening in the Bihar Assembly Elections 2025: combatting “Hate, Fear, and Violence”

• Complaint against Ashok Kumar Yadav: ridicule and coercive loyalty

CJP on October 30, 2025, approached the CEO Bihar against hate speech in Darbhanga on October 16, 2025, where Madhubani MP Ashok Kumar Yadav addressed “Muslim brothers,” instructing them to say “tauba tauba” and renounce government benefits like free grain and gas cylinders. CJP’s complaint describes the speech as “mocking religious practice and publicly demanding a ritual renunciation of entitlements,” amounting to psychological coercion. By equating welfare use with political loyalty and faith with betrayal, Yadav’s speech redefined citizenship as conditional, fusing spiritual vocabulary with partisan mobilisation.

CJP argues that mocking religious language and demanding a ritual renunciation of state-built roads and bridges constitutes “undue influence.” This bombast moves from ridicule to coercion, framing welfare schemes not as rights but as favours to be repaid through political allegiance. Those who refuse are branded as “ungrateful,” turning a phrase of repentance into a performative punishment. The legal core remains clear: these are prima facie offences that weaken the constitutional promise of free and fair elections, where what begins as a jest ends as an exclusionary policy.

• Complaint against Giriraj Singh: public loyalty tests and humiliation

CJP on October 29, 2025, approached the CEO Bihar regarding Union Minister Giriraj Singh’s speeches in Arwal and Begusarai on October 18 and 19, 2025, transformed gratitude for welfare into a religious oath of political loyalty. In Arwal, he asked a “Maulvi” to swear “on Khuda” to acknowledge benefits received under the government, declaring, “I don’t need votes from namakharam people.”

In Begusarai, Giriraj Singh manipulated the word “haram” into a slur, questioning the faith and morality of Muslims who did not vote for the BJP. The complaint describes these statements as “coercive and communal,” violating the Model Code of Conduct’s (MCC) ban on religious appeals. CJP sought immediate action, including FIR registration under the BNS for promoting enmity, framing the language as “a public loyalty test administered through humiliation.”

CJP stated in its complaint that these speeches fall within the definition of “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the RPA. By identifying an internal enemy and demanding a religious oath for political support. The strategy reinforces a hierarchy where welfare schemes—rations, gas cylinders, and Ayushman cards—are presented as debts owed to the ruling party. This sequence demonstrates how easily populist politics collapses faith into allegiance and citizenship into a privilege contingent on identity.

• Complaint against Nityanand Rai: xenophobia and state-sanctioned exclusion

CJP also filed a complaint the local authorities of the Election Commission of India (ECI) on October 30, 2025, that stated that on October 22, 2025, in Hayaghat, Union Minister Nityanand Rai pivoted from religious invocations to overt nationalism and xenophobia, targeting those wearing “reshmi salwar and topi (mode of dress and skull cap).” He claimed that “Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltrators” were taking away the livelihoods of Bihar’s youth and insisted they must be excluded from voter lists.

The complaint noted the gravity of a Home Ministry official using xenophobic tropes, arguing such speech carries “the force of state policy” when uttered by a minister responsible for internal security. Rai’s rhetoric blends three distinct offences: an appeal to religion, the vilification of a religious group, and the use of ministerial office to threaten administrative exclusion. This prepared the ground for Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s speech in Siwan, which explicitly promised to “identify and expel each and every individual ghuspaithiya (infiltrator).”

Together, these speeches identify a community as outsiders usurping entitlements and anti-national threats. This progression reveals a tested campaign grammar where the trope of the “infiltrator” shifts the narrative from faith to belonging. When senior ministers use the language of exclusion, the threat carries bureaucratic plausibility, replacing the right to participate as an equal citizen with a test of loyalty and threat of removal.

Complaint against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam

In two formal complaints submitted on November 10, 2025, CJP moved the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer and DGP against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam. The complaints highlight a dangerous shift where hate and threats have replaced democratic debate during the Bihar election campaign. CJP called for urgent action, highlighting how “hate, fear, and violence” have been weaponised to replace civic discourse.

• Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma (Siwan Rally)

At an election rally on November 4, 2025, in Raghunathpur, Siwan, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma delivered a speech that CJP described as “state-sponsored demonisation.” Sarma compared RJD candidate Osama Shahab to the global terrorist Osama bin Laden, urging the audience to “eliminate all Osama Bin Ladens” from Bihar.

The complaint notes that he framed the election as a Hindu versus Muslim battle, invoking figures like Babur and Aurangzeb and declaring that a victory for the opposition would be a “defeat for Hindus.” He further boasted about stopping salaries for “mullahs” and characterised Muslims as “infiltrators” threatening the safety of women. CJP argues this statements constitutes an “incitement to exterminatory politics” and a direct breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, as a sitting CM holds a heightened responsibility for neutrality.

• Tausif Alam (Kishanganj Rally)

Within 24 hours of the Siwan speech, AIMIM’s Tausif Alam delivered a retaliatory address at Laucha Naya Haat, Kishanganj. In response to RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav calling Asaduddin Owaisi an “extremist,” Alam issued a direct threat of grievous bodily harm. He told the crowd that “I will cut his eyes, fingers, and tongue if he dares insult Owaisi Sahab again.”

The complaint flags this as a “direct threat of physical mutilation” and a calculated attempt to intimidate political rivals. By replacing civic discourse with “open intimidation and violent abuse,” Alam’s speech is cited as a violation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Representation of the People Act.

3. Targeted demographic hate speech in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur

On November 13, 2025, CJP filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar and the DGP against BJP MP Ashwini Kumar Choubey for inflammatory remarks made during a campaign in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur on November 9.

The complaint asserts that Choubey utilised his platform to deliver deeply communal and derogatory statements that directly target the Muslim population under the guise of national security. By appealing to the community to “reduce their population” and explicitly linking them to “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) allegedly crossing the border, the speech is described as hate propaganda that seeks to delegitimise the citizenship of Indian Muslims.

Remarks that constitute a “direct communal appeal” and “demographic vilification”

The complaint highlights specific statements where Choubey invoked demographic myths to create fear, stating that while the government provides infrastructure to all, the rising population of a specific community and the influx of infiltrators represent a threat of “vote theft.”

CJP argues that these remarks constitute a “direct communal appeal” and “demographic vilification,” violating Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits religious appeals and the promotion of enmity. Furthermore, the speech is flagged under Sections 196 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for outraging group dignity and promoting mischief.

Consequently, CJP in its complaint demanded the registration of an FIR, a ban on his further campaigning, and a public censure from the Election Commission.

4. Complaint against Ojing Tasing for electoral misconduct in Arunachal Pradesh

On December 9, 2025, CJP submitted an urgent complaint to Election Commission of India Arunachal Pradesh, regarding coercive and unlawful threats made during a campaign rally in Lower Dibang Valley on December 3, 2025. During the election period, the Minister unequivocally declared that panchayat segments where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) loses will be denied government development schemes. He was recorded stating:

“Government schemes will not go to those panchayat segments where the BJP is defeated… I do what I say. As the panchayati raj minister, I mean what I say.”

CJP stated that these remarks constitute a direct abuse of state power and a misuse of official authority to influence voter behavior. By conditioning taxpayer-funded welfare on partisan victory, the Minister has transformed essential governance into a tool of political extortion. Such actions represent a textbook case of undue influence and intimidation, weaponising public resources to coerce the electorate.

CJP asserts that these statements violate Sections 123(1), 123(2), and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibit bribery, undue influence, and the abuse of official positions. Furthermore, they breach the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which forbids linking development schemes to voting patterns. Constitutionally, the Minister’s threats violate Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), as government benefits must be distributed without political prejudice.

Consequently, CJP seek immediate action, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, a ban on further campaigning, the registration of an FIR for criminal intimidation, and a recommendation for the Minister’s removal from office to preserve the integrity of the democratic process.

CJP’s intervention in the Jubilee Hills by-election roadshow in Hyderabad against communal and derogatory appeals

CJP on November 11, 2025, approached the CEO Telangana regarding a complaint against BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar for making communal and derogatory appeals during the Jubilee Hills by-election roadshow in Hyderabad. Kumar allegedly mocked Muslim religious practices, specifically the skull cap and namaz, while invoking his Hindu identity as a mark of “authenticity.” He reportedly stated, “If a day comes when I must wear a skull cap for votes, I’d rather cut off my head,” and asserted he would not “insult other faiths by faking a namaz.”

CJP’s complaint argues that these remarks, aimed at polarising voters and deriding opponents like Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, constitute a trifold offence against the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). By framing religious inclusivity as deceit and “vote-seeking hypocrisy,” the speech is characterised as hate speech intended to incite communal contempt.

5. CJP’s intervention against communal dog-whistles

CJP moved the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, on December 19, 2025, seeking urgent action against BJP Mumbai President Ameet Satam for making inflammatory and hate-based remarks during a political event in Malad West. The complaint details how Satam, while the Model Code of Conduct was in force, delivered a speech alleging that “jihadis” had infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club and accused Muslims of facilitating Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents.

The complaint asserted that by propagating conspiracy narratives such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad,” Satam is accused of criminalising an entire religious community and using demographic fear to polarise the electorate.

CJP’s argues that such dehumanising tactics, which portrays Muslim citizens as conspirators and threats to governance, erodes the constitutional principles of equality and secularism. Consequently, CJP has sought immediate sanctions, including a show-cause notice and restrictions on Satam’s campaigning, to preserve the integrity of the electoral process and prevent the normalisation of communal targeting.

6. Constitutional and legal breaches: CJP’s multi-pronged legal strategy

Across all interventions in 2025, CJP has observed a recurring pattern of violations that threaten the very core of India’s democratic machinery. The complaints filed by CJP emphasise the following legal and constitutional anchors:

• Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951: Section 123(2) (Undue Influence): Whether it is Ojing Tasing threatening to cut off funds in Arunachal Pradesh or Tausif Alam threatening physical violence in Bihar, both constitute a direct interference with the free exercise of electoral rights through coercion.
• Section 123(3) & (3A): The interventions against Bandi Sanjay Kumar’s religious mockery and the inflammatory speeches of Nazia Elahi Khan and Ravinder Negi exemplify the prohibited use of religious symbols and the promotion of enmity between different classes of citizens for electoral gain.
• The Model Code of Conduct (MCC): The MCC is designed to ensure a level playing field. CJP’s rigorous complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Ashwini Kumar Choubey highlight how the misuse of government machinery and the making of communal appeals—under the guise of “national security”—violate the spirit of “free and fair elections.”
• Constitutional Mandates: Articles 14 & 15: These articles mandate that the State cannot discriminate against citizens. Using welfare schemes as a “reward” or a “threat” for voting patterns is a direct subversion of the right to equality.
• Article 21: The right to live with dignity is compromised when voters are intimidated into submission through the threat of economic deprivation, physical harm, or state-sanctioned demonisation.

Conclusion

The interventions of 2025 demonstrate that the battle for India’s democracy is increasingly being fought in the arena of public discourse. When elected representatives and political leaders feel emboldened to use “exterminatory politics,” “political extortion,” or “hate propaganda” as campaign tools, the role of civil society as a constitutional vanguard becomes more critical than ever. CJP’s year-long campaign has consistently unmasked how communal dog-whistles and the weaponization of welfare are used to replace democratic choice with coercion.

CJP remains dedicated to the principle that public welfare schemes—funded by taxpayers—belong to the people, not to a political party. We believe that the secular foundation of our Constitution is not a mere suggestion but a mandatory framework for all political participation. Our documented cases from Bihar to Arunachal Pradesh, and from Delhi to Telangana, serve as a reminder that the pulpit of a campaign rally is subject to the rule of law.

As we move into 2026, CJP will continue to monitor, document, and intervene, even legally challenge every attempt to substitute constitutional justice with communal revenge, ensuring that the integrity of the Indian electoral mandate remains protected from the corruptive influence of hate.

Related:

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

The post CJP 2025: a constitutional vanguard against hate and coercion during elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During a high-profile technology expo meant to showcase India’s AI talent, a faculty member from Galgotias University introduced a robotic dog dubbed “Orion,” describing it as a product of the university’s Centre of Excellence.

Almost immediately, keen observers and technology enthusiasts identified the robot as a Unitree Go2 — a commercially available quadruped robot manufactured by a Chinese company, not an original research output of the university.

Videos from the summit circulated widely on social media, and within hours the episode had sparked ridicule, criticism, and questions about transparency and authenticity in India’s tech showcases.

Reports claimed that organisers asked the university to vacate its stall and even had the power at the pavilion switched off in response to the controversy — though the university later contested whether an official expulsion order was issued.

In short: what was meant to signal India’s AI capabilities became a cautionary tale about careless representation, inadequate academic ethics, and short-term showmanship.

Why it matters: Beyond a single mistake 

This episode is not just a PR (public relations) embarrassment — it also opens up deeper questions about the culture of higher education in India, the politics of innovation, and the gap between rhetoric and reality in national technological ambition.

1. Education ethics and quality control 

Universities — especially those with public visibility — are expected to uphold standards of transparency and academic integrity. Presenting an imported product as original research, even unintentionally, reflects a failure in basic accountability and clarity — a breakdown not just of communication, but of institutional rigor.

For students and faculty, hands-on interaction with advanced devices is legitimate. But conflating exposure to technology with actual development — and doing so in a high-stakes international forum — shows a worrying inferiority complex towards genuine innovation.

A Galgotias “research scholar,” Dharmendra Kumar, published a paper claiming that Covid-19 could be destroyed by sound vibrations from clapping or bells in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceutical and Regulatory Affairs (Vol. 2, Issue 2, 2020). The claim echoed the March 22, 2020 Janata Curfew clapping exercise promoted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi—an idea later rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience.

2. Government priorities in practice: Scientific progress vs the religion industry

A comparison of public spending on science, education, and AI with allocations—direct and indirect—towards religion-centric infrastructure reveals more than budgetary arithmetic; it exposes the political priorities shaping India’s future.

The Union government often cites education spending as evidence of commitment to knowledge-building. The Ministry of Education was allocated ₹128,650 crore in 2025–26, with ₹78,572 crore for school education and around ₹47,000–48,000 crore for higher education in recent years. While these figures appear substantial, they must sustain one of the world’s largest student populations, thousands of colleges and universities, and a chronically underfunded research ecosystem. Much of this money merely keeps institutions running rather than creating globally competitive laboratories, doctoral programmes or long-term research capacity.

Technology and AI funding shows a similar contradiction. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology received about ₹26,000 crore in 2025–26. Initiatives such as the IndiaAI Mission (around ₹10,300 crore over multiple years) and a ₹500-crore Centre of Excellence in AI for Education suggest ambition. Yet this funding is scattered across missions and pilots, favouring visibility and announcements over sustained investment in universities, basic science, and large PhD pipelines—the foundations of genuine innovation.

In contrast, the religion industry—pilgrimage infrastructure, temple-linked tourism, and heritage projects—commands political attention far exceeding its formal budget share. However, two factors amplify its impact. First is political signalling: religious projects are paired with high-profile inaugurations and constant symbolism. Second are off-budget flows—large temple trusts such as Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams handle multi-thousand-crore revenues, shaping infrastructure and public priorities without appearing in Union Budget comparison (s) .

The result is an imbalance where science receives headline funds but limited depth, while religion-centred projects enjoy visibility, legitimacy and multiple funding streams.

3. Spectacle Over Substance

The controversy also highlights a broader phenomenon in modern institutional and political culture: preference for spectacle over substance.

Political rhetoric around AI and technological leadership in India has grown aggressively in recent years, with grand claims about digital prowess, global tech leadership, and indigenous innovation. But when those claims are measured against reality, episodes like this reveal a gap between promotional narratives and actual research output.

Rather than noble ambition, this can resemble marketing masquerading as innovation — a dynamic that critics have long pointed to in sectors beyond education.

4. The BJP-RSS Context: Aspirations, perceptions, and overselling

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the ideological ecosystem around it, often associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have frequently championed narratives of technological self-reliance, cultural renaissance, and national resurgence. These themes have strong resonances in public discourse.

But when such grand narratives are paired with weak empirical substance, they risk becoming vacant rhetorics rather than effective policy frameworks.

The AI Expo controversy — wherein an institution aligns itself with big claims (Rs. 350 crore AI investment, “in-house innovation” at a global summit) only to be unmasked over a misrepresented robot — can be seen as a symptom of larger systemic issues: an overreliance on image management, lack of emphasis on foundational science and research, and the temptation to equate presence with excellence.

These are not problems unique to any one institution, but they are exacerbated when political discourse prioritises bravado over authentic capacity building.

Conclusion: A moment of reckoning — or repetition?

The Galgotias AI Expo debacle is uncomfortable because it holds up a mirror: it reflects not only the pitfalls of one university’s presentation, but also the gap between aspiration and achievement in India’s drive toward global tech leadership.

If the goal is genuinely to build an AI-savvy workforce and world-class research ecosystem, then substance must matter more than spectacle, and integrity must undergird promotion. This requires honest assessment, a political leadership that promotes scientific progress over religious industry, rigorous academic culture, and an intellectual climate that values long-term capacity over short-term optics.

Only then can institutions — and the nation — move beyond tall claims and hollow applause toward genuine innovation, learning, and progress.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography; he can be contacted on adityakrishnadeora@gmail.com)

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

Related:

Public Education is Not a Priority in Union Budget 2025-26

Higher Education: How Centre is Undermining State Autonomy & Politicising UGC

Public Vs Private Education – A New Experiment By Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy

The post Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What follows is excerpted from the second Bhasurendrababu Memorial Lecture, organised by True Dialogue Debates and delivered by former journalist R. Rajagopal in Alappuzha, south Kerala, on February 15. The commemoration of Bhasurendrababu — journalist and political commentator — was inaugurated by Vijoo Krishnan, General Secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha and CPI(M) Politburo member. This is not a full reproduction of the lecture, but an account drawn from it.

The purported legal documents and official letters featured here were sourced from CourtListener, part of the Free Law Project, a federally recognized non-profit organisation in the United States. CourtListener.com is a fully searchable and accessible archive of court data, including growing repositories of opinions, oral arguments, judicial financial records, and federal filings. Founded in 2010, Free Law Project uses technology, data, and advocacy to make the legal ecosystem more equitable and competitive.

On January 21 last month, at 3:28 p.m. EST — around 2 a.m. in India on January 22 — a series of documents appeared on CourtListener.com.

As many as 20 PDF files were uploaded. The files were attributed to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American securities markets watchdog. To the best of available knowledge, neither the SEC — to which these documents are attributed — nor the Government of India, whose purported letters form part of the documents, has publicly contested their authenticity. These documents have remained in the public domain since January 21, 2026 (EST). Although the contents of the files are not legible on the presentation screen, the purpose here is not to dissect their details but to note that multiple documents entered the public domain on that day.

The issue relates to what is known in the United States as “service methods,” referred to in India as serving summons or notice to parties involved in a case. In this instance, the SEC sought to issue documents to Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani. The documents are linked to a civil case in which the SEC has levelled charges against Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Green’s board of directors, and his nephew Sagar Adani, executive director of the same board. The Adanis have consistently denied all charges.

The SEC filed a motion requesting a New York court to set a date permitting alternative service of summonses to the defendants. Indian nationals cannot be directly served summonses by foreign agencies like the SEC; however, defendants may waive service if they choose. The SEC stated it had approached Gautam Adani’s counsel. Yet in April 2025, it noted that “neither defendant has agreed to waive service of the summons and complaint.” In the absence of such a waiver, foreign agencies in civil matters must route service through India’s Ministry of Law and Justice under the Hague Service Convention. This made the role of the Indian law ministry crucial.

A preliminary statement in the documents notes that while the SEC had filed charges, India’s Ministry of Law and Justice had twice refused service under the Hague Convention. Reports had earlier indicated that the Indian government was dragging its feet. What remained unknown until January 21 were the reasons cited by the ministry — and that the matter had effectively reached a dead end.

Among the 20 uploaded PDFs was a letter purportedly sent by the Indian law ministry to the SEC. For newsrooms accustomed to covering “sealed-cover” submissions by the Narendra Modi government, this letter could well have been manna from heaven. All that newspapers needed to do was seek confirmation from the law ministry regarding authenticity and, in the event of silence, publish the document while noting that the ministry had neither confirmed nor denied it.

The purported letter stated that the SEC’s forwarding letter “bears no seal and signature and the model form bears no seal of the requesting authority.” On this basis, the Indian ministry returned the documents to the SEC.

The SEC responded, writing to the Indian ministry that the Hague Convention does not mandate a seal or signature on the forwarding cover letter. It maintained that its requests complied with the Convention. The Hague Service Convention, the SEC argued, does not require a seal or signature on the forwarding cover letter, nor does the Model Form require a seal. The watchdog resent the request.

The SEC further cited The Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, stating that demanding a seal and stamp is erroneous and that certification is not required on the Model Form or accompanying documents.

According to the SEC, the Convention only requires the Model Form to be signed by a competent individual. Its requests met these criteria, and the optional cover letter, it argued, should not have been grounds for return.

The SEC’s cover letter was displayed — its second page unsigned — one of the reasons cited by the Indian ministry for returning the request. The SEC countered that the cover letter itself is optional and requires neither seal nor signature.

An image of the purported Hague Convention Model Form showed it signed but without a seal. The absence of a seal had been cited by the Indian ministry. Yet the form itself states “Signature and/or stamp,” a phrase the SEC relied upon in its rebuttal.

On September 12, 2025, the SEC followed up on the requests for service originally sent in February and resent in May.

In November 2025, the Indian ministry responded again, citing SEC procedures and stating that the summonses were not covered under specific categories. The requests were once more returned.

That letter appears to have been the final straw. The SEC then moved a New York court. The uploaded documents show no fresh SEC response to the Indian ministry thereafter. However, the SEC’s court filing states that the ministry’s objection to its authority to invoke the Hague Convention lacked basis.

The SEC’s move triggered rapid developments. On January 23 — just two days after the SEC approached the court — Gautam Adani’s counsel wrote to the court stating that discussions were ongoing with the SEC and requested that the court’s order be deferred.

The court agreed to defer its ruling until January 30, 2026.

Subsequently, the SEC informed the court that counsel for the Adanis had agreed to service of process, eliminating the need for the court to rule on the motion. The defendants, however, retained all litigation rights, including those concerning jurisdiction.

What was resolved in just over a week had, in fact, taken 429 days of back-and-forth since the filing of the original case. Not all delays can be attributed to the Indian ministry. During this period, Donald Trump became the 47th President of the United States, leading to some administrative flux and related pauses. Nonetheless, the sheer number of days required for what is typically a procedural step is illustrative.

Numbers, however, do not tell stories on their own.

In June, a pregnant woman named Sunali Khatun was swept up in Delhi’s drive against alleged illegal immigrants. She was “pushed back” to Bangladesh in “hot haste” within five days — even though the Union home ministry states that verification can take up to 30 days. Following intervention by the Supreme Court, Sunali returned to India on humanitarian grounds.

One process involving a tycoon consumed 429 days.
Another, involving the deportation of a pregnant woman, took only five.

The question remains: when the documents attributed to the SEC entered the public domain, what did India’s paper tigers do?

You’re right. That version became too report-like and lost the sharpness and tone of the original slides. Let me rewrite it properly — as a strong, flowing narrative that keeps everything you said, but with better rhythm, coherence and punch.

Watch the Video Presentation here:

The Silence of the Newsrooms

Let us return to the afternoon of January 21, 2026, in New York. That was when the SEC documents relating to the service of summons on Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani quietly dropped onto the internet. In New Delhi, it was around 2 a.m. on January 22. Too late for most newspapers to carry the development in their January 22 print editions.

So let us grant them that grace. Let us wait for the morning of January 23 — more than 24 hours after the SEC-linked documents had entered the public domain.

Good morning, upcountry India.

The Indian Express arrives. Page 1 is scanned carefully. No SEC-Adani service request story in sight. Perhaps the large advertisement at the bottom elbowed it out. Fine. Let us turn to the business section.

The Economy page does carry an Adani story — tiny, tucked near the bottom. But it is not the SEC development. It is a Press Trust of India report about Adani Energy’s dipping profit. The SEC story remains elusive.

By January 24 — over 50 hours after the documents surfaced — the story finally makes its way to the front page of The Indian Express. Or perhaps it forces its way in, propelled not by editorial urgency but by market tremors. The headline reads: “Adani stocks fall as US SEC plans email summons to Gautam Adani.” Investor jitters appear to have mattered more than the reader’s right to know that the SEC had moved a New York court after 429 days of procedural resistance.

The Times of India — whose parent company’s media school trained me in 1990–91 — never ceases to surprise. The story is on Page 1. Yes, it is a brief. But it is there. The brief points to Page 27.

And so begins a small expedition through the paper. After negotiating the rapids of newsprint, Page 27 appears.

There it is — a larger SEC-Adani story sailing in the Times Business section. Three columns. Five paragraphs. Placed above the “anchor” story. Yet, despite its vast in-house reporting network, The Times has opted for a Reuters report. What kept its reporters so preoccupied that none could be spared for this development? The rest of the page offers no clue.

Next, The Hindu. Usually dependable. Surely this would find space on Page 1. It does not. The colourful NDA advertisement dominates attention. Turning to the business page, the SEC story does appear — a narrow report in the second deck. Once again, Reuters. Once again, a paper with a formidable reporting network relying on a wire copy.

The Telegraph — a paper I once edited — does not carry the story on Page 1 either. On the Business page, the Reuters report sits as a single-column item.

The New Indian Express? I cannot find the story on either the front page or the business page. I deliberately say “I could not find the story,” because newspapers today scatter tiny items across labyrinthine layouts. It is possible the SEC story is camouflaged somewhere. But must readers play Indiana Jones to locate consequential news? Or should newspapers present important developments in ways that are visible and accessible?

Now to my home turf.

I cannot find the SEC story in Malayala Manorama. Malayalam newspapers, these days, seem absorbed in the gold theft at the Sabarimala temple.

Mathrubhumi, too — the story eludes me. On January 23, I also fail to spot the SEC-Adani development on the front pages of the two Left newspapers, Deshabhimani and Janayugam.

Across both print editions and paywalled online editions, the SEC-Adani story does not appear — at least not in any visible form — in The Indian Express, The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi on January 23. The Telegraph, whose e-paper is free, and some others do carry it in one form or another.

As a subscriber to the four newspapers mentioned, I wrote to their editors on the night of January 23, using the email addresses published in their pages, asking why the story had not been reported that day. There has been no acknowledgement since. I cannot even be certain that my emails reached them.

Watch the Video Presentation here:

Who Swam Against the Tide — and What the Newsrooms Chose to Chase

Let us ask the obvious question: who swam against the tide?

We return once more to the afternoon of January 21 in New York — and 2 a.m. on January 22 in India — when the SEC-Adani story broke.

Not all journalists were asleep.

At 4:28 a.m. on January 22 — less than three hours after the SEC documents entered the public domain — a journalist in India had already filed a report.

Devirupa Mitra published a detailed and comprehensive story for the news portal The Wire at 4:28 a.m., proving that where there is the will, there is always a story. It is worth noting that The Wire does not charge its readers; it relies solely on donations.

Now, about the print editions.

The news that day, in my view, was not about the Adanis. The Adanis — who have denied the charges — were part of a legal process that would unfold in court. It is an ongoing matter. Only a court of law can determine innocence or guilt, and until then, the Adanis are entitled to every protection the law affords.

The Wire struck the nail squarely on the head. Its headline placed emphasis where it belonged — highlighting that the Modi government had blocked the SEC request for several months.

That, I believe, was the real story.

The central issue was how the Union government appeared to have responded to attempts to serve summons on defendants facing charges in a country that India publicly celebrates as a friend. The purported documents — uploaded and attributed to the SEC — suggest that the American watchdog contested the Indian law ministry’s objections, citing material under the Hague Convention. What remains unclear, however, is whether the Indian government subsequently challenged the SEC’s version.

Indian citizens have the right to know whether their government misled a regulatory watchdog; whether it stonewalled a legal process with implications for investors; or whether, conversely, the US watchdog’s claims are inaccurate — in which case the Indian government ought not to take that lying down.

Once again, the story was not about the Adanis. It was about the stand adopted by the Indian government.

Yet no newspaper I examined appeared to foreground that aspect. Rarely are Indian newspapers handed, on a platter, a stack of legal documents already in the public domain. Yet in this instance, most chose either to ignore the development for over 51 hours or to underplay it.

I had assumed that at least some newspapers would use the documents — after erecting the necessary journalistic guardrails.

I had assumed that some would frame the story along the lines indicated here: using documents whose authorship had not been contested until February 14, and pressing the issue of the purported position adopted by the Indian government.

But several newsrooms seem to have perfected the art of swallowing inconvenient news when it concerns powerful players. The inevitable result: readers are denied important information.

And then — bouncing back from these depths of professional despair — I discovered renewed hope.

On February 6, Mathrubhumi carried a Page 1 story that restored my faith in the data-gathering zeal of Indian print newsrooms. The newspaper reported, in meticulous detail, how National Security Adviser Ajit Doval went shopping — unannounced — and purchased banana chips. Yes. B-A-N-A-N-A C-H-I-P-S. Banana chips. In Thiruvananthapuram.

The operation, it seems, was blown open when some employees of a space agency recognised Doval and introduced themselves. Hold your breath: he reportedly exchanged pleasantries with them in Hindi and English.

Pulse racing and adrenaline pumping, I read the chips story with the thrill of watching a Mission: Impossible sequence. Mathrubhumi displayed remarkable courage in revealing what could only be described as state secrets — such as the presence of four vehicles and an ambulance stationed outside while Doval selected his banana chip supplies. The report even disclosed how much money he spent on the purchase.

Indian print newsrooms, clearly, are in safe hands — locked and loaded for the mission.

Step aside, without reservation, Ethan Hunt.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to retire.

Thank you.

Watch the video presentation here:

R Rajagopal, Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

The post Newsrooms that Swallow Whales appeared first on SabrangIndia.

By an opinion dated November 27, 2025, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara, presided over by Member N.K. Nath, declared that Anowara Khatun is an Indian citizen, answering the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, in the negative.

The order brings to a close the said proceedings that originated over two decades ago and highlights persistent structural issues in Assam’s citizenship determination framework, particularly its impact on poor and marginalized women.

Team CJP Assam sits to discuss the case with Anowara Khatun and family outside their home in Assam

From IMDT to Foreigners’ Tribunal: A case born of institutional suspicion

Anowara’s case originated as far back as 2004, when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara referred her name under the now-defunct Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, alleging that she had illegally entered India between 1966 and 1971. The referral admitted that the “doubt” arose because she could not immediately produce documents during verification — a familiar and deeply flawed basis used against the poor and illiterate.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, Anowara’s case was mechanically transferred to Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara under the Foreigners Act, 1946, shifting the entire burden of proof onto her under Section 9.

Who is Anowara Khatun?

Anowara Khatun was born and raised in Kharda Manikpur (also recorded as Kharija Manikpur), Goalpara, Assam. She is the daughter of Late Alom Shah, a lifelong resident of Assam, and Korimon Nessa, and the granddaughter of Late Rose Mamud Shah. Documentary evidence showed that her father, Alom Shah, purchased land in Assam in 1947, 1952, and 1959. His name, along with that of Anowara’s mother, appears in the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, demonstrating their presence in Assam prior to the relevant cut-off dates.

Anowara studied up to Lower Primary level at Majgaon LP School, married Saiful Hussain of Mamudpur Part-I, and later settled in Sidhabari Part-II, where she has lived for decades. She first voted in 1985, and her name consistently appears in electoral rolls for 1985, 1997, 2005, 2011, and 2015.

Despite this, she was eventually marked a “D-Voter”, stripped of voting rights, and subjected to relentless suspicion — a fate shared by thousands of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam.

Her personal circumstances make the cruelty of this process even more stark. Anowara suffers from mental imbalance and chronic health issues, lives in extreme poverty, has no proper bedding, and struggles daily for food and medical care. She and her husband survive on daily labour, entirely unequipped to navigate a legal system designed to break the poor.

CJP Steps In: Building a case where the State saw only suspicion

Recognising the grave injustice involved, Assam Team CJP took up Anowara’s case, committing to pursue it despite the enormous evidenti and procedural hurdles.

On behalf of Anowara, Advocate Ashim Mubarak, assisted by Advocate Shofior Rahman, and supported by CJP’s para-legal and community teams, presented a meticulous defence before the Tribunal.

Four defence witnesses were examined:

• DW-1: Anowara Khatun herself
• DW-2: Her brother, Kurban Ali
• DW-3: Her sister, Ambia Bibi
• DW-4: The Land Record Assistant, Matia Revenue Circle

CJP placed before the Tribunal a comprehensive documentary trail, including:

• Three registered land sale deeds executed in 1947, 1952, and 1959 in her father’s name
• Electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, recording her parents as Indian voters
• Subsequent voter lists (1979, 1985, 1997, 2005, 2011, 2015) showing uninterrupted electoral presence
• Jamabandi and citha records proving inheritance of ancestral land in Assam

The Tribunal explicitly accepted that the land deeds were over 30 years old and required no further proof, and relied heavily on the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 to establish her father’s citizenship.

Even when Anowara’s deteriorating mental health made her continued presence difficult, CJP persisted with evidence and arguments, ensuring the case did not collapse under procedural cruelty.

Anowara Khatun with her husband and CJP Team Assam outside her home in Assam

The Tribunal’s Finding: Citizenship proven, suspicion rejected

After a detailed appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that:

• Alom Shah, Anowara’s father, was conclusively established as an Indian citizen, present in Assam since at least 1947
• Anowara, being his daughter, cannot be treated as a foreigner
• The state failed to rebut the overwhelming documentary record

The reference was therefore answered in the negative, and Anowara Khatun was declared not a foreigner, with directions issued to inform the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara.

Anowara Khatun holding up the FT order outside her home in Assam

A system designed to break the poor

Anowara Khatun’s case is not an aberration — it is a window into a larger architecture of state oppression. Instruments such as D-Voter tagging, Foreigners’ Tribunals, NRC, detention camps, “push-backs,” the Passport Act, SR and SIR exercises operate together to produce statelessness among workers, farmers, minorities, and Bengali-speaking communities.

Assam has long served as a pilot project for citizenship stripping, but the same logic is now visible across India. Behind this bureaucratic machinery lie document-wars, midnight detentions, suicides, custodial deaths, and families torn apart — all in the name of identifying “Bangladeshis.”

India’s constitutional promise of secularism, dignity, and equality collapses when impoverished citizens are tortured for papers they were never equipped to preserve.

CJP’s Role: Law as resistance

At a time when the Chief Minister of Assam openly targets Muslims, spreads communal suspicion, and legitimises exclusion under the rhetoric of “illegal migration,” CJP continues to fight case by case, restoring citizenship through evidence, law, and persistence.

In the first week of February, members of Team CJP — State In-Charge Nanda Ghosh, DVM Goalpara Zeshmin Sultana, Community Volunteer Hasunir Rahman, and Office Driver Ashikul Hussain — stood by Anowara and her family, reaffirming that justice is not charity, but resistance.

Anowara Khatun’s victory is not just hers. It is a reminder that citizenship in India is increasingly something the poor must fight to prove, and that without sustained legal intervention, countless others will disappear into detention camps, deportation attempts, or silent graves.

This case stands as another testament to what determined legal solidarity can achieve — even in the face of a system designed to erase.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

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

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

Communal Dog-Whistles in an Election Season: CJP flags hate speech by BJP’s Ameet Satam to election authorities

From Hate Speech to State Action: How communal vigilantism at Malabar Hill continues unchecked

The post From D-Voter Tagging to Citizenship Declaration: Anowara Khatun’s case before the foreigners’ tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Interestingly, the theme for this year’s Justice Day is ‘Renewed commitment to Social Development and Social Justice’. The theme follows the momentum of the Second World Summit for Social Development which was held in Doha, Qatar, from November 4-6, 2025, and the adoption of the Doha Political Declaration, which underscores a shared global responsibility to eradicate poverty and expand decent work.

The theme has some key objectives which include poverty eradication (promoting systems that reduce social exclusion and poverty); decent work (advocating for fair wages, safe working conditions, and labour rights); inclusive growth: (ensuring marginalised groups have equal access to resources and decision-making); global peace (recognising that social justice is an indispensable foundation for maintaining international peace and security).

All this is easier said than done – one can easily term these goals as idealistic! In India, the cries for justice, are becoming louder and longer! They come from different segments of society and particularly from those who continue to be exploited and excluded! These cries are heart-rending: anyone with an iota of conscience will hear them! The sad and tragic reality is that these cries will remain unheard; those who need to hear these cries and to respond to them, have deadened their ears and hardened their hearts!

According to a well-researched working paper (published late in 2024) ‘Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023: The Rise of the Billionaire Raj’, inequality in India has skyrocketed since the early 2000s, with the income and wealth share of the top one per cent of the population rising to 22.6 per cent and 40.1 per cent, respectively, in 2022-23. The paper further stated that between 2014-15 and 2022-23, the rise of top-end inequality has been particularly pronounced in terms of wealth concentration. In India the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. The cries of the poor have become louder and shriller!

On the 2024 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), India is ranked at a pathetically low position of 176 out of 180 countries. The low ranking is due to poor air quality, high projected emissions and low biodiversity scores. The EPI uses 58 indicators to assess a country’s environmental performance. Indicators, include biodiversity, air pollution, air and water quality, waste management, emission growth rates, projected emissions, etc., under the three main heads of ecosystem vitality, environmental health and climate change. To assess how well countries are safeguarding their natural treasures, the EPI added a new category: biodiversity and habitat. This category revealed a worrying trend – many protected areas worldwide are being overtaken by buildings and agriculture. India’s heavy reliance on coal is a key factor hindering its environmental performance across multiple indicators. Coal use not only fuels high greenhouse gas emissions but also contributes significantly to India’s severe air pollution problem. This is reflected in India’s rankings: 177 for air quality (above only Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal). India, we are all aware, boasts of some of the most polluted cities in the world. The people of India cry out for environmental justice!

In the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, released by ‘Reporters Without Borders’, India ranked 151 out of 180 countries, with a score of 32.9; the country remains in the “very serious” category for journalists. The index highlights concern over media concentration, political pressure, and attacks on journalists! In a country which is dominated by ‘godified’ media – it is not easy to speak truth to power! Any media house (be it print or electronic) if it takes on the Government – are denied Government advertisements(revenue) and have the ED, the CBI, Income-tax, NIA and other statutory bodies (who have become pliable instruments in the hands of a vindictive regime) breathing on them, raiding them and creating untold suffering on them. A free press is sine qua non in a democracy – and world leaders and Governments have taken on India on this score. A churlish attitude of a fascist regime that is too frightened to face the truth! On 20 February, the 2026 amendments to India’s IT Rules, 2021will be made effective. The new rules enforce strict, immediate accountability for social media and AI platforms, requiring 3-hour takedowns of deepfakes/illegal content, mandatory AI labelling, and 24/7 monitoring. The Government wants to throttle freedom of speech and expression. Those who cherish freedom of the press, of speech and expression cry out for justice!

An estimated 400 million people work in India’s informal sector, on low daily wages and with no contract, pension, paid holidays or health benefits and above all, poor working conditions. The vast majority of them are migrant workers; they are scattered all over the country, who speak different languages. Migrant workers normally cannot defend themselves. When they go to another state, they don’t even speak the local language. No one inspects the premises to check working conditions are safe. They don’t even feature in the records of the local state government. They are invisible. Besides, on 21 November 2025, the Government began implementing the four Labour Codes (Code on Wages, Industrial Relations Code, Social Security Code, and OSHWC Code. These codes have faced intense criticism from trade unions and opposition parties who label them “anti-worker”. They are violative of the rights of workers and favour the employers particularly, the corporate sector! The rural poor are deprived of the MGNREGA scheme. The labourers and the rural poor of India cry out for justice!

Freedom to preach, practise and propagate one’s religion is in the doldrums. At the receiving end, are the minorities particularly the Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. These minorities are consistently targeted: intimidated and harassed,denigrated and demonised, attacked and even killed. India is rock-bottom where the treatment of minorities is concerned. Thousands of Muslims have lost their homes because of demolition raj! the so-called ‘anti-conversion’ laws in several states – are all designed and directed towards the systematic targeting of the minorities in the country. There is much more: what minorities and other vulnerable groups eat, wear, see and read has become the bane of several from the majority community. Livelihoods of minorities are destroyed; Government employment is not given to someone from a minority community – even if the person meets the required competence and has the necessary qualifications. Venomous hate speeches against the minorities have become the order of the day. Those who spew them, do so with gay abandon- because they know that no one will touch them! The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2025 Annual Report has recommended for the sixth consecutive time that the U.S. State Department designate India as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) due to “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” religious freedom violations. The report cites increased attacks on Christians and Muslims, impunity for perpetrators, and the misuse of laws to target minorities.

The Special Intensive Revision(SIR) has disenfranchised hundreds and thousands of citizens all over the country. Most of them belong the minority communities and to the poorer sections of society. With Census 2027 on the threshold, the reality for the entire country will perhaps become even worse! Then there is the whole process of delimitation and even delisting of tribals/adivasis who have embraced Christianity or Islam. These are all highly manipulative and unconstitutional acts of the ruling regime to establish a Hindutva control of the country. The people of India cry out for Justice and against disenfranchisement!

There is a systematic attack on the sacred, secular and democratic ethos of the country! The ruling regime clearly has a ‘method in their madness’. There is a serious lack of political will to address systemic burning issues which have gripped the nation. There are hurried, biased legislation and prejudiced policies (all designed to decimate the Constitution) which include the National Education Policy, the Citizenship Amendment Act, the anti – conversion laws, the anti-farmer laws, the four anti-worker and pro-corporate labour codes which after a long lull have suddenly become ‘implementable, the Universal Civil Code, the ‘One Nation, One Election’, the Waqf Bill, the Imposition of Hindi as the national language, Constitutional bodies like the Election Commission (which is blatantly biased) the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the National Investigation Agency(NIA), the police and even sections of the judiciary (the new CJI does not have an impressive track –record) are compromised; they have become ‘Caged Parrots’. Corruption has become the new normal, with this regime! First, it was demonetisation; then, the scam of the Electoral Bonds. We the people of India cry out for justice which is enshrined in our Constitution!

There are several other segments of society who cry out for justice; these include women and children, those of the LGBTQIA+ community, refugees, academics and others from civil society, human rights defenders, others belonging to vulnerable and marginalised sections of society. Above all,there are those who are victims of a heartless, unjust, insensitive and discriminatory society! The list is endless!  It is not without reason that India is ranked 86 out of 143 countries worldwide in the WJP (worldjusticeproject) Rule of Law Index 2025. A great shame indeed! India has a long way to go in the realisation of poverty eradication, ensuring decent work for all, mainstreaming inclusive growth and above all bringing peace to all! The people of  India cry out loudly  and unequivocally for justice!

The challenge today is to get the powers that be, to listen. And act!

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

The post Cries for Justice in India grow louder! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hearing a petition filed by Khan’s 69-year-old mother, Mehrunissa Shamim Khan, a division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode observed that the demolition appeared, prima facie, to have been carried out without adhering to binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The civic body has been directed to file a clear response by March 4 stating whether it will reconstruct the structure or offer monetary compensation.

The question posed by the bench was pointed: if due process was not followed, how will the State repair the damage?

The Demolition: Swift action, lasting consequences

Fahim Khan, 38, was arrested following communal violence that broke out on March 17, 2025 in Nagpur’s Mahal area. The unrest followed alleged inflammatory remarks concerning the tomb of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

Within days of Khan’s arrest, the NMC issued notices under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and demolished his three-storey residence in Sanjaybagh Colony on March 25, 2025. Although an urgent plea was moved before the high court and a stay was granted by a bench led by Justice Nitin Sambre, the structure had already been razed by the time the interim protection came into effect.

The demolition left the family without shelter. They have maintained that no meaningful opportunity to respond was provided and that the property had secured necessary permissions as early as 2003, with no objections raised for over two decades.

Khan, who had contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election against Union minister Nitin Gadkari, denies the riot allegations and claims the action was arbitrary. Of the more than 120 persons arrested in the riots case, a majority have since been granted bail or anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court’s anti-demolition safeguards

The high court proceedings turn crucially on a November 13, 2024 judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered by a bench led by former Chief Justice Bhushan Gavai. In that ruling, the apex court categorically held that demolitions cannot be used as a punitive measure merely because a person is accused in a criminal case.

The Supreme Court mandated:

• Issuance of prior notice,
• A minimum of 15 days to respond,
• Strict adherence to statutory procedure independent of criminal proceedings.

Detailed report may be read here.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the March 21, 2025 notice violated these safeguards and that the demolition amounted to unconstitutional executive overreach.

Notably, during earlier hearings, Nagpur Municipal Commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari tendered an unconditional apology before the high court, stating that officials were unaware of the Supreme Court’s specific directions governing demolitions in such contexts.

More Than One House: A constitutional test

While the immediate dispute concerns a single property, the implications extend far beyond Sanjaybagh Colony.

The court’s framing of the issue — rebuild or compensate — shifts the discourse from mere procedural lapse to state accountability. If the demolition is ultimately found to have violated Supreme Court guidelines, the remedy may not be limited to declaratory relief. Reconstruction or financial compensation would signal judicial willingness to impose tangible consequences for executive overreach.

The case also reopens the broader national debate around so-called “bulldozer action,” where demolition drives have followed criminal accusations, particularly in communally sensitive contexts. Courts across the country have repeatedly underscored that urban planning enforcement cannot morph into retributive punishment.

At stake are foundational constitutional principles:

• Article 14 — equality before the law and protection against arbitrary state action,
• Article 21 — protection of life and personal liberty, which judicial interpretation has long held to include the right to shelter and dignity,
• The doctrine of due process, which restrains executive discretion.

If municipalities are permitted to demolish properties immediately after arrests without strict procedural compliance, the line between law enforcement and punishment blurs dangerously.

The March 4 hearing will likely determine whether the NMC acknowledges procedural violations and what corrective mechanism it proposes. The court may require compensation, order reconstruction, or lay down further guidelines to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directions.

Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to become a benchmark in assessing the enforceability of anti-bulldozer jurisprudence. A clear order mandating restoration or compensation would reinforce that constitutional safeguards are not advisory — they are binding. Conversely, a weak remedy could dilute the deterrent effect of the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling.

Related:

Hate Crime: Abdul Naeem’s school built with private money on his land demolished by bulldozers in Madhya Pradesh

When the Rule of the Bulldozer Outpaces the Rule of Law: One year after this landmark judgment

From Words to Bulldozers: How a Chief Minister’s rhetoric triggered and normalised punitive policing in Bareilly

“Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre

Bulldozer Justice: you can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight: SC

“Bulldozer barbarism”: Demolition drive in Surat after stones thrown at Ganesh pandal

The post Rebuild or Compensate: Nagpur HC confronts NMC over ‘bulldozer’ demolition in riot case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Throughout the year, CJP successfully challenged problematic impugned broadcasts of several leading news channels—including Zee News, India TV, Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, and Times Now Navbharat—for airing content that relied on presumptive narratives, unverified claims, and polarising themes. These interventions led to landmark decisions where the regulator (NBDSA) ordered the removal of offensive content, issued formal warnings, and released advisories to broadcasters regarding the sensitive framing of religious and communal issues.

A notable shift in 2025 was CJP’s focus on the “war-like” rhetoric and inflammatory tickers used during coverage of sensitive geopolitical events, such as the reported India-Pakistan tensions, and domestic flashpoints. By documenting these violations in real-time, CJP not only secured apologies and content deletions but also pushed for a more robust accountability framework.

The following CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker provides a detailed, channel-wise breakdown of the complaints filed by CJP and the subsequent decisions rendered by the NBDSA to uphold broadcasting standards.

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions: a year of ensuring accountability in media reporting

1.  Landmark decisions delivered in 2025

The year began with a series of significant decisions from the NBDSA on complaints CJP had filed regarding broadcasts that sought to communalise sensitive domestic and international issues.

• Zee News: the “Budaun Encounter” case

On January 27, 2025, the NBDSA delivered a pivotal order regarding a broadcast aired on March 20, 2024. The show, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल?” focused on a tragic criminal incident involving two brothers.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP argued that the anchor, Pradeep Bhandari, repeatedly used the term “Talibani-style murder” and framed the entire debate around the religious identity of the accused. The show suggested a broader conspiracy rooted in religion rather than treating the incident as an individual criminal act.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority ruled that the broadcast violated the Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime. The NBDSA noted that linking a crime to a specific religion or using extremist terminology like “Talibani” without evidence was inflammatory.
• Action taken: A formal warning was issued to Zee News on January 27, 2025. The channel was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and ensure the order was disseminated to all member broadcasters as a corrective measure.

• Times Now Navbharat: communalising the Israel-Hamas conflict

Also on January 27, 2025, the NBDSA ruled on two segments from October 16, 2023 on theme “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”

• Fact of the complaint: CJP stated that how the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, portrayed Indian Muslims and opposition leaders supporting the Palestinian cause as “Hamas sympathisers.” The broadcast used leading questions to suggest that religious ties in India were fueling support for global terrorism.
• The NBDSA decision: The regulator found that the broadcaster had exceeded its limits by targeting a particular community. The NBDSA observed that the debates conflated political support for Palestine with support for a banned entity (Hamas), thereby creating prejudice.
• Action taken: The NBDSA issued a formal warning for violating neutrality and ordered the immediate removal of the content within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: addressing communal tones in cultural debates

• Facts of the complaint: On September 9, 2024, CJP filed a complaint against the show “Desh Ka Mood Meter: सनातन संस्कृति…कट्टरपंथियों के लिए सॉफ्ट टारगेट?” which aired on September 2, 2024. The program was flagged for its inflammatory framing of issues related to Sanatan culture and its portrayal of certain groups as “extremists” targeting religious sentiments. CJP argued that the broadcast lacked objectivity and used a sensitive cultural subject to build a polarising narrative.
• NBDSA Action: Regarding this intervention, the NBDSA delivered its decision on December 3, 2025, directing the broadcaster to remove the content from its website, YouTube channel, and all other digital links within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: caution against presumptive Madrasa narratives

• Moreover, CJP intervened on August 26, 2024, concerning two segments aired on August 19, 2024: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा?” and “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस?”. The complaints cantered on the unverified nature of the claims that literature from Karachi was being taught in Indian Madrasas, which CJP argued contributed to the stigmatisation of religious educational institutions.

• NBDSA decision/action: In its decision dated June 9, 2025, the NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation. The Authority emphasised that anchors must be significantly more cautious when framing programs involving religious or communal issues, particularly when claims are unverified. Furthermore, the NBDSA warned that broadcasters should strictly avoid presumptive narratives that have the potential to foster feelings of hatred or ill-will toward any community.

C.)  India TV: the Bahraich violence reporting

On September 25, 2025, a decision was reached regarding the show “Coffee Par Kurukshetra: यूपी में पत्थरबाजों की फौज कहां से आई? UP Bahraich Violence | CM Yogi” (aired October 15, 2024), which covered communal violence in Bahraich, UP.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP pointed out in its complaint that the channel used the inflammatory headline “Army of stone-pelters” and conducted a one-sided debate that demonised a specific community as “outsiders” and “aggressors” without providing space for a neutral or dissenting view.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority found that the channel failed to maintain objectivity. It ruled that the broadcast was likely to incite communal hatred and was not a balanced representation of the facts on the ground.
• Action taken: The NBDSA ordered the removal of the broadcast from the channel’s website and YouTube within 7 days.

1.  CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions

• Network 18 (News18 MP Chhattisgarh)

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Theme of the show: “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal | India Pak War,” dated May 7, 2025.

• Facts of the complaint: On May 14, 2025, CJP moved a formal complaint against News18 MP Chhattisgarh regarding its May 7, 2025, broadcast titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal.” The complaint alleges that the channel grossly misreported the death of Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a respected religious scholar and teacher from Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir, by labeling him a “most-wanted terrorist” and “top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander” killed in a purported airstrike.

• However, official statements from the Poonch Police and independent fact-checkers confirmed that Iqbal was a civilian who died due to cross-border shelling and had no links to militancy. This broadcast constitutes a severe breach of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics, specifically the principles of accuracy, impartiality, objectivity, and the right to privacy.

• CJP demanded an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal unconditional apology to the deceased’s family, and the permanent removal of the defamatory content from all digital platforms to redress the significant moral and journalistic failure. 

• Action Taken: Response was received from the channel, video removed and apology rendered by the channel.

• ABP News

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Title/Theme of the show: “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट” Dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of complaint: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against ABP News for broadcasting misleading visuals during its May 8, 2025, segment titled “India Pakistan War Update.” The channel allegedly aired four-year-old footage of Israel’s Iron Dome system from 2021, falsely presenting it as real-time evidence of Indian air defences intercepting a drone attack in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

• This misrepresentation, identified by independent fact-checkers like Alt News, constitutes a severe violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality. By prioritising sensationalism over due diligence during a period of heightened national anxiety, the broadcast risked inciting public panic and glorifying military violence through fabricated success.

• Furthermore, the report disregarded specific Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of disinformation. CJP argues that such reckless journalism compromises national security and erodes public trust in mainstream media. Consequently, the organisation demands an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology from the channel, and the permanent removal of all contentious content from digital platforms to prevent further circulation of this disinformation.

• Aaj Tak

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Title/Theme of the show: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान [India’s All-Around Attack on Pakistan, Heavy Losses in Lahore-Karachi]” dated May 9, 2025

• Facts: On May 14, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Aaj Tak for broadcasting misrepresented and sensationalised content regarding “Operation Sindoor.” On May 9, senior anchors Anjana Om Kashyap and Shweta Singh presented footage claiming to show a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer and an “all-around attack” on Lahore and Karachi. These segments utilised the sensational headline: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान.”

• Technical verification revealed a systemic failure in journalistic due diligence. Specifically, on May 7, the channel aired visuals of seven missiles allegedly being launched in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Reverse image searches confirmed this footage was actually from a Sputnik Armenia report dated October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The Israeli Air Force’s official records further corroborated the origin of the clips.

• NDTV

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Theme/Title of the Show: “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू” dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of the complaint: On May 15, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint against NDTV regarding its May 8 broadcast titled “India-Pakistan Tension: India Attacks Pakistan Breaking.” The complaint alleges that NDTV aired visuals falsely depicting a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. However, independent fact-checkers, including Alt News, established that the footage was actually a four-year-old video from 2021 showing Israel’s Iron Dome system.

• CJP asserted, in its complaint, that this constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards, specifically breaching principles of impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. By presenting recycled foreign footage as real-time military action without due diligence, the channel disseminated dangerous disinformation during a sensitive national security crisis.

• Further it was argued that “this irresponsible brand of journalism” not only misled the public but also violated Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of misinformation. Consequently, CJP demands that NDTV issue a prominent on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology, and immediately remove all related digital content from its platforms. The organisation emphasised that such lapses can provoke mass panic and compromise national security, necessitating urgent corrective action to restore journalistic integrity.

• Times Now Navbharat

Complaint Date: May 15, 2025

Theme/Title of show: “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’ [U.S. statement on the India-Pakistan war: ‘We cannot stop India]” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Times Now Navbharat regarding a May 9 broadcast titled “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’.” The channel aired visuals allegedly showing a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan; however, fact-checking established that the video was actually four-year-old footage sourced from a 2021 YouTube upload by NSFchannel, likely depicting Israel’s Iron Dome.

• The complaint highlights that the footage was presented with a tone of real-time urgency and lacked any disclaimers or source identification, creating a false narrative of active military escalation. This broadcast constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA Code of Ethics—specifically regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality—and disregards the MIB advisory dated April 25, 2025, which prohibits real-time reporting of defines operations and the dissemination of disinformation.

• India TV

Complaint Date: May 16, 2025

Title/Theme: “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 9, 2025, India TV broadcasted a segment titled “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK.” The complaint filed before NBDSA on 16.05.2025 highlighted that the channel used a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome Air Defence System (originally published on May 11, 2021, by @NSFchannel) to represent a current drone intercept in Jaisalmer. The broadcast lacked any “file footage” disclaimer, creating a false narrative of real-time military success.
• Consequently, on May 29, 2025, the channel admitted the error, removed all digital content, and issued a public apology.

The 2025 Media Sentinel: CJP’s Crusade against ‘Digital Hate’

This, in 2025, continuing with its systematic monitoring and well-researched interventions, CJP emerged in the vanguard against the digital-ised hate era of Indian television. By moving beyond isolated protests and focusing on the systemic weaponisation of newsroom aesthetics, CJP urged the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) to deliver its most significant set of accountability orders to date.

The year 2025 has established that communal polarisation is no longer a “risk-free” revenue model for broadcasters. Through sustained legal interventions, CJP has turned the NBDSA from a silent regulator into an active arbiter of truth. Broadcasters are now on notice: every sensational ticker, unverified “war” clip, and biased panel will be documented, challenged, and eventually dismantled in the interest of constitutional harmony.

Related

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

Human Rights Day 2024: CJP’s Fight for Access to Justice in India

The post CJP’s 2025 Hate Watch: leading the fight for accountability in the digital media appeared first on SabrangIndia.