Delivered within 24 hours of each other on November 4, 2025, these campaign speeches have been described by CJP as “a double assault on India’s constitutional morality and the sanctity of the electoral process.” One, by a sitting Chief Minister, communalises the campaign through religious vilification and genocidal language; the other, by a local candidate, turns political rivalry into a threat of physical mutilation.

The Siwan Rally: Himanta Biswa Sarma’s speech of hate and fear

At an election rally in Raghunathpur, Siwan, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma compared RJD candidate Osama Shahab to global terrorist Osama bin Laden, telling the audience that they must “eliminate all Osama Bin Ladens” from Bihar. Sarma further warned that a victory for Shahab would be “a defeat for Hindus,” promising to watch the results from the Kamakhya temple in Assam and invoking figures like Babur and Aurangzeb to frame the election as a Hindu versus Muslim battle.

His remarks — equating a Muslim candidate with terrorism, describing Muslims as “infiltrators” who threaten women, and boasting of stopping salaries of “mullahs” — were deemed by the complaint to be “state-sponsored demonisation” and “an incitement to exterminatory politics.” Delivered by a Chief Minister under the Model Code of Conduct, they constitute, according to the complaint, “a direct assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution.”

CJP’s complaint lays out an exhaustive legal analysis: violations of Sections 123(2), 123(3), 123(3A), and 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Sections 196, 297, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Through the complaint, it has been claimed that Sarma’s speech breaches the Ministerial Code of Conduct, since he holds constitutional office and bears heightened responsibility to maintain neutrality and restraint.

Describing the speech as “hate institutionalised as political strategy,” the complaint also notes that Sarma’s words collapse the constitutional boundary between religion and citizenship — constructing Muslims as infiltrators and enemies of the nation. CJP has demanded the registration of an FIR, Sarma’s debarment from further campaigning, and a public censure from the Election Commission.

The complaint may be read here.

The Kishanganj Rally: Tausif Alam’s threats of violence

On the same day, in Laucha Naya Haat, Kishanganj, AIMIM’s Tausif Alam took the campaign stage to retaliate against RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, who had earlier called AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi an “extremist.” In a shocking display of aggression, Alam told the crowd: “Tejashwi Yadav called our leader Owaisi an extremist. Tell him — I will cut his eyes, fingers, and tongue if he dares insult Owaisi Sahab again.”

He went further, mocking Tejashwi as the “son of a fodder thief,” an evident reference to his father, Lalu Prasad Yadav.

The complaint describes these remarks as “acts of open intimidation and violent abuse that degrade democratic discourse.” It cites violations of Sections 115, 326, 349, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 123(2), 123(4), and 125 of the RPA, 1951, and multiple provisions of the Model Code of Conduct.

The complaint further emphasises that this is not political hyperbole but a “direct threat of grievous bodily harm” designed to intimidate a rival candidate and vitiate the atmosphere of free choice. CJP has called for an FIR against Alam, his temporary debarment from campaigning, and a public censure to reaffirm that threats of violence have no place in electoral politics.

The complaint may be read here.

A Pattern of Electoral Decay: Hate as common ground

Though ideologically opposite, the two speeches share a disturbing symmetry. Both substitute argument with aggression, civic discourse with communal or personal hostility. In Siwan, hate was religiously coded — against Muslims, invoking “infiltrators” and “Osamas.” In Kishanganj, hate was personally targeted — against a rival, invoking mutilation and humiliation.

CJP’s complaints thus expose a broader crisis: the normalisation of hate and violence in electioneering. Both incidents, as highlighted in the complaint, have the potential to trigger communal tension and retaliatory violence in Bihar’s politically sensitive districts. The Election Commission’s inaction, it argues, would erode not just the Model Code of Conduct but the very credibility of free and fair elections.

The complaints legal framing situates these speeches within the broader constitutional architecture of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25, and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) and Ziyauddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Mehra (1975), which define religious appeals and hate speech as “corrupt practices” that vitiate elections.

A call for restoring democratic dignity

Together, these complaints articulate an urgent appeal — that India’s electoral arena must not be reduced to a theatre of hate, threat, or intimidation. When political speech turns into a weapon — whether through communal vilification or violent menace — it corrodes the very spirit of democratic civility and constitutional equality. Electoral politics draws its legitimacy from civility, equality, and reasoned dissent — not from the language of fear or vengeance. The complaint reminds the Election Commission and the public alike that elections are not merely contests for power but tests of the Republic’s moral fibre.

Related:

From ‘Tauba Tauba’ to ‘Expel the Ghuspaithiya’: The language of exclusion in Bihar’s election season

BJP leaders’ hate speech draws backlash ahead of Bihar elections

CJP urges YouTube to remove content targeting CJI Gavai from Ajeet Bharti’s channel

The post CJP seeks action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam for election code violations in Bihar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioner Masoom Raza, practicing advocate in Bihar, told the Sabrang India that the scheme as an “arbitrary sanction and timed execution” of a 2,500 Crore fund aimed at 25 lakh women beneficiaries. The petitioner further said that this action is not a “legitimate welfare measure” but a “calculated exercise in electoral inducement” designed to “destroy the ‘level playing field'” for the election.

The petition names the State of Bihar, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar, the Department of Rural Development, and the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (JEEVIKA) as respondents.

What is the scheme and why is it being challenged?

The PIL provides a detailed timeline to support its claims. The MMRY scheme was given Cabinet approval on August 29, 2025, to provide a non-refundable grant of 10,000 rupees to one woman per family for self-employment.

The petitioner’s challenge focuses on the timing of the implementation:

September 20, 2025 – The Rural Development Department (RDD) issued a letter confirming a “high-profile online launch” for the first instalment transfer, scheduled for September 26, 2025, with the presence of the Hon’ble Prime Minister and Chief Minister.

September 29, 2025 – JEEVIKA issued an office order scheduling a “single, massive Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) of 2500 Crore” to 25 lakh beneficiaries on October 3, 2025.

October 6, 2025 – The Election Commission of India announced the schedule for the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025, bringing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) into “immediate effect”. The MCC, Part VII, Clause (v), prohibits ministers and authorities from sanctioning “grants/payments out of discretionary funds” after elections are announced.

The petition alleges that despite the MCC coming into force on October 6, the state continued to execute the disbursement in a “staggered manner”. The PIL cites a Direct Benefit Transfer timeline, showing that post-MCC fund transfers were initiated on October 17, October 24, and October 31, 2025.

The petition argues this demonstrates a mala fide decision to ensure the financial grant operates as an inducement during the polling phases. It also notes that the same timeline indicates a further disbursement is scheduled for November 7, 2025, necessitating “urgent judicial intervention”.

What are the specific allegations of wrongdoing?

Beyond the timing, the petition also raises serious questions about the scheme’s implementation, alleging it was procedurally flawed and led to corruption.

The PIL argues that the scheme’s guidelines improperly delegate the core executive function of ground-level beneficiary verification to “non-governmental” and “non-statutory” functionaries known as “Community Mobilisers (CMs)”. The petition claims this delegation is arbitrary and ultra vires (an act done without legal authority), creating a fundamental flaw in the scheme’s governance.

This hurried and unchecked process, the petition alleges, has resulted in “widespread illegality and mismanagement,” including demands for bribes for application verification. The petition includes multiple news reports as evidence.

These news reports allege that irregularities and extortion demands have marred the implementation of the scheme across several districts. In Bettiah, four employees were dismissed following complaints of “illegal recovery.” In Jamui’s Chakai block, a “Jeevika Didi” (Community Mobiliser) allegedly demanded 250 rupees to process a form, while in Barhat, similar allegations surfaced of demands ranging from 100 rupees for a form to 2,000 rupees from the 10,000 rupees grant, with an audio clip of a CM allegedly seeking money reportedly going viral.

In Beldaur, women from multiple Self-Help Groups in Sukhaybasa village claimed they were denied benefits after refusing to pay a “nazarana” (offering or bribe) of 1,000 rupees per member to a Jeevika employee.

Prevent the misuse of “money of the taxpayers” and protect the “sacrosanct fundamental right of fair election

The petitioner, states that he has no “personal interest” in the case and is acting in the public interest to prevent the misuse of “money of the taxpayers” and protect the “sacrosanct fundamental right of fair election”.

The PIL prayed High Court to issue several directions:

1. Stop further payments: an order directing the State of Bihar, the RDD, and JEEVIKA to “immediately cease and desist” from all further fund disbursements under the MMRY scheme until the election process is concluded.
2. Enforce the MCC: a direction for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take “prompt, decisive, and mandatory action” against the state for the “egregious breach” of the Model Code of Conduct. The PIL also notes the ECI’s alleged “failure to act” on a formal complaint filed by RJD Leader Shri Manoj Jha on October 31, 2025.
3. Investigate corruption: an order to constitute an “Independent Fact-Finding Committee” to inquire into the scheme’s verification process, the delegation of authority to CMs, and the “widespread allegations of illegal demands, corruption, and bribery”.
4. Demand records: a direction for the state to file a “detailed Compliance Affidavit” providing all original administrative records, including a complete list of beneficiaries sanctioned before the MCC was enforced (October 6, 2025) and a separate list of all beneficiaries who received payments after that date.

Related:

Supreme Court of India – Judgement on Vishakha (PIL) to enforce the fundamental rights of working women

Those in India must act as per its culture: Supreme Court on PIL against religious conversion

Judicial Pushback against Cow Vigilantism: Allahabad HC flags arbitrary FIRs, demands accountability from top officials

The post PIL filed in the Patna High Court, claims the MMR Yojana was used to influence voters by making payments after the MCC was in effect appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint, addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer (Telangana), the Director General of Police (Telangana), and the Chief Election Commissioner, details how Kumar used the BJP’s roadshow at Borabanda Crossroads, Jubilee Hills, to launch a series of public remarks that demeaned Islamic religious practices while glorifying Hindu identity as a test of authenticity and courage.

Among his most inflammatory statements were:

“If a day comes when I must wear a skull cap for votes, I’d rather cut off my head.”

“I’m an unapologetic Hindu — I won’t insult other faiths by faking a namaz.”

He further mocked Chief Minister Revanth Reddy and a Congress candidate for wearing skull caps, questioning their sincerity and daring them to “prove their Hindu courage” by visiting temples with Muslim leaders.

CJP’s complaint deemed these remarks to be “a textbook example of hate speech” and a direct violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Religious mockery as political appeal

According to the complaint, Kumar’s statements do not merely express religious pride — they constitute a deliberate and divisive appeal to religion for electoral gain. By contrasting “unapologetic Hindu authenticity” with “fake Muslim gestures,” the speech urges voters to make electoral choices based on religious identity rather than policy or performance.

CJP has alleged violations under:

• Section 123(3) (appeal on religious grounds) and Section 123(3A) (promotion of enmity) of the RPA,
• Section 125 (offence of promoting enmity between classes in elections),
• and Sections 196, 297, and 356 of the BNS, which criminalise promoting enmity, public mischief, and deliberate insult to religion.

The complaint notes that these remarks, made at a public, recorded, and widely disseminated campaign event, fall squarely within the ambit of hate speech and constitute both a criminal offence and an electoral malpractice.

Erosion of Constitutional values

CJP’s complaint situates the incident within the constitutional mandate of secularism and equality, citing Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It argues that by mocking the skull cap and namaz, Kumar has not only insulted the religious sentiments of a community but has also degraded the dignity of Muslim citizens, violating their rights to equality, dignity, and free profession of religion.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), CJP reminds the ECI that “religion cannot be used to influence the choice of voters — even indirectly.” Kumar’s remarks, it states, are not “expressions of faith” but “acts of public provocation designed to divide voters and delegitimise inclusivity.”

Impact on the electoral climate

The Jubilee Hills constituency, home to a diverse and interfaith electorate, has already witnessed heightened polarisation. CJP provides that Kumar’s remarks risk inflaming communal sentiments, intimidating minority voters, and damaging the fairness and integrity of the election.

The complaint further asserts that the remarks have the potential to chill interfaith coexistence by equating expressions of respect (like wearing a skull cap) with betrayal, while valorising exclusivist religious assertion as political bravery.

CJP’s demands

CJP has urged the Election Commission and state authorities to act swiftly and decisively:

1. Take cognisance of the video evidence of the Jubilee Hills roadshow and register an FIR under relevant provisions of the RPA and BNS.
2. Debar Bandi Sanjay Kumar from further campaigning pending inquiry.
3. Issue a public censure to the BJP and all political parties to refrain from religiously provocative campaigning.
4. Forward the complaint to the ECI for further constitutional action under Article 324.

Reclaiming the secular spirit of elections

CJP emphasised the dangerous descent into hate-driven politics as dangerous by providing that when a political leader declares that wearing a skull cap merits decapitation and ridicules namaz as performance, it ceases to be political speech — it becomes humiliation, hate, and a constitutional offence. Through this complaint, CJP calls upon the Election Commission to reaffirm its constitutional duty to keep elections secular, equal, and dignified — ensuring that faith remains a matter of conscience, not a tool for votes.

The Complaint can be read here:

Related:

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

Two Hate-Filled Speeches, One Election: CJP complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Tausif Alam for spreading hate and fear in Bihar elections

From ‘Tauba Tauba’ to ‘Expel the Ghuspaithiya’: The language of exclusion in Bihar’s election season

CJP urges YouTube to remove content targeting CJI Gavai from Ajeet Bharti’s channel

The post From Campaign Trail to Communal Provocation: CJP files complaint against Bandi Sanjay Kumar for divisive campaigning in Hyderabad by-election appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The NACEJ has strongly condemned, what it terms as “the abject failure of the Government in systemically addressing the air pollution crisis and the brazen, arbitrary detention of peacefully protesting citizens, students, parents, environmentalists, workers and activists, who are courageously organizing against this public health catastrophe.” The Chief Minister (Rekha Gupta) owes a public apology to the protestors and the people of Delhi for the government’s failure, unjust detentions and use of police force against peaceful citizens. The NACEJ has called for withdrawal of cases registered, if any, against the protestors.

The indiscriminate action by authorities not only violates democratic rights, but also blatantly disregards the dire health emergency faced by millions in Delhi NCR, as air pollution soared to its highest levels in four years, especially following Diwali on October 21, 2025, as confirmed by official monitoring stations. In the backdrop of the severity of the issue, the short-sighted, politicised response of the government will only exacerbate the air pollution crisis further in Delhi NCR. 

The group has also demanded that the Delhi Government, the Union Government and all authorities must immediately, without delay or evasion, recognize the magnitude of this public health emergency and the legitimate outrage of the people of Delhi NCR, instead of treating it as a ‘law and order issue’ or a political blame game. This unchecked governance failure-fuelled has directly led to record-breaking pollution, with hazardous air choking the region and pushing public health to the brink.

Besides, the NACEJ has called all for urgent, transparent, and scientifically accountable actions; not repression and diversion, to protect the lives, rights, and dignity of every Delhi NCR resident. The Government needs to initiate year-round air pollution crisis management, built on long-term policy preparedness and a prioritization of public health and justice. It is high time for political and bureaucratic authorities to address the rightful angst of the people, setting aside political calculations and vested interests.

Despite years of crisis and public outcry, air pollution remains a severe and escalating public health hazard, with Delhi NCR and several other Indian cities suffering the world’s worst air quality. This crisis causes millions of preventable deaths and immense economic losses, while disproportionately impacting poor and marginalized communities, outdoor and informal workers, women, elders, children and those living in congested or industrial areas. Government actions have consistently excluded the most vulnerable, widening environmental injustice.

What is most alarming this year is that, despite clear evidence and expert warnings, the government prioritised appeasement-based political interests over scientific and public health advice, specifically legalizing the sale and use of so-called ‘green’ crackers for Diwali. This move led to rampant illicit use of fireworks, ignoring the Supreme Court’s limited hours order, leading to its weak implementation. The result was record-breaking PM2.5 levels and a dangerous spike in air pollution, with Delhi reporting levels as high as 675 µg/m³ (CPCB data) – the worst in four years.In parallel, non-compliance and apparent fudging of data such as the reported use of water sprinklers near AQI monitors to artificially lower recorded pollution further erode trust and delay meaningful action. The persistent blame games over stubble burning also do not address the reality, especially since, in 2025, its contribution to Delhi’s PM2.5 was notably lower than previous years. Year-round vehicle and industry emissions remain the primary drivers. Delhi’s pollution emergency demonstrates a deeper governance failure where populist politics has been allowed to overshadow public health and science-led environmental policy.

To genuinely address the roots of Delhi’s air pollution emergency, the following immediate and structural measures are essential:

• A time-bound, transparent policy and plan of action to reduce air toxicity and fixing answerability and accountability of all statutory authorities, as per law.

• Pro-active promotion and comprehensive upgrades to Delhi’s public transport as a clear alternative to odd-even private vehicle restrictions. Odd-even schemes are not novel and have demonstrated mixed results, while similar restrictions already exist as part of GRAP. What is urgently needed is a sharp pivot away from political optics and towards policies that truly discourage the daily use of private cars and SUVs by improving public transport and reducing road congestion through measures like congestion pricing.

• Differentiate between public transport modes: A renewed emphasis is needed on both bus and metro infrastructure, as well as the neglected surface rail network, which can provide cleaner, more inclusive mass transit, if upgraded and integrated into a unified transport system.

• Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes alongside metro enhancements, for high-frequency, accessible public bus services, rather than segregated bus lanes. Upgrading, expanding, and integrating these modes is essential for sharply reducing waiting times and increasing convenience for commuters.

• When calling for tackling vehicular pollution “at source,” new concrete measures are needed: leapfrogging to BS6 fuel and emission norms and promoting EVs are steps already taken. What is needed now is a rapid phase-out and strict control of all non-BS6 diesel vehicles in Delhi NCR, combined with the elimination of diesel fuel subsidies for non-commercial vehicles. Non-BS6 diesels remain a disproportionate source of PM2.5 and PM10 compared to petrol vehicles—despite diesel’s lower price, its use for private transport is now obsolete and counterproductive for clean air.

• Highlight the persistent neglect of Delhi’s extensive surface rail infrastructure. Investments and integration with bus and metro systems are urgently needed to maximize sustainable, mass transit and reduce the reliance on polluting road vehicles.

• Reference existing scientific source apportionment studies (IIT Kanpur 2023, etc.) that establish the root sources and their respective shares – vehicles, dust, construction, waste and industry, so that measures are not misdirected.

• A clearly statement that stubble burning is not a major year-round pollution source. Recent studies confirm its limited, seasonal contribution, while vehicle and industrial emissions remain chronic drivers of Delhi’s poor air quality. Victimising and vilifying farmers while subsidizing or ignoring much larger polluters like the automobile sector is unjust and must be stopped.

• A firmly implemented year-round ban on firecrackers and a credible transition plan for firework-industry workers. WTE incinerator plants, and all unchecked construction and waste burning, must be banned or relocated beyond residential and ecologically sensitive areas, given their toxic emissions. Scientific evidence fully rejects their ‘green’ branding while they continue to drive air toxicity and perpetuate health crises.

• Recognize innovations, but emphasize their futility when major pollution sources, notably ‘green’ WTEs and vehicular fleets, remain inadequately regulated and incentivized.

• Government must set up an effective and permanent mechanism for inputs from and dialogue with environmental, civil-society organizations and collectives.

• Government must release real-time, credible and accessible air-quality data and health advisories in different formats.

• Government must respond to peaceful protest calls with dialogue and not intimidation, threats, detentions and arrests of citizens and activists.

• People at large must reject any political or religious narrative that undermines or delays urgent public health actions in response to environmental emergencies.

In conclusion, the NACEJ has also called for a scientifically informed, health-centred, long-term air quality management framework for Delhi NCR and all Indian cities. This must feature enforceable bans on new WTE plants and place existing WTEs in the Red Category. Year-round prohibition on firecrackers, strict controls on construction and vehicular emissions (with a focus on outdated diesel vehicles), and a fundamental reorientation of urban, transport and industrial policy towards safeguarding public health are equally important. ‘Innovations’ and civil society efforts cannot succeed while major polluters remain unchecked and unaccountable, especially under the guise of ‘green’ solutions.

Addressing air pollution requires an integrated, inter-sectoral, institutional accountability approach rooted in public well-being and aligned with broader environmental, economic, and development goals. India’s future depends on putting public health, social and ecological justice and constitutional rights of all citizens at the very centre of all environmental and urban policymaking.

Signatories to the Statement: NACEJ Members: 

1. Alok Shukla, Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, Raipur
2. Apoorv Grover, People for Aravallis, New Delhi
3. Dr. Babu Rao, Scientists for People, Telangana
4. Chythenyen Devika Kulasekaran, Centre for Financial Accountability, Selam, Tamil Nadu
5. Disha A Ravi, Fridays for Future India
6. Dr. Gabriele Dietrich, Penn Urimay Iyakkam & NAPM, Madurai, Tamil Nadu
7. John Michael, NACEJ and NAPM Telangana
8. Krithika Dinesh, Legal researcher, NAJAR, Delhi
9. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan and NAPM, Madhya Pradesh
10. Meera Sanghamitra, NACEJ Telangana
11. Neelam Ahluwalia, Founder Member, People for Aravallis, Haryana
12. Nirmala Gowda, Mapping Malnad, Bengaluru
13. Prasad Chacko, Social Worker, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
14. Rajkumar Sinha, Bargi Bandh Visthapit Evam Prabhavit Sangh, Madhya Pradesh
15. Ramnarayan K, Natural History Educator and Independent Ecologist, Uttarakhand
16. Ravi S P, Chalakudypuzha Samrakshana Samithi, Kerala
17. Soumya Dutta, Movement for Advancing Understanding of Sustainability and Mutuality (MAUSAM) & NACEJ, New Delhi
18. Soutrik Goswami, Environmental Researcher and Activist, New Delhi
19. Stella James, Researcher and Independent consultant, Bengaluru, Karnataka
20. Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, NAPM & NACEJ (Pune, Maharashtra)
21. Sumit (For Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective, Himachal Pradesh)
22. Tarini, Independent Filmmaker, Delhi
23. Yash, Environmental Rights Activist, New Delhi

Related:

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

Indian Coal Giants Pushed for Lax Pollution Rules While Ramping Up Operations

Air pollution: Is Delhi heading towards “pollution control” lockdown?

The post Say No to ‘Toxic Governance’: Arrest air pollution, not activists and protesters: NACEJ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The act, discovered on the morning of Saturday, October 25, 2025, was immediately seen as a deliberate communal provocation. Given the charged atmosphere in the state over the “I Love Muhammad” slogan, which had led to widespread police crackdowns in other districts, the incident was treated with extreme seriousness. Local Hindu residents and right-wing organisations were incensed. A formal police complaint (FIR) was swiftly lodged by Gyanendra Singh Chauhan, the All-India Vice President of the Karni Sena.

Based on this complaint, Aligarh police initially registered a case against eight Muslim men from the locality. The men named in the FIR were Mustaqeem, Gul Mohammad, Sulaiman, Sonu, Allahbaksh, Hameed, and Yousuf. After the incident, heavy police forces were deployed to the villages to prevent any outbreak of violence as tensions soared.

However, as investigators, led by Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Neeraj Kumar Jadaun, began their work, they noticed inconsistencies. According to a report in The Times of India, the officers observed that the slogans were “misspelled, and all in the same way.” This misspelling was crucial. It did not match the stencilling or lettering style of the “I Love Muhammad” banners and posters that had been seen during protests and processions in other cities, such as Bareilly. This discrepancy led investigators to suspect “mischief” and the possibility of a different motive.

Police investigation

Police teams pivoted their investigation. Shifting from the assumption of a communal motive, they employed technical surveillance and began examining local disputes. Their work led them to a group of men from the Hindu community.

On October 30, SSP Neeraj Jadaun held a press briefing to announce the arrest of four men, Zeeshanth Singh (also reported as Jishant Kumar), Akash Saraswat (or Akash Kumar), Dilip Sharma (or Dilip Kumar), and Abhishek Saraswat. A fifth accused, identified as Rahul, was reported as absconding.

Aligarh: Abhishek Saraswat (s/o Virendra Sharma, Aakash (s/o Santosh Saraswat), Dileep Kumar (s/o Ramraj Sharma) & Zeeshanth Kumar (s/o Yashpal Singh) arrested by UP’s Aligarh police for allegedly writing “I love Mohammed” on temple walls to frame Muslim neighbours due to… pic.twitter.com/f7l9DHhxQA

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) October 30, 2025

The motive, police revealed, was not communal hatred. It was a calculated conspiracy born from a personal vendetta.

SSP Jadaun stated that the main accused, Jishant Singh, had a “personal dispute” with Mustakeem, one of the Muslim men who was initially named in the FIR. Media reports specified the conflict was related to a land-related rivalry. In a deliberate and malicious attempt to settle this score, Jishant Singh allegedly conspired with his friends to paint the inflammatory slogans on the temple walls. Their goal was to “falsely implicate” Mustakeem and his associates, leveraging the existing communal tensions surrounding the “I Love Muhammad” slogan to ensure their rivals were arrested and publicly disgraced.

“The investigation found that the graffiti was not a communal act but a deliberate attempt to implicate others due to a land-related rivalry,” SSP Jadaun said, as reported

The revelation was a profound shock to the local community. It demonstrated how easily personal conflicts could be masked as communal ones, with perpetrators willing to risk widespread violence to settle a score. Even before the arrests, some had suspected a setup.

On October 25, Samajwadi Party leader Zia Ur Rehman Barq had alleged that the graffiti was part of a “well-thought-out conspiracy” and stated, “If an impartial investigation is conducted, it will be clear that no Muslim person was involved in this act.”

#WATCH | Sambhal, UP: On Moradabad Madrasa asking for a virginity certificate from girls, SP MP Zia ur Rahman Barq says, “We also found out about this through social media. However, I still believe that it has not happened at any of our Madarsa or religious institutions where a… pic.twitter.com/0f3afPBxnJ

— ANI (@ANI) October 25, 2025

Following the arrests, SSP Jadaun confirmed that the case registered against the eight Muslim men would be withdrawn, and the four arrested men were booked under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for promoting enmity between groups and disturbing public peace.

Background: the “I Love Muhammad” campaign and state crackdown

The Aligarh incident did not happen in a vacuum. It was the volatile endpoint of a controversy that had been building for nearly two months, starting with a simple expression of faith.

The timeline begins on September 4, 2025, in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. As part of the celebrations for Eid Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of Prophet Muhammad, some young Muslim men in the Syed Nagar locality of Rawatpur put up a decorative light board at the entrance of a lane. It bore a simple message in English: “I Love Muhammad.”

As per a report in The Wire, this act drew objections from some local right-wing groups. They claimed the banner was a “new tradition” and alleged it was a “deliberate provocation” because it was placed on a public road near a gate also used for Hindu festival processions like Ram Navami.

On September 9, police in Kanpur registered an FIR against 24 people (nine named and 15 unidentified) for allegedly “disturbing communal harmony.” A local prayer leader, Shabnoor Alam, who was named in the FIR, told The Wire that police had asked him to help convince the crowd to move the board. Another accused, Mohammad Siraj, stated, “Last year, we displayed the same message on a cloth banner, and no one raised objections. This year, we used a light board, and suddenly people started protesting. I don’t understand why.”

The flashpoint: violence in Bareilly

The police action in Kanpur transformed the slogan from a festive decoration into a symbol of protest. In response to what they saw as the criminalisation of their faith and expressions, Muslim groups in other cities began displaying the slogan as an act of religious expression and defiance.

This set the stage for a major confrontation in Bareilly. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, a prominent local cleric and leader of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC), called for a large protest after Friday prayers on September 26, 2025. The protest was called to oppose the police crackdowns and alleged derogatory remarks made against the Prophet.

Despite authorities denying permission for a march, thousands gathered at the Islamia Ground. The situation quickly spiralled out of control. Clashes erupted between protesters and police. Reports from the ground described stone-pelting from the crowd and even alleged gunfire, which prompted a heavy lathi charge from security forces to disperse the gathering.

The aftermath was severe. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan and seven others were arrested and later sent to 14-day judicial custody. As many as ten FIRs were registered across Bareilly, each naming between 150 and 200 Muslims, with over 2,500 people accused in total. By late September, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a non-governmental organisation, had already documented at least 21 FIRs nationwide related to the campaign, with 1,324 Muslims named and 38 arrested. In Meerut, five men were arrested simply for putting up a poster with the slogan, as per a report in The New Indian Express.

The counter-campaign and political rhetoric

As the “I Love Muhammad” slogan became a national controversy, it triggered a counter-campaign from right-wing organisations. In Varanasi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Lok Sabha constituency, activists from a saffron outfit called the Sanatan Sena began pasting posters with the slogan “I love Mahadev” on walls, temples, and mutts.

Jagadguru Shankaracharya Narendrananda, who led the effort, told Deccan Herald that the “saint community will respond to the fundamentalists through these posters” and that some elements were “trying to foment communal tension” with the “I Love Muhammad” posters.

This “poster war” highlighted a sharp political and social divide. Political leaders like AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi and PDP President Mehbooba Mufti publicly questioned the discrepancy.

I LOVE MOHAMMAD ﷺ @adgzonekanpur ये जुर्म नहीं है। अगर है तो इसकी हर सज़ा मंज़ूर है।

तुम पर मैं लाख जान से क़ुर्बान या-रसूल
बर आएँ मेरे दिल के भी अरमान या-रसूल

क्यों दिल से मैं फ़िदा न करूँ जान या-रसूल
रहते हैं इस में आप के अरमान या-रसूल https://t.co/8kKWY22zHC

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) September 15, 2025

They asked why expressing “I Love Muhammad” was being met with FIRs, lathi charges, and arrests, while slogans like “I Love Mahadev” or “Jai Shree Ram” were seen as acceptable expressions of faith.

Jharkhand Minister Irfan Ansari remarked, “Just like people who believe in Sanatan Dharma, write ‘I love Ram’… and I don’t have any problem, I love Prophet Mohammed… I cannot understand how these three words can be the cause of arrests.”

#WATCH | Ranchi | Jharkhand Minister Irfan Ansari says, “Just like people who believe in Sanatan Dharma, write ‘I love Ram’, ‘I love Hanuman’, ‘I love Krishna’, ‘I love Sita’ or ‘I love Radha’, and I don’t have any problem, I love Prophet Mohammed and Islam as I belong to… pic.twitter.com/9s66IAMrnN

— ANI (@ANI) September 25, 2025

The controversy was further inflamed by the rhetoric of high-ranking officials. On September 28, 2025, in the wake of the Bareilly violence, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath made a series of widely reported public statements. Speaking at an event, he warned against “vandalism in the name of faith” and promised severe retribution.

“If you trouble us, we will not spare you,” he stated, using the Hindi phrase, “chedhoge to chodenge nahi.” He promised action that would be remembered by “future generations” and said that “denting and painting must be done.”

Civil rights groups and media critics argued that this language, which was amplified by national news channels, effectively framed the display of the “I Love Muhammad” slogan not as an issue of religious freedom, but as a severe law-and-order problem. This, they argued, legitimised the harsh police crackdowns across the state.

The Aligarh incident, therefore, serves as a crucial case study. It exposed the danger of a high-tension environment where a slogan had become so loaded with political and communal baggage that individuals felt they could weaponise it to settle a personal score, confident that the blame would fall along pre-existing fault lines. It was only through a police investigation that looked beyond the obvious communal narrative that the true, and more personal, conspiracy was brought to light.

Related:

From slogan to sanction: how a Chief Minister’s words hardened into punitive policing after the “I Love Muhammad” row

Free speech, even in bad taste, is protected if no incitement to violence: HP HC

Two Hate-Filled Speeches, One Election: CJP complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Tausif Alam for spreading hate and fear in Bihar elections

The post A Conspiracy of Hate: The Aligarh temple graffiti incident appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The matter might have ended at this stage requiring the respondents to file a counter affidavit. However, the matter cannot be treated to be so simple inasmuch as this Court is deluged with such matters on the basis of First Information Reports being filed left and right by the authorities and complainants under the provisions of the Act, 1955. (Para 15)

In this case, officers intercepted the transportation of nine living and healthy progeny of cows within Uttar Pradesh. Even though a slaughter or transport across state lines was not in issue, the owner of the vehicle was charged under Section 3, Section 5A, and Section 8 of the 1955 Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

In determining that no offense had occurred, the Court ordered protection for the petitioner and went even further, directing the Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police to personally file affidavits explaining this misuse pattern. The bench also asked for an explanation as to why the State has not issued a formal Government Order (GR) to carry out the Supreme Court’s binding directions from the judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (July 2018) to prevent mob violence and cow vigilantism.

The Preventive Measures mandated by the apex court in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla  case have been encapsulated in this action-oriented pamphlet widely disseminated by Citizens for Justice and Peace that may be read here.

For over a decade, CJP has systematically documented and intervened against the abuse of the “cow protection” laws. Since 2017, CJP’s legal and advocacy teams have tracked the rise of mob vigilantism, along with its legal facilitators, all over India — fact-finding, litigation, and public education being the methods of doing this work. Investigations like India: The New Lynchdom (2018, CJP) and Cow Vigilantism: A Tool for Terrorising Minorities (2020, CJP) have mapped hundreds of instances where such laws have reportedly been used to sanction mob, extrajudicial violence, and have documented how the criminal justice system has been captured, even driven, by majoritarian agendas. Against this background, this becomes an important moment of judicial awareness of what CJP and other human rights defenders have been implementing for years.

It is important to note that this order is not limited to a single petitioner. It represents a judicial and legal recognition that the ongoing misuse of the 1955 Act occurs as part of a broader culture of impunity that encourages vigilantes, criminalizes livelihoods, and undermines the rule of law.

Statutory Background of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955

The 1955 Act was made to ban the killing of cows and their offspring and to control the transport of cows, all for the purpose of implementing Article 48 of the Constitution. The Act defines three regular aspects, where slaughter is banned under Section 3, transport within U.P. out-of-state is restricted under Section 5A, and punishment of three to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹3–5 lakh is introduced under Section 8 for violations. Section 2(d) defines “slaughter” as “killing by any method whatsoever, and includes maiming and inflicting physical injury which in the ordinary course will cause death.” This definition shows that there must be some form of harm that would ultimately lead to death.

The Court emphasised that this requirement is routinely overlooked. It quoted Kaliya v. State of U.P. (2024 126 ACC 61), in which the Allahabad High Court cautioned that the conveyance of cows or calves in Uttar Pradesh does not invoke Section 5A since it only prohibits transport outside of that state. It also relied on the case of Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz (AIR 1962 All 22), a 1962 decision from the Allahabad High Court, which held that there is a difference between mere preparation and an attempt to slaughter. Preparation does not constitute an offence under the Act if the cow is tied up, for example. By citing Parasram Ji, the Bench emphasized that there was more than sixty years of settled law that the police were ignoring.

In this case, where slaughter, maiming, or interstate transportation was not charged, none of the violations applied. The judgment reminded us again of the Court’s own earlier warnings. In Rahmuddin v. State of U.P.(Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. – 34008 of 2020), the Court noted that the Act was being “misused against innocent persons” when it mentioned the meat was recovered, but often claimed all the meat to be cow meat without a laboratory test. In Jugadi Alias Nizamuddin v. State of U.P. (Criminal MISC Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 182 of 2023), bail was granted before an arrest, as only cow-dung and a rope were recovered, but it was branded a “glaring example of misuse of penal law.” These rulings serve the greater purpose of demonstrating the number of mechanical FIRs that are being registered, even before investigation, and the abuse and incarceration that innocent people continue to experience.

Ambiguous legal provisions and ineffective procedural safeguards enable police overreach and selective police power against certain communities, mostly Muslims and Dalits. Consequently, the findings of the Allahabad High Court lend judicial authority to what human-rights defenders have been calling, for a long time, a systematic abuse of “cow-protection” laws.

This detailed legal explainer prepared by CJP in 2018 de-constructs how such laws have become a source of victimization.

The Court’s reasoning: From Casual FIRs to Vigilantism

After concluding that there was no offence made out, the Bench stated it was “deluged with such matters” resulting from indiscriminate First Information Reports (FIRs) under the 1955 Act (para 15). It directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP to show cause why the officers continue to lodge these FIRs in spite of the clear judicial precedent, in particular, the cases of Kaliya and Parasram Ji refer to cases in para 15. The Court required that the affidavits submitted by the officers included relevant affidavit material as to the taking of proposed disciplinary action by the State against the complainants and police personnel for making unwarranted FIRs, and if not, the Court required explanation for why the State did not issue a formal “Government Order” to legally preclude any such future FIRs, which served, in proportion, to undue disadvantage of cost in furthering the FIR towards frivolous case of prosecution.

In a serious observation, the Bench did not merely engage in procedural fault-finding; it also uncovered a more pervasive social consequence:

Yet another connected aspect of the matter under the garb of the Act, 1955 is vigilantism which is being practiced by various persons. Why we say this is because a few days back, a Bench of this Court was seized of a matter in which the car of the person was stopped by vigilantes and thereafter, it was not traceable. (See- Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9152 of 2025 Inre; Bablu Vs. State of U.P and Ors). In the said writ, instructions have been called for by the Court. Violence, lynching and vigilantism is the order of the day. (Para 30).

The Court relied on Bablu v. State of U.P. (W.P. No. 9152 of 2025), where vigilantes encircled a vehicle, which later went missing, to illustrate how misuse of the statute invites disorder. Moreover, it established the illustration of occurrence within the wider phenomenon of “mob violence” by linking directly with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India that “vigilantism cannot, by any consideration, be allowed to take shape… it ushers in anarchy, chaos and disorder.”

National Legal Framework: The Tehseen S. Poonawalla Mandate

In the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court remarked on the very real and concerning increase in lynchings and violence related to cows. The Court, speaking through Chief Justice Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, and D.Y. Chandrachud, found that lynching was “a failing of the rule of law and of the lofty ideals of the Constitution itself.” The Court noted that State agencies have the “primary responsibility” to protect against cow-vigilantism or any type of mob violence.

In paragraph 40 of the judgement, the Supreme Court gave a thorough set of preventative, remedial, and punitive directions: every district must appoint a nodal police officer (not below the rank of Superintendent) for oversight for prevention of mob violence; identify sensitive areas; establish fast-track courts for lynching cases; develop compensatory schemes for victims under Section 357A of the CrPC; and identify negligent officials and hold them accountable.

Despite these unequivocal mandates, however, the Allahabad High Court found that Uttar Pradesh had taken no action to meaningfully operationalise the Supreme Court directions. It found that a circular issued by the DGP on 26 July 2018 could not substitute for a Government Order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, as such an order would reflect Government policy. The Bench thus required an explanation for the non-compliance and required affidavits showing compliance, on the basis that the lack of the Government Order undermined the prevention and punishment framework contemplated by the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding these clear directions, the Allahabad High Court noticed that Uttar Pradesh had taken no decisive steps toward operationalizing the guidelines. Its finding was that a circular issued by the DGP on 26 July 2018 was not an adequate alternative to a Government Order issued pursuant to Article 162 of the Constitution. Only a Government Order could adequately reflect the policy of the Government. The Bench mandated a rationale of non-compliance and required affidavits evidencing compliance, noting that, absent an order from the Government, the preventive and punitive framework envisaged by the Supreme Court simply could not be accomplished.

Constitutional Implications: Articles 14, 19, and 21

The aggressive and arbitrary usage of the 1955 Act violates the equality, liberty, and due-process guarantees of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, and this equality is violated when FIRs are lodged with no basis in fact or when officers exercise their discretion to target only particular communities. The equal protection principle is breached when FIRs are lodged “left and right” (para 15) when there are no fundamental elements of an offence. Therefore, non-arbitrariness, which is at the heart of Article 14, is violated.

Article 19 protects against arbitrary seizure of vehicles or criminalizing intra-State cattle transport, colloquially known as the “anti-cow slaughter provisions,” which interfere with unreasonable restrictions on the lawful trade, profession, and movement of citizens. Kaliya v. State of U.P. explicitly clarified that intra-State transport is not an offence. It is clear how restrictions on engaging in an occupation, profession, or trade when they are established directly restrict citizens’ economic liberty.

Under Article 21, the arbitrary actions are a further deprivation of liberty and dignity without due process of law. In Rahmuddin, the Court noted that accused persons languish in prison because meat samples are rarely sent for analysis and dispose of the need for due process. The combination of legal negligence and social malice undermines the conception of equal citizenship and uses the protection of cows as an excuse to persecute people. The High Court, accepting that using the 1955 Act has “wasted precious judicial time” (para 41) and that citizens should not have to “spend valuable money and time” to seek relief, demonstrates that this violation is both an individualized violation and a burden on the judiciary.

As CJP’s analyses have frequently stated, police impunity and informally inflicted violence contribute to the sense that “there are two sets of citizens: one protected by the law and the other punished by law.”

The judgment’s call for the most senior officials to be held individually accountable brings back an important idea behind constitutional governance: that executive negligence in the enforcement of the fundamental rights of every citizen cannot be excused by the silence of an institution. When the authorities of the State ignore orders made by the Supreme Court and allow vigilantes to act, the authorities of the State cease to execute their constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.

Misuse, Vigilantism, and the Rule of Law

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Rahul Yadav exposes that the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has transitioned from a regulatory instrument to a tool for arbitrary prosecution. The Court explicitly points out that “under the garb of the Act is vigilantism,” giving judicial voice to what human-rights reporting has documented for some time—that the selective enforcement of cow-protection laws legitimizes mob violence to the detriment of threatened communities.

In reports like Divide and Rule in the Name of the Cow, CJP documents how false charges of cow slaughter/transport have been aimed at Muslims and Dalits. Sabrang’s investigations show that even after Tehseen Poonawalla, most States have not yet implemented mandatory measures as required, such as putting in place effective nodal officers or monitoring hate crimes regularly. This collection of ground reports gives both the socio-legal context to what the High Court has now acknowledged formally: the misuse of the 1955 Act has become institutionalized.

The Bench’s instruction that the Principal Secretary (Home) and DGP provide personal affidavits marks a moment when the judiciary will demand institutional accountability, not just individual relief. Whether this results in real change will depend on what the State does, if it finally issues the long-overdue Government Order required by Tehseen S. Poonawalla and takes corrective action with respect to the errant officials.

The abuse of the 1955 Act, therefore, remains a legal and moral paradox—a law intended to protect life but used under circumstances that inhibit liberty, equality, and the viability of constitutional democracy.

The judgment in Rahul Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh can be read here

The judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India can be read here

The judgment in Kaliya v. State of U.P. can be read here

The judgment in Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz, can be read here

The judgment in Rahmuddin v. State of U.P. can be read here

The judgment in Jugadi Alias Nizamuddin v. State of U.P can be read here

The judgment in Bablu v. State of U.P. can be read here

Related:

Cow Vigilantism: The primary cause of persecution of Muslim minority in India

India: The new Lynchdom

Right wing groups indoctrinate Hindu youth to wield Trishuls to protect religion, cows

Cow vigilantism, a tool for terrorising minorities?

SC urged to formulate guidelines to curb Cow Vigilantism

Cow Slaughter Prevention Laws in India

Divide and Rule in the Name of the Cow

28 States and UTs have appointed nodal officers to curb hate speech in compliance with 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla verdict :Union Home Ministry to Supreme Court

“Vigilantism is not permissible, needs to be checked”: SC, following up Tehseen Poonawalla case

Several steps forward but miles to go in the battle for a hate-free India: Supreme Court in 2023

The post Judicial Pushback against Cow Vigilantism: Allahabad HC flags arbitrary FIRs, demands accountability from top officials appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over 35 locations witnessed coordinated demonstrations led by the Bombay Catholic Sabha (BCS) — one of the largest lay organisations representing Catholics in Maharashtra. The participants gathered outside churches carrying placards reading “My Faith, My Right” and “Don’t Criminalise Compassion”, expressing alarm that the proposed Bill—while claiming to curb “forced” conversions—could, in effect, criminalise voluntary expressions of faith, humanitarian work, and social service. The BCS is one of the largest organisations of the Catholic laity representing as many as 68,000 believers.

‘A Violation of Article 25’: The constitutional concern

As per the press note released by BCS, protestors underscored that the Bill represents a direct affront to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion.”

BCS spokesperson Dolphy D’Souza stated that the law’s vague and sweeping provisions could “interfere with an individual’s personal choice of faith” and “open the door for surveillance, policing, or discrimination against religious minorities.” D’Souza described the Bill as “a misnomer — there is no freedom in the so-called Freedom of Religion Bill,” adding that it risks chilling constitutional rights by blurring the line between legitimate religious activity and alleged conversion.

Newly elected President, BCS, Norbert Mendonca, stated to Sabrangindia,” We organised this this peaceful protest to affirm our commitment to constitutional values, religious freedom and  liberty, and communal harmony, and to appeal to the Government of Maharashtra to withdraw any move that infringes upon these rights.”

‘Every act of compassion could be misinterpreted’

From the people present at the protest, unifying fear emerged: that ordinary acts of kindness, charity, or social work could be weaponised as evidence of ‘inducement’ or ‘allurement’.

According to the BCS press note, the proposed Bill “threatens to criminalise compassion,” warning that “every act of kindness could be misinterpreted or maliciously portrayed as an attempt at conversion.”

This sentiment reverberated through the protest at St Michael’s Church, Mahim, one of the major protest sites, where BCS members explained that schools, hospitals, and welfare institutions run by Christian organisations serve people of all faiths. “Our work is motivated by faith and humanitarian concern — not conversion,” said one participant. “But under this Bill, even that service could be labelled inducement.”

‘Misuse and Targeting’: A familiar pattern

While the text of Maharashtra’s Bill has not yet been made public, Global Bihari noted that BCS apprehensions are informed by experiences in other states where similar “Freedom of Religion” laws have been introduced — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Uttarakhand.

In Uttar Pradesh, the 2021 Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has led to multiple FIRs and arrests. In May 2024, the Supreme Court observed that several provisions “may seem to be violative of Article 25,” staying further proceedings in certain FIRs. In Madhya Pradesh, the High Court in November 2022 declared Section 10 of its Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 — which required prior declaration before conversion — prima facie unconstitutional, with the Supreme Court refusing to stay that order in 2023.

Community Voices: Between fear and faith

The protests were marked not by confrontation but by prayer, song, and civic solidarity. At Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Goregaon (West), Free Press Journal reported that even non-Christian citizens joined the demonstration. Among them were civic and human rights activist Prof. Arvind Nigale, Gandhian Jayant Diwan, Rashtra Seva Dal convenor Umesh Kadam, environmental activist Mannan Desai, and Abu Shaikh from Jamaat-e-Islami, Goregaon — underscoring a rare show of interfaith unity.

In Mahim, Mid-Day report captured the mood poignantly: “This is not about aggression but awareness,” said Vinod Noronha of BCS. “Many people still do not know what this Bill is about. Our protest is to awaken civic consciousness, not to divide.”

Former BCS president Rita D’Sa added, “We would have actually liked to see inter-faith dialogue and goodwill. Instead, this Bill creates suspicion.”

‘A political diversion from real issues’

Beyond religious freedom, protestors questioned the political intent behind the legislation. As per the press note, it was provided that “While the stated aim of the Bill is to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions  experiences from other states suggests such laws in practice, could be used to harass faith-based groups, charitable institutions, or individuals who are simply practising their faith, especially in minority communities.”

It was further provided that such laws can be used selectively to harass minority groups, mirroring patterns seen elsewhere. “If the intent was merely to stop coercion, there would be no need for a new law. We already have adequate provisions in the Penal Code to deal with force or fraud.”

A retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Joe Gaikwad, summed up the mood with quiet defiance while speaking to Mid-day: “If there was any conversion, it was from hate to love, from sinfulness to salvation. This is a peaceful community.”

‘Faith Does Not Require Permission’

As the gatherings drew to a close, participants joined in hymns and prayers. D’Souza’s concluding invocation, as quoted by Mid-Day, resonated across the crowd: “We pray, Lord, in your wisdom that you enlighten the minds of our leaders. Be with us in this moment of anxiety and grief. Let there be peace on earth.”

But this was no end — merely a beginning. The BCS announced a continuing campaign, with the next awareness event scheduled for November 16 at I.C. Colony, Borivali, as reported by all three outlets.

In its official press note, the BCS stated: “Our efforts will continue. The very title of the Bill is misleading — it is not a ‘Freedom of Religion’ law but a means to harass minorities. We will network with other religious communities and citizens of goodwill to defend the constitutional right to freedom of conscience.”

A broader warning

Beyond the Catholic community, the protest has become a bellwether for civil liberties in Maharashtra. Citizens for Justice and Peace, the lead on the case challenging various State anti-Conversion laws that remains pending before the Supreme Court, has warned that anti-conversion laws — though couched in the language of protection — often rely on vague and subjective terms such as “inducement,” “allurement,” and “coercion,” which invite misuse and threaten the presumption of personal autonomy. If enacted in its current form, the organisation fears that Maharashtra’s proposed law may replicate the chilling effects seen in northern states — discouraging interfaith marriages, constraining charitable activity, and empowering local authorities to surveil minority groups.

For the citizens gathered outside churches that Sunday, the message was clear: Faith is not a crime, compassion is not a threat, and constitutional freedom is not negotiable.

Related:

Guarding culture or policing faith? Chhattisgarh High Court’s ‘social menace’ observation and the future of Article 25

Allahabad High Court directs UP Police to ensure safe return of inter-faith to their desired destination

From Victim to Accused: High Court of Gujarat’s 2025 Ruling on Religious Conversion

SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner

Inter-Community clashes erupt at Dehradun railway station after interfaith couple meets

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post ‘Faith Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai’s Christians rise against Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is evidence that the Government is now going ahead full steam to pander to the advancement of these corridors, which have no demonstrated benefit to people at large, whether in Goa or in Karnataka. For a small state like Goa to have to lose its resources and become a ‘corridor’ towards the Corridor, spells complete disaster. Its air, waters, its rivers, its agriculture, its fishing and fish-drying spaces, its forests, its peoples’ health and livelihoods, are all under threat from coal dust and infrastructure being set up to make coal transportation through the port, roads, railways and waterways of Goa possible.   

The NAPM has also condemned the questionable legal architecture systematically introduced to facilitate these plans that enable corporate expansionism, even as existing laws and regulations around environmental protection, social impacts, land acquisition and rehabilitation are being violated.

In a statement issued yesterday, the NAPM has also joined the active people’s movements of Goa and Karnataka in resisting the reduction of the region to a coal transportation and corridors hub, and in their struggles to safeguard the ecology, livelihoods and people’s well-being, for current and future generations.

Goans have been demanding the de-notification of the rivers of Goa, which have been declared as National Waterways under the National Waterways Act, 2016. Similarly protesters have been demanding stoppage of the railway double-tracking project and return of lands acquired through draconian legislation.

NAPM further calls for an immediate halt to port expansion, by respecting the will of the people as even articulated in the public hearings in Mormugao taluka.

The people of Goa held a Chalo Lohia Maidan mass protest on Sunday November 9 in Goa.

Related:

NAPM condemns Delhi authorities for deserting over 700 Dhobi Ghat residents

NAPM condemns Delhi authorities for deserting over 700 Dhobi Ghat residents

The post Solidarity with protests of locals against projects facilitating coal transportation (Goa to Karnataka): NAPM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Free Speech Collective

With Bihar in the midst of Vidhan Sabha elections, 2025, this media tracker exposes the illusion of free speech and independent journalism in the state. The last five years have been marked with assaults on journalists, with six killings and eleven instances of attacks. The general climate for free speech has also been affected by detention and arrest of journalists and threats to editors of prominent dailies, coupled with defamation and censorship of social media posts.

(Visit the Free Speech Tracker or scroll to the end for more details.)

By 2015, when Nitish Kumar was re-elected as Chief Minister, several independent journalists began using social media platforms to publish stories, and alongside began facing reprisal. By 2020, when the Nitish Kumar government was re-elected as part of the JDU-led NDA along with the Bharatiya Janata Party, repression on the media continued unabated, this time targeting social media.

Bihar struggles with low socio-economic indicators. It consistently throws up high unemployment rates and there is an abject lack of facilities for health and education. In the NITI Aayog 2019-20 State Health Index, Bihar was ranked 18th out of 19 large states. In March 2025, Niti Aayog’s Macro and Fiscal Landscape of the State of Bihar said that the sex ratio is lower than the national average. Low literacy levels and low per capita income and high unemployment, forces lakhs of youth to migrate every year. With little or no industries, agriculture is a mainstay and government employment is a desperate struggle for thousands of youth. In NITI Aayog’s SDG India Index of 2023-24, Bihar was adjudged the worst performer in terms of social, economic and environmental parameters.

The large-scale deletion of voters in Bihar in the run up to the Assembly election, ostensibly to revise the electoral rolls, is bound to have an impact on the polls. But the slow erasure of an independent media that can question and hold its government accountable can only further weaken the foundations of a democracy.

Details of Free Speech Violations in Bihar, November ’20-’25:

Read FSC’s special features:

Wanted: A Responsible Media in Bihar, by Kiran Shaheen.

Criminalisation of politics in Bihar, by C P Jha.

Related:

From Welfare to Expulsion: Bihar’s MCC period rhetoric turns citizenship into a campaign weapon

Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire

Caste and Indifference: Two separate incidents of rape against minor Dalit girls in UP and Bihar receive no media coverage, protest or outrage

The post Bihar & the Delusion of Independent Journalism: A Free Speech Record of Five Years appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Announcing this, senior High Court advocate Anand Yagnik, who heads the Gujarat chapter of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), said that a committee has already been formed to examine the pros and cons of SIR. “While the SIR exercise began in Gujarat on November 4 and is scheduled to continue for a month, we will file a supporting petition in the case against SIR in the Gujarat High Court or the Supreme Court after observing how it proceeds in the state,” he said.

Yagnik’s announcement followed senior advocate Shahrukh Alam—who is arguing the SIR case in the Supreme Court—urging Gujarat’s civil society to also file a petition. She said there was an urgent need to create public awareness and build pressure against SIR, especially in the apex court, and that this could only be achieved if petitions were filed from different states.

Supporting the view of Gujarat activists that SIR is an exercise aimed at excluding marginalized sections from the electoral rolls, Alam said that the SIR, which began ahead of the Bihar elections despite a revision having already taken place in January, should be seen against the backdrop of an overall attack on democracy, freedom of speech, and the Constitution itself. However, she regretted that the political class remains “largely indifferent” to what is happening.

According to Alam, “We must remember that the space for free speech is shrinking—universities are cancelling lectures and refusing discussions. The state is seeking to decide everything: what to wear, what to eat, whom to marry. Exercises like the UCC, NRC, and actions around Waqf are all about the state deciding your identity. Today, state endorsement has become essential for everything. We are living as if in an open jail.”

Continuing, Alam said that in the same vein, it is now the state that seeks to decide whether one is a voter or not. “Civil society must take up the larger issues around SIR. Voting is based on the universal adult franchise, and it has always been the state’s job to ensure that no eligible citizen is left out. But now, the burden is being shifted—citizens are being asked to prove they are voters by submitting citizenship documents. The state is abdicating its responsibility,” she said.

Alam questioned why the ECI spent a huge amount of public money to revise the electoral rolls in Bihar in January, only to begin another “intensive revision” within six months, allegedly to “purify” the rolls. “Who is accountable for this waste of public funds? The ECI has not been questioned on this,” she emphasized.

On the legal front, Alam noted that while the ECI has the right to create electoral rolls, problems arise when it makes it mandatory for individuals to prove citizenship to qualify as voters. The ECI claims it will verify this on the basis of 11 documents, excluding Aadhaar and ration cards. “The ECI cannot act arbitrarily,” Alam asserted. “The Representation of the People Act merely requests citizens to assist in creating complete electoral lists. For 70 years, teachers went door-to-door recording names without asking for documents. Now, the onus has been reversed—each resident must prove citizenship.”

Countering the ECI’s initial claim that SIR aimed to remove “infiltrators,” Alam said, “Only three infiltrators were found.” When challenged, the ECI changed its justification, saying it was to “remove dead people” from the rolls. “But even that proved flawed—instances of deceased individuals remaining on the lists continued. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the case, even though Aadhaar has now been allowed,” she added.

Addressing the meeting, Sarfarazuddin of PUCL Bihar, who played a key role in opposing the ECI, called the exercise “dangerous” and “without legal basis.” He said it began in Bihar on June 24, requiring individuals to verify that they were on the 2003 electoral list to remain eligible voters. “No rationale was given. The timing was deliberate—monsoon floods begin after June-end. Would people save their lives or their documents in such a situation?” he asked.

He explained that block-level officers (BLOs) distributed enumeration forms requiring verification from 2003. In the absence of that, 11 alternative documents were allowed—but Aadhaar and ration cards were excluded, while passports, school-leaving certificates, birth certificates, and residence proofs were accepted.

“This was designed to exclude marginalized communities,” he said. “The Manjhi community, for instance, has only about 10 percent literacy. How can they be expected to comply? Many people had to bribe officials to get documents, leading to rampant corruption.”

In an instance of how marginalized sections are being excluded, Sarfarazuddin said that an 86-year-old poor woman’s name was missing from the draft voter list, following which her widow pension was also stopped. “Women are likely to suffer the most because of SIR,” he warned. “The ECI requires parents’ proof as one of the 11 documents. How do poor married women cope with this?”

He recounted an incident in a Muslim locality where residents protested after their duly completed forms were rejected. “A schoolteacher acting as BLO called her superior and said, ‘You told us not to accept Muslims’ forms. People are protesting—what do I do?’ Embarrassed, the officer told her to accept all the forms,” he said.

Similar protests were reported elsewhere. Initially, 64 lakh voters were found excluded in the revised draft. Following protests and legal interventions in the Supreme Court, many were restored, but the case remains pending. “This will be a long, drawn-out battle,” said Sarfarazuddin. “The ECI knows it has erred, but it has made it a prestige issue.”

Mujahid Nafees, who heads the Minority Coordination Committee and is PUCL Gujarat’s general secretary, pointed out that thousands of houses of fisherfolk on Bet Dwarka were demolished, though residents had Aadhaar cards with those addresses. “No one knows what will happen to their voting rights now,” he said.

Another Gujarat activist, Pankti Jog of the Association for Democratic Reforms, questioned how the ECI plans to “purify” electoral rolls amid Gujarat’s large-scale internal migration. Economist Hemant Shah asked whether the ECI’s aim was to prepare a voters’ list or to assess citizenship.

Courtesy: Counter View

The post Gujarat civil society to move Supreme Court against controversial electoral roll revision appeared first on SabrangIndia.