In their detailed communication, they raise five crucial points:

1. Statements made by the Minister of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change himself which hold the implementation, such as it is, of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 responsible for degradation and loss of prime forest areas.
2. ⁠Continued submission of legally untenable data on encroachment of forest areas to Parliamentary forums as well to the National Green Tribunal.
3. ⁠Orders issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority in June 2024 for the eviction of almost 65,000 families from tiger reserves across the country.
4. ⁠The mis-attribution by the Forest Survey of India for the loss of forest cover over the last decade to the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
5. ⁠The 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 that were bulldozed through Parliament and the subsequent Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Rules, 2023 that adversely impact both the quantity and quality of forests.

All these issues are of critical significance especially to tribal and other communities residing and earning their livelihoods in forest areas. They are also of fundamental importance to ecological security. The track record of the present Modi Govt –now in its third term–does not inspire the confidence that these issues will even get discussed and debated with those who have been compelled to bring the PM’s attention to them.

Elaborating these, the letter states that the statement of the Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav dated June 5.2025, “is part of a consistent series of subversions by the MoEFCC. As a result, FRA implementation has been dragging on stiffly resisted and disrupted by the forest bureaucracy as well as the environment ministry, for the last 16 years.”

On June 5.2025, the Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav answering a question on loss of forest and its degradation in a recent media interview reportedly stated, “Although there is a net increase in dense forests in the country, there are areas where the dense prime forests have been affected with degradation. This may be due to encroachment, illicit felling and in northeast region, due to shifting cultivation. And to a lesser degree, due to unregulated grazing, natural causes like storms and landslides, and also titles given under Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. This may be addressed by taking up stringent protection measures added with effective community involvement, and also by regulating shifting cultivation in case of north-eastern region.”

The Minster’s response attributing the loss of forest to FRA titles given to Adivasi and forest dwellers has no legal basis and evidence, says the joint communication, and is “highly irresponsible and misleading.” Further the writers state that, tThe statement is contrary to the fact that the MoEFCC in 2009 itself, in its own country report to the FAO stated that FRA ‘assigned rights to protect around 40 million hectares of community forest resources to village level democratic institutions. The fine tuning of other forest-related legislations is needed with respect to the said Act.’ While blaming FRA, the Adivasi and other forest rights holders, the Minister conveniently overlooks the fact that the MoEFCC itself allowed the illegal diversion of more than 3 lakh hectares of forest since 2008 for non-forest activities denuding forests, without complying with FRA. This contradicts both the minister’s statement and the MoEFCC’s approach.

The rest of the communication is extracted here:

2.  MOEFCC continues to submit legally untenable data on encroachment in Parliamentary forums and the NGT

On March 28, 2025, the environment ministry submitted on affidavit to National Green Tribunal (NGT) that 1.3 million hectares (13,05,688.387 ha or 13,056 sq. km) of forest land is ‘under encroachment’ as of March 2024. This affidavit was filed in compliance to the NGT order of April 19, 2024, in OA No.129/2024, and covers data from 20 states and 5 Union Territories (UTs); data from remaining states and UTs was awaited. Of this, at least 50,977.99 ha of “encroachments” have been allegedly removed. The aforementioned case registered suo moto by NGT in reference to a Deccan Herald news item of 05.01.2024, titled Forest land five times Delhi’s geographical area under encroachment govt data shows referred to 0.75 million hectares (7,50,633 ha) forest area under ‘encroachment’.

The MoEFCC has been repeatedly reporting such false data on ‘encroachment’ in both the houses of the Parliament too. In May 2002, the figure stood at 1.4 million hectares (14,95,746.732 ha). A decade later in 2021, the figure was 1.3 million (13,29,450.2 ha).

The Ministry makes no reference to the Forest rights Act or its statutory body the Gram Sabhas. On 03.02.2025, responding to a question on the forest encroachment, the Minister of State of MoEFCC said that, “The Protection and management of forests is primarily the responsibility of the concerned State Government/UT Administration and this Ministry issues advisories to State Governments/UT Administrations to remove encroachments on forest lands as per the provisions of the law.” Again, on 1.08.2022, the Environment Minister responding to the Lok Sabha Question No. 218 on forest encroachment stated that “the Ministry has written to State Governments/UT Administrations to remove encroachment as per the existing Acts/Rules and to ensure that no further encroachment takes place. In order to prevent and control encroachments, the States and UTs also take various measures such as demarcation and digitization of forest boundaries, strengthening infrastructure for forest protection, involving fringe area forest communities through Joint Forest Management Committees, Eco Development Committees etc.” Besides placing legally untenable statistics on encroachments, the Ministry also ordered for the removal of these ‘alleged encroachments’ without any reference to the drastic changes in applicable laws.

As per extant law, the rights of forest dwellers that are recognised and vested by FRA are to be determined, demarcated, recognized and recorded, and only after this can the area and extent of area under actual encroachment can even be determined. Only thereafter can the process of eviction be initiated under the State laws. FRA prohibits eviction under Sec.4(5) without the satisfactory completion of FRA process. Further, the Supreme Court order of 28 Feb 2019, in Wildlife First and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors_, WP(C) 109/2008, etc. has kept on hold the eviction and requires a review of all rejected claims. Thus, any eviction of “encroachers” after 28 February 2019 is a violation of the Supreme Court order and amounts to contempt of court. This reveals the duplicity of the ruling government, who in 2019 informs the Supreme Court that the process of recognizing and determining rights in forests is incomplete and plagued by illegalities, and then later states to NGT legally untenable figures for “encroachment” and undertakes eviction of forest dwellers.

The MOEFCC should have apprised the Parliamentary forums and courts on all these legalities. Instead of doing so, it is deliberately misleading the NGT, the Court and deceiving the forest dwellers and Adivasis of the country.

3.  NTCA order dated June 19, 2024 directing eviction of 64,801 families from tiger reserves of India.

National Tiger Conservation Authority, a wing of the Environment Ministry, chaired by the Union Environment Minister, on June 19, 2024, ordered the expeditious relocation of 64,801 families from tiger reserves, in complete violation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 and Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and other existing legal frameworks. Several submissions have been made to the NTCA asking for the withdrawal of this legally untenable order. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes have both apprised the NTCA about the concerns pertaining to non- recognition of forest rights in the tiger reserves, forced evictions, non-compliance of the statutory framework – yet the NTCA has not withdrawn its June 19 2024 order till date. This has aggravated the risk of displacement, forced evictions, curtailment of rights, criminalization of forest dwellers and forced them into a state of economic and social insecurity in different parts of the country. The details of the same can be referred in the rejoinder submitted to NTCA.

4.   India State of Forest Report 2023 blames FRA for forest loss with no evidence.

The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) published by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), a scientific institute under the MOEFCC is a biennial assessment of the state and status of India’s forests. The ISFR 2023 has already been called out by civil servants, conservationists and scientists for its flawed scientific methodology, inconsistent data, fluctuation in statistical reporting, promotion of ecologically damaging schemes such as the Green Credits Programme, and interventions such as replacing of natural ecosystems with plantations. (Access here) The ISFR 2023 report while citing the reasons for negative changes in forest and tree cover attributes ‘titles given to beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act 2006’ as one of the reasons (Annexure 3).

FSI, a scientific institution, cannot make such claims without substantiating their allegations with evidence or data. The statements in the FSI report are even more concerning since in 2019 it has been impleaded as a party respondent in the Wildlife First vs. Union of India case (supra) before the Supreme Court, raising apprehensions that it will raise these unscientific and absurd submissions before the court using inapplicable scientific tools as satellite imagery. The MoEFCC, its Ministers and affiliated institutions, are promoting false, malicious, legally untenable and politically sabotaging claims against FRA.

5.      Amendments in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and subverting the legitimacy of institutional authorities opposing forest diversion.

The environment ministry in 2023 amended the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 (now Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, 1980) despite vehement opposition and concerns raised by constitutional bodies such as National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and from conservationists and scientists, forest rights groups and forest dwellers’ communities. This amendment aims to facilitate ‘ease of doing business’ that adversely impacts the forest and ecological security of the country. Among other things, the amendments:

a. Nullify the definition and extent of forest that the Supreme Court established in

b. Provide exemptions to different categories of projects even within this restricted definition of

c. Does away with Central government’s role, through the Forest Advisory Committee and MoEFCC, to ensure FRA compliance as a pre-requisite for forest diversion, regarding both prior forest rights recognition and prior Gram Sabha Instead, this responsibility has been shifted to the State governments after Stage-II clearance.

d. The Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Rules, 2023 and a series of Guidelines issued by the MoEFCC in purported furtherance of these amendments have further diluted the integral role of the FRA and of forest dwelling communities in the conservation and preservation of forests in India.

In conclusion, the collective letter states that “it evidently clear that the environment ministry is least concerned with forest conservation but more inclined towards facilitating faster and easier forest diversion with scant regard for the Forest Conservation Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, in addition to the Forest Rights Act, all of which require the recognition of forest rights under FRA. FRA was enacted to undo the historical injustice committed upon the forest dwelling communities due to non-recognition of their tenure over their ancestral lands and their habitat in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India.”

“The environment ministry is duty bound to uphold the laws enacted by the Parliament, but its continued hostility towards the laws and forest dwellers in their untrammelled quest to serve commercial private interests is widely perceived as open encouragement and support to the explosion in forest degradation by the Government of India itself. The Environment Ministry’s aforementioned actions on behalf of the Government of India are in blatant disregard for all laws (IFA, FCA, WLPA, CAMPA, LARR and FRA) relegating MoTA to not exercising its institutional powers and role with regard to forest rights. This portends increased unrest that threatens forests and all its forest dwellers if not urgently contained.”

The demands articulated in the communication are:

1. Immediate halting of the MoEFCC’s attempts to subvert the Forest Rights
2. Union Environment Minster must issue a public clarification of his media statement, and immediately withdraw his legally untenable claim that Forest Rights Act results in forest degradation.
3. MoEFCC to stop spewing false, malicious, legally untenable claims against Forest Rights Act; to issue clarification on the same and to stop undue interference and overreach in the functions of MoTA and Forest Rights Act.
4. MoEFCC to immediately appraise the Supreme Court of India and NGT about the legalities pertaining to forests, forest “encroachment” and Forest Rights Act, unambiguously clarifying that encroachment and any subsequent action on it cannot be taken up till the process of implementation of FRA is completed. Necessary orders to the state Forest Departments be issued to suspend evictions until after the Gram Sabhas declare the completion of FRA implementation and after obtaining their consent.
5. MoEFCC and FSI to stop misleading government institutions, Parliament, the Judiciary by filing affidavits with legally untenable data and figures on No such data can be deduced till FRA has been implemented completely and lawfully.
6. Immediate withdrawal of the NTCA letter dated June 19, 2024 without any further delay and order complete halt on relocations from tiger reserves till NTCA has provided data on rights recognized under FRA in tiger reserves and to provide all records of due compliance with all the statutory provisions under Section 38 V of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Among the signatories are the Mahila Kisan Adivasi Manch (MAKAAM), the Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch, CPI(M), India, Akhil Bhartiya Adivasi Mahasabha (CPI), India, Gondwana Ganatantra Party, (Tuleswar Markaam- National President), Akhil Bharatiya Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti Udaipur, Rajasthan, Buffalo Back Consumers Federation, Bangalore, Bundelkhand Majdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan, Tendukheda, MP and Campaign for Survival and Dignity, Food Security Forum, Jammu and Kashmir among many others.

The communication to Prime Minister Modi has also been sent to Principal Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Prime Minister, PMO’s office, Shri Jual Oram, Union Minister of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA), Principal Secretary, Joint Secretary and Director- FRA Division of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA),  Antar Singh Arya, Chairman- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), Bhupendra Yadav, Union Minister of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and Dr. Virendra Kumar, Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment.

The entire text may be read here

The post MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to sources in The Indian Express, the operation began following a nationwide verification exercise and has seen immigrants rounded up from states as far apart as Gujarat, Delhi, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Goa. Most of them are then flown by Indian Air Force aircraft to border states such as Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam — where they are held in makeshift camps, handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF), and “pushed back” across the border into Bangladesh, often within hours.

A senior government official confirmed to The Indian Express that Gujarat initiated the first round of detentions and currently accounts for nearly half of all deportations. “All states with major economic hubs are identifying such illegal immigrants after document verification. The instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs are clear — the states are complying,” the official said, noting that the crackdown accelerated after the April Pahalgam attacks.

But the scale and method of these deportations suggest clear departures from legal norms. Under Indian law and international obligations, deportation must follow due process — including formal orders, access to legal aid, and verification by Foreigners Tribunals or equivalent mechanisms. None of this appears to be happening in these pushbacks.

The BSF, according to reports in The Hindu, has pushed back over 1,200 people from just one sector of the West Bengal-Bangladesh border. Delhi Police alone has deported at least 120 people since January, followed by Maharashtra (110), Haryana (80), Rajasthan (70), Uttar Pradesh (65), Gujarat (65), and Goa (10). Many of these individuals were transported in secrecy and denied access to legal representation.

Several were reportedly handed some Bangladeshi currency and food before being left at the border, a practice that not only flouts legal protections for non-citizens but also risks statelessness and chain deportations. Alarmingly, a significant number of people, fearing arrest, are voluntarily approaching border regions in panic, indicating the deep fear triggered by the nationwide campaign.

These coordinated actions across states, in the absence of transparent procedures, point to a disturbing trend: a pan-India, informal deportation regime operating outside the bounds of the law, with little accountability or oversight.

1. Uttar Pradesh: 90 alleged Bangladeshi Nationals detained from Mathura kilns amid state-wide deportation drive

On May 17, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura district detained 90 individuals—suspected Bangladeshi nationals—including 35 men, 27 women, and 28 children, from Khajpur village under the Nauhjheel police station. The detentions were part of an identity verification drive targeting migrant labourers working in the area’s brick kilns.

According to Mathura SSP Shlok Kumar, the detainees claimed they had been living in Mathura for the past 3–4 months and had migrated there from a neighbouring state. “All of them are being interrogated, and other investigative agencies have also been roped in,” he told ANI, suggesting that legal proceedings may follow. However, no clarity has been provided on whether these individuals were produced before a magistrate or allowed access to legal aid, raising due process concerns.

The detentions align with a larger, intensified campaign launched by the Uttar Pradesh government to identify and deport what it calls “infiltrators” — targeting primarily Bangladeshi and Rohingya communities residing in the state. Officials have also indicated that action had earlier been taken against Pakistani nationals, and similar efforts are now directed at undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya residents.

According to the report of Indian Express, state-wide directive from the Chief Minister’s Office has instructed all District Magistrates, SSPs, and Police Commissioners to accelerate the identification and removal of undocumented migrants, particularly in areas where many are believed to be living under changed or forged identities. Simultaneously, authorities have begun operations against so-called illegal settlements and unauthorised structures, especially in districts bordering Nepal.

The Uttar Pradesh government has publicly claimed to be the first in the country to achieve the deportation of all undocumented Pakistani nationals. “The Chief Minister himself oversees the process,” said a CMO statement, as per the ANI report.

While the state presents this as a national security achievement, rights advocates warn that such sweeping actions, especially those involving families with children, may sidestep critical legal safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing, protections under the Foreigners Act, and India’s obligations under international human rights law.

Uttar Pradesh’s operation is just one piece in a growing national trend that appears to be functioning as a shadow deportation regime, with opaque procedures, little to no judicial oversight, and significant risk of wrongful or arbitrary expulsions.

2. Delhi: 700 alleged undocumented migrants deported under ‘pushback’ drive

In the last six months, nearly 700 undocumented migrants have been deported from Delhi to Bangladesh as part of the Union government’s intensified “pushback” strategy, according to a report by The Indian Express. The pace of deportations notably accelerated in the wake of the April Pahalgam terror attack, triggering a capital-wide verification and detention campaign.

Following the attack, the Delhi Police launched a coordinated drive and identified around 470 individuals as undocumented Bangladeshi nationals, along with 50 foreigners who had overstayed their visas, The Indian Express reported. These individuals were then flown from the Hindon Air Base in Ghaziabad to Agartala in Tripura, from where they were deported via land routes across the Bangladesh border.

Police sources revealed that 3–4 special flights were used over the past month for transporting the detainees. According to The Indian Express, Delhi Police also set up around five makeshift detention centres, coordinated with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and arranged the transfers with the Border Security Force (BSF).

On May 16, thirteen Bangladeshi nationals, including five minors, were detained in Auchandi village in outer Delhi for allegedly living without valid documents, according to an ANI report. They were apprehended during a targeted operation following intelligence inputs, said Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aditya Gautam. On interrogation, the detainees reportedly admitted to being Bangladeshi citizens without any legal documentation permitting them to stay in India.

A week later, on May 23, the Delhi Police detained 121 Bangladeshi nationals suspected of unlawful residence in the capital and initiated deportation proceedings through the FRRO, according to The Hindu. In the same operation, five Indian nationals were questioned for allegedly facilitating the illegal entry and stay of these foreign nationals. A case was registered at Narela Industrial Area police station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 14 and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been formed to probe a suspected syndicate that is believed to have assisted in providing accommodation, jobs, and forged Indian identity documents to the immigrants. Authorities are now examining suspected fabrication of Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, and electricity meter connections, and have issued notices to relevant departments. Legal action has been promised against any official found complicit.

These developments mark a sharp escalation in Delhi’s deportation efforts and reflect the broader national push under Operation Sindoor to track, detain, and remove undocumented migrants, often through processes lacking judicial oversight.

3. Delhi-Ghaziabad: Mass deportations continue as government allegedly sidesteps due process

On Sunday, May 25, around 160 undocumented Bangladeshi migrants, including women and children detained from outer Delhi, were airlifted from Ghaziabad’s Hindon Air Base to Agartala in Tripura to be deported to Bangladesh, according to a report by The Hindu.

Officials told the newspaper that the transfer was in line with the Indian government’s directive to expedite deportations without waiting for formal processes, which are often “lengthy.” This reflects a growing trend of informal and accelerated removals, especially following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

Since the attack, more than 500 individuals have reportedly been sent back through India’s eastern border. Across the country, police forces have been conducting verification drives to identify alleged undocumented immigrants. Once detained, the migrants’ biometrics are recorded, and any Indian identity documents, such as Aadhaar cards, are cancelled. These biometrics are reportedly used to prevent re-entry and re-enrolment in Indian systems.

After biometric capture, the migrants are handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and pushed back across the border. The Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a letter sent on May 8, raised concerns over these forced entries and called on India to respect formal repatriation mechanisms.

Earlier, on May 4, two Air India planes transported around 300 undocumented migrants, including 200 women and children who had been detained in Gujarat, to Agartala. They were subsequently sent across the border to Bangladesh.

At a press conference on May 26 in Dhaka, Brigadier General Md. Nazim-ud-Daula of the Bangladesh Army condemned these deportations as unacceptable “push-ins.”

In just one month since the Pahalgam incident, Delhi Police identified and deported 470 undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and 50 foreign overstayers, flying them from Hindon to Tripura before pushing them across the land border.

An officer from Delhi Police told The Hindu that the Ministry of Home Affairs had instructed city police as early as late 2024 to begin verification drives targeting Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. Between November 15, 2024, and April 20, 2025, about 220 undocumented migrants and 30 overstayers were identified, taken by train and road to eastern states, and deported via land borders through the FRRO.

However, after the Pahalgam attack, the process intensified. “Over the last one month, around 3–4 special flights went from Hindon air base to Agartala,” a senior officer said. In total, about 700 individuals have been deported from Delhi over the past six months, he added.

Initially, Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) from all 15 districts were tasked with identifying undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. A first battalion of Delhi Police, along with FRRO officials, would accompany detainees via rail and road to West Bengal, from where the BSF completed the deportation process, according to a government source cited by The Hindu.

4. Gujarat: Over 1,000 detained in state’s largest crackdown, hundreds airlifted and pushed back across border

On April 26, Gujarat Police executed what officials described as the state’s largest-ever operation targeting undocumented migrants, detaining 1,024 suspected Bangladeshi nationals, 890 in Ahmedabad and 134 in Surat, amid allegations of fake documents and criminal activity, as per Deccan Herald. The state Home Minister hailed the operation as a “historic victory,” warning that those harbouring such individuals would face strict action, and confirming plans to swiftly deport the detainees, as per the report of Hindustan Times.

Just over a week later, on May 4, two Air India flights carried some 300 of the detained migrants, including around 200 women and children, to Agartala in Tripura. From there, they were “pushed back” across the land border into Bangladesh, bypassing lengthy legal deportation procedures, as per the HT report.

These actions followed a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs after the Pahalgam terror attack, streamlining mass deportations with rapid airlifts and border pushbacks, according to Times of India report. Authorities have flagged concerns about detainees’ alleged links to drug and human trafficking ring, and even extremist sleeper cells, as justification for the sweeping operation, as per the New Indian Express.

The Gujarat operation, which involved specialized units from Ahmedabad Crime Branch, SOG, EOW, and local police divisions, also uncovered widespread use of forged IDs sourced from West Bengal, a network that is now under investigation as per the Indian Express report.

These developments underscore a troubling trend: a coordinated and expedient deportation campaign that circumvents due process, with authorities opting for air-bridge removals and cross-border pushbacks in lieu of formal court procedures.

5. Rajasthan: 1,000 marked for deportation as Indian migrant workers from Bengal detained for “Speaking Bengali”

On May 14, 2025, Rajasthan’s Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel announced that around 1,000 suspected Bangladeshi nationals had been identified across the state. Speaking in Jaipur, he confirmed that the first group of 148 detainees had been moved to Jodhpur and then flown to Kolkata, from where they would be deported to Bangladesh. According to The Hindu, most of these individuals were originally detained in Sikar district, and the Village Development Officers’ Training Centre in Jodhpur had been temporarily converted into a holding facility for the deportation process.

As per the report, Patel further stated that the state would continue similar operations in the coming days to facilitate further removals.

However, the state’s aggressive crackdown also resulted in wrongful detentions. On May 13, Rajasthan Police released 13 migrant workers, including children and two families from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, who had been held for nine days on suspicion of being Bangladeshi infiltrators, solely because they spoke Bengali. The group had been picked up by personnel from the Patan Police Station in Sikar district, and were detained in a guest house under police watch, despite being Indian citizens.

According to The Telegraph, their release came only after sustained communication from West Bengal government officials, who intervened when alerted by concerned families and local leaders. Samirul Islam, a TMC Rajya Sabha MP and head of the Bengal government’s migrant worker welfare board, confirmed that state officials had been in touch with their counterparts in Rajasthan to secure the workers’ release. A senior Cooch Behar official reportedly called Rajasthan Police directly, following which the detainees were let go.

Obaydul Khandakar, a resident of Purba Jaigir Balabari village in Cooch Behar’s Dinhata-II block, who had been detained along with his wife Beauty Bibi, told the newspaper: “Despite being Indian citizens, we were detained for nine days just because we spoke Bengali.” The families had been working at a brick kiln near Sikar and returned there after their release. Khandakar said he planned to settle his dues and was now uncertain about returning to Rajasthan for work, shaken by the experience.

6. Tripura: Over 2,800 arrested for illegal entry since 2022 amid ongoing crackdown

On June 9, the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Tripura arrested one Bangladeshi national and one Indian tout during separate operations at Agartala railway station, according to a report by EastMojo. In the first incident, Pranajit Ray (35), a resident of Sylhet district in Bangladesh, was intercepted during a joint operation conducted by the GRP, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and other agencies. Police said he had illegally crossed the border and was planning to travel to Kolkata. “We seized some documents and Indian currency. We are examining these,” an officer told the outlet.

In a separate case, an Indian trafficker from Chanipur in West Tripura district was also arrested as part of a similar joint operation.

The arrests come amid a growing number of detentions in the state. Between January 1 and February 28, 2024, a total of 816 Bangladeshi nationals, 79 Rohingya, and two Nigerians were arrested in Tripura, according to the Tripura Police’s own data cited by EastMojo.

Additionally, Chief Minister Dr. Manik Saha, who also holds the Home portfolio, recently informed the Assembly that 2,815 Bangladeshi nationals were arrested for illegally entering Tripura between 2022 and October 31, 2024. Out of these, 1,746 were “pushed back” across the border, while 1,069 remained either in jail, temporary detention centres, shelter homes, or out on bail, as per a report by The Indian Express.

7. Maharashtra: Four alleged Bangladeshi nationals held in Pune following military intelligence tip-off

In Maharashtra, four suspected Bangladeshi nationals were detained from a labour camp in Pune’s Khondwa area on June 13 in a joint operation conducted by the police and Military Intelligence, according to a report by The Hindu. The arrests were made following a tip-off from the Southern Command of Military Intelligence, which led authorities to intercept the individuals as they were allegedly attempting to flee the area.

Upon preliminary verification, the four men were identified as Swapan Mandal, Mithun Kumar, Ranodhir Mandal, and Dilip Mondal, and were found to be citizens of Bangladesh. Defence sources cited in the report confirmed that the individuals will undergo joint interrogation by multiple agencies.

8. West Bengal: Seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals caught trying to return home after years in India

On Saturday, seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, were apprehended by police in Nadia district of West Bengal while attempting to cross back into Bangladesh after reportedly spending four years working in various Indian cities, according to a report by Hindustan Times.

“These individuals had entered India illegally through the North 24 Parganas border around four years ago and have since worked in Mumbai, Delhi, and several cities in Gujarat,” said Somnath Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Ranaghat Divisionm as per the HT report. They were caught in the Hanskhali police station area, the same location where another Bangladeshi woman was arrested earlier last week. She had reportedly entered India in 2024 and also worked in Mumbai.

The arrested individuals are said to be from Khulna, Jessore, Cox’s Bazar, and Kushtia districts in Bangladesh. According to officials, the group was attempting to return to Bangladesh with the help of an agent who is currently absconding.

With these arrests, the total number of alleged Bangladeshi nationals detained in various districts of West Bengal since December 2023 has reached approximately 100, as per police estimates. The Border Security Force (BSF) and other agencies have stepped up surveillance along the Indo-Bangladesh border since 2024 in response to the ongoing political unrest in Bangladesh.

State Pushback: When governments step in to stop unlawful deportations

While the Union government’s crackdown on undocumented migrants has unfolded across states with unprecedented coordination and speed, a few state governments have pushed back, not against migrants, but against what they allege are unlawful deportations of Indian citizens. In rare but telling instances, state authorities have intervened to halt or reverse deportations, particularly where those detained turned out to be bona fide Indian nationals. Most notably, the West Bengal government has led efforts to trace, verify, and bring back its residents who were mistakenly or illegally pushed into Bangladesh, raising urgent questions about due process, documentation, and the risks of communal or linguistic profiling in the ongoing campaign.

1. West Bengal Government brings back seven men wrongly deported to Bangladesh

In a striking instance of state-level intervention against what is being called unlawful deportation, the West Bengal government has successfully facilitated the return of at least seven Indian citizens who were allegedly picked up by Maharashtra Police during anti-immigration drives and pushed across the Bangladesh border, despite holding valid Indian documents.

The men, most of whom are residents of Murshidabad district, were working as daily wage labourers or masons in Mumbai and Thane. They were detained between June 9 and 11, and within days, without due legal process, transported across the border and abandoned in Bangladesh, according to The Indian Express.

One of the deportees, 36-year-old Mehbub Sheikh, who worked as a mason in Thane, was detained on June 11 and pushed into Bangladesh from a BSF camp in Siliguri by the early hours of June 14, despite his family and local police submitting documentation, including Aadhaar, voter ID, and land records, to prove his Indian citizenship. Another youth, Shamim Khan, also from Murshidabad, was picked up around the same time and met the same fate.

Following urgent appeals from families and local authorities, the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, under instructions from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, intervened. The Board’s chairman and TMC Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam told The Indian Express that the state government had taken the matter up directly with the Union government and the BSF. “Our government coordinated with central agencies and ensured five individuals were brought back by Sunday, and two more by Monday. We are continuing efforts to identify if others from Bengal have also been wrongfully deported,” he said.

According to a statement by Murshidabad SP Kumar Sunny Raj, upon receiving alerts from families, district police initiated local verification and coordinated with the BSF. Once the individuals’ Indian nationality was confirmed through supporting documents, the BSF held a flag meeting with Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and repatriated the youths. “They were handed over to Raiganj police station by the BSF and will be taken back to their respective villages,” added SP Md Sana Akhtar of Uttar Dinajpur as per the report.

The deported men include Mehbub Sheikh (Bhagwangola), Shamim Khan (Hariharpara), Minarul Sheikh (Beldanga), Nazimuddin Mondal (Hariharpara), and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh (Monteswar, Purba Bardhaman). Additionally, Fazer Sheikh and his wife Taslima from Bagda in North 24 Parganas were also returned. All were among the over 130 people transported by BSF aircraft from Pune to Agartala, and then dropped off at the border with minimal belongings, a packet of food, and 300 Bangladeshi Taka, according to multiple returnees.

Speaking to The Hindu, Nazimuddin Mondal, 34, recalled: “We were herded like cattle. At 3 am, the BSF jawans drove us toward the border, told us not to return. We walked into complete darkness.” After being chased away by Bangladeshi locals and beaten by BGB personnel, the group wandered for hours in paddy fields with mud up to their knees, before the BSF called them back the following evening and took them to Kokrajhar.

Nazimuddin’s brother Musarraf Mondal said the family had frantically submitted documentation to both local police in Murshidabad and the authorities in Mumbai, but were ignored. “Only after my brother managed to call from Bangladesh did, we know what had happened,” he said.

According to Samirul Islam, this is not an isolated event. “There is growing concern that Bengali-speaking Indian citizens, especially migrant workers, are being wrongly profiled and deported in BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra,” he told The Telegraph. “This is illegal, and our Chief Minister has written to the Centre about this.”

The return of these individuals was made possible through urgent coordination between state police, BSF, and BGB, as confirmed by Mekhliganj Police Station OC Mani Bhusan Sarkar, who received prior alerts from Murshidabad and Bardhaman police about missing residents. After verifying identities, a flag meeting at the Mekhliganj border enabled their return on Sunday afternoon.

As The Hindu reports, these cases come amid a wider trend of the Indian government “pushing back” undocumented migrants across the Bangladesh border, especially following Operation Sindoor, launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack in April. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has officially raised objections, stating such pushbacks violate diplomatic protocols.

For the seven men from Bengal, the ordeal has left lasting scars. “We were taken from one police station to another in Mumbai. We had no phones, no belongings. No one listened to us,” said Nazimuddin, still shaken after returning to his village in Taratipur, Murshidabad. “Only the state government listened.”

Here is a detailed and paraphrased version of the UP detention and Bengal police intervention story, rewritten with improved flow and source attribution:

2. West Bengal police intervene to secure release of six detainees from UP, wrongly suspected as Bangladeshis

In yet another instance that underscores growing concerns around the profiling of Bengali-speaking migrant workers, six residents of West Bengal, including two drivers, were detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police on May 5 in Deoria district, allegedly on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. The detainees, five from Beldanga in Murshidabad and one from Krishnaganj in Nadia, were travelling by bus when they were stopped and taken to Lar police station, according to a report in The Telegraph.

The situation was resolved only after swift intervention by Murshidabad Superintendent of Police Kumar Sunny Raj, who contacted senior UP officials and facilitated the release of the group. A police officer in Bengal, speaking to the media, confirmed that local authorities had been alerted to the detentions around noon. “As soon as we were informed, our SP reached out to his counterparts in Uttar Pradesh. The issue was resolved the same day,” the officer stated.

Family members of the detainees said they were advised to keep their local police stations informed while travelling outside the state, especially in light of recent incidents of wrongful detention. “We had notified the Beldanga Inspector-in-Charge as a precaution. The prompt response of our local police ensured the group was not subjected to further harassment,” said Din Muhammad, a relative of one of the men, while speaking to The Telegraph.

Samirul Islam, Trinamool MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, condemned the incident, calling it part of a worrying trend of systemic suspicion and profiling of Bengali-speaking Indians in BJP-ruled states. “This has to stop. Speaking Bengali does not make someone a Bangladeshi,” Islam said. He further noted that despite the six men producing valid photo ID cards, they were still detained, an act he described as “deeply discriminatory.” He added that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had already written to the Centre raising concern about the growing frequency of such incidents.

Police confirmed that the group was released by the evening of May 5 and arrangements were made for them to return to their homes in Bengal the following day. (Detailed report may be read here.)

When the Courts Intervene: Stays and interim protection

Amid a wave of detentions and swift deportations, many allegedly carried out without due process, constitutional courts across India have intervened to halt or question such actions. In several instances, the Supreme Court and High Courts have granted interim protection or stay orders, preventing the deportation of individuals flagged as “illegal migrants” or declared foreigners under the Foreigners Act. These judicial interventions have not only delayed state action but have, in some cases, forced authorities to re-examine the legality and fairness of their deportation processes.

1. Supreme Court grants interim protection to woman declared ‘foreigner’ amid concerns over opaque deportation processes in Assam

Amid growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary deportation practices in Assam, the Supreme Court on June 24, 2025, granted interim protection from deportation to Jaynab Bibi, a woman declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal’s two-page 2017 order had summarily dismissed her extensive documentary evidence, including the 1951 NRC, multiple electoral rolls, land records, and local certificates, on grounds of minor inconsistencies in names and testimonies. The Gauhati High Court upheld this finding in February 2025 and revoked her interim protection, but the Supreme Court has now stayed all coercive steps against her, including deportation, while issuing notice in her special leave petition. The case is next listed for August 25.

Represented by Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai, Jaynab’s petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s own observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (July 2024), where the Court cautioned against opaque and suspicion-based declarations under the Foreigners Act. Jaynab, who claims Indian citizenship by birth and residence in Nagaon district, contends that her identity was rejected without due process. The Court’s intervention, though interim, sends a strong signal against mechanical adjudications and underscores the central role of constitutional safeguards in proceedings that could result in loss of nationality and expulsion. (Detailed report may be read here.)

2. Bombay High Court grants bail over custodial rights violation

In a significant judicial intervention affirming procedural safeguards even in cases involving alleged undocumented immigrants, the Bombay High Court on May 7, 2025, granted bail to 34-year-old Sabnam Suleman Ansari, accused of entering India illegally, after finding that she was produced before a magistrate well beyond the constitutionally permitted 24-hour window following her arrest. Justice Milind Jadhav, while granting her bail on a surety of ₹5,000, observed that Ansari was arrested on January 28 at 12:30 PM and produced only on January 29 at 4:30 PM. The delay, the judge ruled, constituted a prima facie breach of her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. According to the order, “It is the duty of the Bail Court to step in,” when such violations are apparent.

The prosecution alleged Ansari had entered India through an unauthorised route from Bangladesh and lacked valid travel documents. However, Justice Jadhav rejected the State’s reliance on an earlier division bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing the facts and affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to grant bail in cases of illegal detention. The Court also noted the indifference of police authorities toward elementary but statutory safeguards under Section 50 of the CrPC and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, underscoring that constitutional protections remain non-negotiable, even in immigration-related prosecutions.

3. Bombay High Court intervenes in detention of Indian teen following father’s deportation

In another crucial instance of judicial scrutiny over policing under the Foreigners Act, the Bombay High Court on June 3, 2025, ordered the immediate release of 18-year-old Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, who had been detained by Mumbai’s Mankhurd police following her father’s deportation to Bangladesh on allegations of illegal migration. Despite being born in India and possessing valid Indian documents, Ruksar was held in custody without any independent proceedings initiated against her. A vacation bench comprising Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking protection from coercive state action and possible deportation.

According to the petition, while the younger siblings were released to their mother soon after it was filed, Ruksar remained confined at the Nirbhaya Cell in Mankhurd, prompting the Court’s urgent intervention. The bench observed that her continued detention was unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, especially when she was not the subject of any conclusive or independent inquiry under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness cannot be dispensed with, particularly in cases involving minors or Indian-born individuals whose rights risk being subsumed by broad and indiscriminate enforcement drives.

4. Gauhati High Court orders immediate release of bail-compliant man detained as ‘Foreigner’

In a forceful assertion of constitutional liberty, the Gauhati High Court on June 16, 2025, ordered the immediate release of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Goalpara, who had been unlawfully detained by the Assam Border Police despite being out on High Court–granted bail since 2021. The Court declared his detention “expressly illegal,” noting that no bail cancellation had been obtained and the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration against him remained sub judice. Rejecting the State’s plea for adjournment due to lack of instructions, the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stated, “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and reminded the State that liberty cannot wait for bureaucratic coordination. The order came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee’s mother, Mozida Begum, which documented the detainee’s weekly police reporting and absence of any new judicial order justifying re-arrest.

The Court had earlier stayed any deportation and verified that Hachinur was held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. His arrest on May 25, 2025, triggered widespread concern, especially as he had regularly reported to Goalpara Police Station per the conditions of his 2021 bail, granted under the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 guidelines. During the hearing, Advocate A.R. Sikdar emphasised that no fresh legal proceedings had been initiated, and the arrest was both unconstitutional and unjustified. The Court agreed, holding that the State should have sought a judicial order if it believed fresh grounds existed. “Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout,” Justice Surana said. With that, the Court directed immediate release, reinforcing that executive action cannot override existing judicial protections or suspend liberty at will. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Deported in Silence: India’s mass expulsions of alleged Bangladeshis without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case involved K. Umadevi, an English teacher in a government school in Tamil Nadu, whose personal circumstances brought a crucial service rule under judicial scrutiny. The judgment is a detailed exploration of how personal life changes, such as divorce and remarriage, intersect with employment rights, and how courts must adopt a purposive and humane approach rather than a rigid, technical one.

The facts of the Case

The story of the legal battle began with the petitioner marrying her first husband in 2006 and had two children, born in 2007 and 2011. In December 2012, she joined the Tamil Nadu state government as a teacher. Her first marriage was legally dissolved in 2017, and the custody of her two children remained with her former husband.

A year later, in 2018, Ms. Umadevi remarried. When she conceived a child from this second marriage, she applied for maternity leave for a period of nine months, from August 2021 to May 2022.

Her request was turned down. On August 28, 2021, the Chief Educational Officer of Dharmapuri District rejected her application. The reason cited was Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which governs the service conditions of state employees. The rule stipulates that maternity leave can only be granted to a woman government servant with “less than two surviving children.” The authorities concluded that since Ms. Umadevi already had two children from her first marriage, she was ineligible for maternity leave for her third child. The rejection order flatly stated that there was “no provision” for granting such leave for a third child born through remarriage.

The Journey through the Courts

Aggrieved by this decision, Ms. Umadevi approached the Madras High Court. A single-judge bench heard her plea and, in a judgment dated March 25, 2022, ruled in her favour. The judge adopted a liberal interpretation, holding that the central Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, should prevail over the state rule. The court reasoned that the phrase “having surviving children” should imply that the children are in the mother’s custody. Since Ms. Umadevi’s children from her first marriage were not living with her, the child from her second marriage was, for all practical purposes, her first child in her new family unit. The single judge set aside the rejection order and directed the state to sanction her leave.

However, the relief was short-lived. The Government of Tamil Nadu filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the same court. On September 14, 2022, the Division Bench overturned the single judge’s order. It took a stricter view, stating that the government’s policy was clear and restricted the benefit to two children. It held that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a right flowing from service rules. The bench found the single judge’s decision unsustainable and allowed the government’s appeal, leaving Ms. Umadevi without the benefit.

This set the stage for the final appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court’s analysis

The Supreme Court, in a detailed and empathetic judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delved deep into the constitutional and international legal frameworks surrounding maternity rights.

The state government argued that its policy was tied to fiscal responsibility and the national objective of population control. Granting leave to Ms. Umadevi, it contended, would set a precedent that could strain the exchequer and undermine the “small family norm.”

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Division Bench had erred by not following the spirit of a previous Supreme Court decision in Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dealt with a similar situation. It was also emphasized that the right to maternity leave is a facet of a woman’s reproductive right, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was multi-layered:

1. Constitutional Foundation: The Court grounded its decision firmly in the Constitution. It described Article 21 as a “potent provision” that includes the right to live with dignity, the right to health, and the right to make reproductive choices. It also invoked Article 42, a Directive Principle of State Policy, which mandates the state to make provisions for “just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.”
2. Harmonising Conflicting Goals: The Court acknowledged the state’s objective of population control as “laudable.” However, it stated that this goal is not “mutually exclusive” with the objective of providing maternity benefits. The two, the Court said, “must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner to achieve the social objective.” A rigid rule that forces a woman to choose between her employment and her desire to start a family in a new marriage was seen as counterproductive.
3. Purposive Interpretation: The Court stressed that beneficial legislations like maternity leave rules must be given a “purpose-oriented approach.” The purpose is to protect the dignity of motherhood and enable a woman to care for her child without fear of losing her job. The fact that Ms. Umadevi’s children from her first marriage were not in her custody and that the child in question was the first from her subsisting marriage were crucial factors. The Court implicitly suggested that the term “surviving children” in the rule should not be read in a purely statistical or biological sense, but in the context of the employee’s current family and dependents.
4. International Obligations: The judgment extensively referenced international conventions that India has ratified, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance,” and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which obligates states to provide maternity leave with pay. The Court used these to underscore that maternity benefits are a globally recognized human right.
5. Guidance from the Maternity Benefit Act: The Court drew guidance from the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It noted that the Act, after the 2017 amendment, does not completely bar maternity leave for a third child; it only reduces the duration of the leave. This, the Court observed, shows a legislative intent to provide support, not to create a hard stop after two children.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court concluded that the view taken by the Madras High Court’s Division Bench was incorrect. It stated, “In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

The Court declared that Ms. Umadevi was entitled to maternity leave as per the rules. It set aside the Division Bench’s order and directed the Tamil Nadu government to release all admissible maternity benefits to her within two months.

The judgment is a significant step forward in the jurisprudence of service law and human rights. It sends a clear message that administrative rules, especially those concerning fundamental aspects of life like childbirth, reproductive rights cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. They must be viewed through the prism of the Constitution and with a sense of compassion that acknowledges the complex realities of human lives. The Court has affirmed that the state, as a model employer, must not only create policies but also apply them in a manner that is just, humane, and respects the dignity of its employees.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

Maternity leave no ground for dismissal: SC

Woman Employee Entitled To Claim Maternity Leave For Period Of 6 Months: Allahabad HC

Policy on paid menstrual leave not on the horizons of the union government?

The post A Question of Rights: Supreme Court backs teacher in maternity leave dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., involved a complaint by Pokala Sabhana, a 24-year-old trans woman. She alleged that her husband, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy, and his family had subjected her to cruelty and harassment. She filed her complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a law designed to protect wives from abuse by their husbands and in-laws.

This led the court to consider two key questions: first, whether a Trans woman could be considered a ‘woman’ under this law, and second, whether the allegations were sufficient to warrant a criminal trial. The court’s answer to the first was a clear “yes,” but its answer to the second was a firm “no”.

A Trans Woman is a ‘Woman’ Under the Law

The husband and his family argued that Sabhana could not be considered a ‘woman’ under Section 498-A, because she cannot bear children and therefore was not a woman in the “complete sense”.

Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa rejected this argument, calling it “deeply flawed and legally impermissible”. The court’s reasoning was built on established legal principles:

• Womanhood is not defined by reproductive ability: The court stated that linking womanhood to the capacity to have children “undermines the very spirit of the Constitution, which upholds dignity, identity, and equality for all individuals”.
• Right to Self-Identify Gender: The judgment relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India The NALSA case established that every individual has the fundamental right to self-identify their gender, and the state must legally recognize it.
• Right to Marry: The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 marriage equality case, Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India. While that case did not legalize same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that “transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing law”.
• Constitutional Protections: Since Sabhana and Murthy’s marriage was legally valid, denying her the protections of Section 498-A would violate her fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and life with dignity (Article 21).

Based on this, the court concluded that a Trans woman in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to protection under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Why the Case Was Dismissed

Despite this landmark finding, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against Murthy and his family. The reason was purely procedural: Sabhana’s complaint lacked the specific details required to sustain a charge of cruelty under Section 498-A.

The court found the allegations to be “bald and omnibus,” meaning that they are too vague and general to be the basis for a criminal case. The specific deficiencies noted were:

• Against the husband: The complaint stated that he left her less than two months after they started living together and that she later received a threatening message from his phone. However, it did not describe any specific acts of physical or mental cruelty that occurred while they were together.
• Against the in-laws: Sabhana stated in her complaint that her in-laws maintained “cordial relations” with her. The only negative claim was that they were trying to send their son abroad, which is not a criminal offense.
• Against another relative: A fourth person was accused with a single sentence claiming he was directing the others, with no supporting details.

The court pointed to a long line of Supreme Court rulings that caution against the misuse of Section 498-A. To prevent the law from being used to settle personal scores, courts require complaints to contain clear and specific allegations against each accused person. Because Sabhana’s complaint did not meet this standard, the court ruled that allowing the case to continue would be an “abuse of process of law”.

The judgment in Viswanathan Krishna Murthy is a significant step forward for the legal recognition of transgender rights in India. It establishes a clear precedent that the protections against domestic cruelty apply to Trans women in heterosexual marriages.

Jurisdictions like the UK and the US are seeing radical Trans exclusionary policies and establishments with figures like JK Rowling and Donald Trump respectively. For example, in a recent case, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that legal definition of woman is based on biological sex.[1] Therefore, judgements like these highlight the nuanced discourse that is emerging India with contributions from a powerful judiciary. However, it is important to note that judicial pronouncements cannot and will not satisfy the need for a comprehensive law that recognises queer marriage. Only a democratic and transparent legislative process will cover that gap.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16

Related:

Kerala High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order Directing PSC To Provisionally Accept Trans-Woman’s Application For Post Confined To Women Candidates

Indian women, transgender and non-binary persons in science: A 21st Century calendar by TLoS

Transgender rights in India: stalled progress and a frustrated community

The post Andhra Pradesh High Court rules Trans woman is a ‘woman’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Once again, the Election Commission of India (ECI) made the headlines, when on June 29, 2025 it announced that Bihar became the “first state to implement mobile phone-based e-voting during local body elections.” State Election Commissioner Deepak Prasad said while 70.20 per cent of the eligible voters used the e-voting system, 54.63 per cent exercised their franchise by visiting polling booths reported The Hindustan Times. The ECI has termed this move as “a symbol of convenience, security, and empowered participation,” claiming that, “the system was specifically designed for voters who face challenges in reaching polling booths, such as the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, and migrants. Only pre-registered users were allowed to vote via the e-voting platform, he added.

Meanwhile, Madhav Deshpande, with 40 plus years of experience in the field of Computer Science and its Applications and Architecture of Unique Software apart from being an Consultant with the Obama administration, has meanwhile offered his independent critique of this switch by the ECI to the “mobile phone-based e-voting” system implemented without consultation by the election body.

Issues raised by the expert:

• As soon as a voter’s identity is verified and linked to the voter’s thumbprint, FaceID, or PIN, are all identifying documents(photo ID, video ‘selfie’) completely expunged from the system?
• Is the user identity tokenised?
• Is the token table destroyed? If not, how is it ensured ephemeral?
• From item 2 in the Google Play disclosure which says “Some of the data that you submit may be classified as “Personally Identifiable Information” (PII), meaning information that can be used to uniquely identify or contact you, such as your Voter ID number, mobile phone number, or other identifiers (“Personal Information”/”Personally Identifiable Information”)”, it is clear that voter details are actively sought, stored and may even be intended to be used even after vote is cast. It is clear from this that the voter identity is neither tokenised nor is the token table destroyed. This is in complete contradiction to the principle of secret ballot and as such this app must be immediately withdrawn forthwith.
• Item 3 in the same disclosure on Google Play portal says “Please also note that data collected by us from a particular device may be used in conjunction with data from other devices that are linked to the browser”meaning that the personal data is not only stored for the purpose of voter identification, it may be used to identify and monitor the voter’s electronic activity, amounting to electronic surveillance. As such this is infringement of individual freedom and must be banned immediately.
• Operationally, how does the app ensure that the person (voter) identified is the same as the person casting the vote on the phone?
• How does the app ensure that the person is casting their vote with free will and secretly; as against being forced to cast it under threat? If the app cannot guarantee expression of free will of the voter, it is in contradiction to the first principle of democratic voting and must be immediately banned.
• And lastly, the app declares that it cannot guarantee complete security of the data being transmitted over network, meaning that the ballot cannot be guaranteed to be secret and as such its use must be banned forthwith. The disclosure says “…you acknowledge and agree that no transmission of data over the internet or mobile networks can be guaranteed to be completely secure. Accordingly, any transmission of information is done at your sole risk.”
• Technically, the network operators have enough and more tools to siphon data and alter it, insert / delete new data etc. if the data is not adequately secured (as is obvious from 8 above).
• There is no mention of where the distributed journal of data blocks is stored. If the blocks are stored on foreign servers or if the block chain technology implemented is from foreign vendors, it compromises Indian sovereignty and use of such app must be banned immediately.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a body that has come increasingly under public scrutiny for not just its opaqueness and reluctance for transparency, but worse, been patently guilty of violations of both the Constitution (Articles 324-326) and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 is now using yet another method, e-voting on the mobile phone—the Voting App—that is vulnerable of several counts. The violations of the fundamental rights to privacy could be violated with the method of storing data collected. The constitutional right of asserting free will in an election and the principle of a secret ballot also stand threatened.

Related:

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

The post Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to court proceedings before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete expressed severe displeasure with the police’s conduct and questioned the very legality of Ajith Kumar’s detention. The police allegedly took Ajith Kumar to the temple cattle shed and other secluded areas — avoiding CCTV surveillance — and beat him black and blue with plastic pipes and iron rods. He was later brought to the police station and eventually declared dead. This case of custodial torture has sparked outrage in Tamil Nadu and beyond.

Human rights lawyer Henri Tiphagne submitted video evidence allegedly showing Ajith being beaten by police officers inside Thiruppuvanam police station. The footage, captured by a temple employee named Sakthiswaran, was described by the court as shocking. In a revelation that shocked the bench, it was stated that the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Sivagangai district was present at the station during the torture.

Madras High Court: “Not even an FIR?”

The State informed the court that a CSR entry was made based on a complaint filed on June 28, 2025, regarding missing jewellery, but no FIR was registered. The court was aghast: “If this was merely a theft investigation, why was the suspect beaten to death?” questioned the bench. Judges demanded to know who authorised the special team that interrogated Ajith and whether such teams were formed on the basis of social media posts.

Adding to the irregularities, the court highlighted that the SP had merely been transferred and not suspended. The judges further criticised the government’s claim that action was being taken, calling it wholly insufficient.

Autopsy reveals 18 injuries, video confirms beating

India Today accessed an exclusive video showing Ajith being thrashed with a lathi by policemen. The autopsy confirmed 18 distinct injuries on his body. As outrage grew, the Tamil Nadu government handed over the case to the CB-CID. However, the court observed that police cannot investigate cases against their own ranks and called for independent accountability.

Tamil Nadu Custodial Death Case || ‘Clincher’ Video Emerges

On Cam: Temple security guard thrashed.

Guard Ajith Kumar was picked up by the police in connection with a gold theft case. In the video, police personnel can be seen beating him with sticks: @dharannniii shares more… pic.twitter.com/vBYL0jpRJE

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) July 1, 2025

Echoes of Sathankulam: Will Tamil Nadu ever learn?

The events chillingly mirror the Sathankulam case of 2020, where Jeyaraj and his son Bennix were brutally tortured and killed in custody for allegedly violating lockdown timings. In that case, the intervention of the judiciary and public outrage led to the arrest and prosecution of several police officials. The Madras High Court in that case had relied on the testimony of an independent judicial officer to uncover the truth.

Just like in Sathankulam, the initial attempt in Ajith Kumar’s case also seems to involve a cover-up, delayed documentation, and failure to follow legal procedure — from absence of FIR to delayed autopsy to vague accountability. The question haunting observers remains the same: Has anything changed in Tamil Nadu’s policing culture?

India’s international obligations: UNCAT still unratified

Ajith Kumar’s death also reopens the debate on India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Despite signing it in 1997, India has not enacted an anti-torture law. UNCAT mandates prohibition, criminalization, independent investigation, and compensation for custodial torture — all glaringly absent in this case.

In cases like DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that third-degree methods have no place in a democratic setup. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty. Yet, as in Ajith Kumar’s case, these rights are repeatedly violated in police custody with impunity.

Widespread custodial deaths: A nationwide pattern of impunity

According to data shared by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Lok Sabha, there were 2,152 deaths in judicial custody and 155 in police custody in 2021–22 alone. Despite these alarming figures, disciplinary action was taken in only 21 cases in five years, with zero prosecutions.

The National Human Rights Commission had announced a total compensation of ₹4.53 crore in 137 custodial death cases in 2021–22 — a drop from ₹4.88 crore in the previous year. The data underscores a systemic failure to hold perpetrators accountable. Tamil Nadu, despite its history of custodial violence cases like Sathankulam and now Ajith Kumar, continues to exhibit a culture of impunity reinforced by the lack of anti-torture legislation.

The road ahead

The Madras High Court has ordered the Thirupuvanam Judicial Magistrate and the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital to file preliminary and post-mortem reports. Witnesses including temple officials and video documenter Shakthiswaran have been summoned. Petitions are pending seeking CBI/SIT probe and compensation to the victim’s family.

Whether the judiciary’s timely intervention will lead to accountability in this case — or fade into routine impunity — remains to be seen. But what is already clear is this: Ajith Kumar’s death is not an isolated tragedy. It is a systemic collapse.

(The author is a law student and a former intern at cjp.org.in.)

Related:

TN custodial death report establishes complicity of police, hospital staff and jail authorities

CBI chargesheet confirms brutal torture on Jeyaraj and Bennicks

Death in Chains: Indian Courts award reparation for deaths in custody, deaths rise alarmingly

The post Ajith Kumar’s custodial death exposes Tamil Nadu’s unbroken chain of police impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While writing my previous blog on how and why Narendra Modi went out of his way to promote English when he was Gujarat chief minister — despite opposition from people in the Sangh Parivar — I came across an interesting write-up by Aakar Patel, a well-known name among journalists and civil society circles.

Titled “How Gujarat ignores the English language”, with a subheading “Exploring clichés about Gujarat’s English and education system”, the piece was published in the online edition of the Hindustan Times’ business daily, Mint. It is now 12 years old — one reason why I decided to review what Aakar had written.

While quickly going through the article, I found Aakar — who served as the head of Amnesty International India between 2015 and 2019, and currently chairs its board — was grossly mistaken in stating that the Congress in Gujarat “has supported introduction of English earlier but the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) reject this.”

Traditional Indian spices

As my two previous pieces on this site suggest (click here and here), poor English in Gujarat is actually a Congress legacy — one that sections of the Sangh Parivar wanted to continue. Modi, however, made efforts to reverse this by crafting policies and programmes supporting the teaching of the language.

That said, much of what Aakar wrote in his article — published online in Mint on October 18, 2013 — still holds true. Written after attending a function at a school in Surat where he had studied 25 years earlier, Aakar states he “was struck” to find school teachers speaking “an embarrassingly-broken English, sprinkled with errors and without felicity.”

I don’t know how much teachers’ knowledge of English has changed since then, but Aakar’s quotation from the Gujarat education department website suggests that Modi’s efforts to promote English seem to have failed — at least at the official level. The web address quoted by Aakar may have changed, but the gibberish English written on it remains stuck in time.

Indeed, the two long quotes from the website that Aakar reproduced in 2013 remain unchanged. They appear verbatim today as they did then — serving, as he called them, “an evidence on display” of the poverty of English in a department meant to support Modi’s language promotion policies through such grand programmes as SCOPE, or Society for Creation of Opportunities through Proficiency in English.

Let me now reproduce the two long quotes from the Gujarat State Education Department website which Aakar copied in 2013 to “explain” how the department puts together its textbooks — and which remain as incoherent today as they were back then.

The first appears under the “Overview” section (screenshot here) of Gujarat textbooks. It states (quoted verbatim, without correcting grammar):

“Establishment

“Gujarat state Textbook Mandal was established in AD 1969 on 21st October. Since 38 year mandals main target. High quality textbooks are published and to Gujarat students they are easily available at reasonable prices.

Through Mandal Std. 1-12 Gujarati Medium textbooks are published. Thereafter in Hindi, English, Marathi, Sindhi, Urdu, Sanskrit and Tamil Language also text books are published.

Board Committees

Mandals whole management is done properly; it decided objectives are fulfilled for that Board Committee is formed as below.

(1) General Board (2) Director Board (3) Working committee (4) Educational committee (5) Production committee (6) Research committee.

Above mentioned all committee’s administration works properly regarding that advise suggestions are given.

Aakar Patel

 

Mandal distribution related works

Printed textbooks are distributed in whole Gujarat at Government level working organizations through them with district distributor textbook are sold in retail for that work distributors are hired. Retailers registration is done in mandal. In Ahmedabad also Ahmedabad has its own selling centre. (Sale Depot, Godown no. 9 below Asarva Bridge, Ahmedabad – 380016, Ph. 22133920) is there. At any institute or personal level to any student from this sale centre textbook can be availed at retailing std. from outside Gujarat through money order or bank draft also textbooks can be obtained.

Mandals research related work

Textbook mandal by publishing textbook is not satisfied. Textbooks quality improves continuously for that research related work is also done. From primary teacher to university professors knowledgeable persons are joined in evaluation programme and other educational programme. Textbooks writers, advisers, translators etc. for them work of finding genius is done.

Mandal’s work in new sector

Basic subject’s textbook – AD 1999 to Std. 11-12, basic subject 26 textbooks publishing being done Mandal for general exam additional subjects through textbook relevant sectors students are provided basic literature. Due to this in village and Kurshi sector also Mandal human research development important work could give own contribution.”

The second is what the department calls a “Disclaimer” (screenshot here):

“Gujarat Government Education Department related information is easily available to people from one place only with that aim this website is developed. Regarding this matter if you have any opinion then you are requested to contact us. To keep this site latest and the mistake that come our consideration to correct those mistakes all efforts will be done. In this site document information created by people and private organizations is there. The information available for outside, on its exactness, co ordination latest or completion we have no control or we can give any promise, this matter has to be kept in mind.

The information of this web site is for the benefit of general public and from it any legal right or responsibility is not created. For over sight or any mistake of typing this department is not responsible.

If any information is not true or some corrections are needed in it, if this is known then the steps to solve it opinions can be given. This web sites documents/samples (PDF file) soft copy and hard copy thus from both they are taken. While conversion certain documents formatting may change that can happen for conversion raised mistakes efforts are done of correcting it. In spite of that now also there can be any mistake in it. If regarding this matter you have any questions then original documents respective copies have to be brought or you are requested to contact us. Moreover for linked sites policy or method we are not responsible.”

Established in 2007–2008, the site has had a whopping 19,816,644 visitors. Yet it hasn’t been updated since 2014 — the year Modi left Gujarat to become the country’s Prime Minister. On Google, interestingly, the site is labelled as “Not secure or Dangerous,” with its identity marked as “not verified” (screenshot here).

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Whither SCOPE? Twelve years on, Gujarat’s official English remains frozen in time appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The people had indeed spoken—and they had rejected everything Cuomo represented. The former New York governor, married into the Kennedy dynasty through his union with Kerry Kennedy, had tried to buy his way back to relevance with billionaire money and the weight of two of America’s most storied political families. The political titan who had resigned in disgrace had just been crushed by a nobody. A housing counsellor from Queens. A 33-year-old democratic socialist whom most New Yorkers couldn’t have picked out of a police lineup six months earlier.

Across the city in Astoria, that nobody—Zohran Kwame Mamdani, son of Indo-Ugandan exiles, former rapper, sometime housing advocate – stood before a crowd of volunteers who had just rewritten the rules of American politics. They had not merely defeated a former governor; they had obliterated him, turning Cuomo’s 30-point lead into a seven-point rout that would make their candidate the Democratic nominee for mayor of America’s largest city.

This was not supposed to happen. Not in New York, where money and connections have long determined who gets to compete for City Hall. Not to Andrew Cuomo, scion of political royalty, armed with $33 million and the backing of Wall Street’s finest. And certainly not at the hands of an obscure Assemblyman whose campaign headquarters doubled as a community organizing centre in Queens, whose previous claim to fame was battling foreclosure notices in immigrant neighbourhoods nobody else bothered to visit.

Yet here was Mamdani, with 93 per cent of ballots counted, claiming 43.5 per cent of first-choice votes against Cuomo’s 36.4 per cent. His primary victory, powered by 50,000 volunteers and $8 million in small-dollar donations, represented something unprecedented in American politics: the emergence of a candidate who successfully translated policy prescriptions into cultural resonance, whose “exuberant economic populism” became, in the words of campaign observers, “a love song to a city yearning for change.” His victory positions him as the Democratic nominee who could become New York’s first Muslim, Indian-American, and millennial mayor—a symbolic breakthrough that extends far beyond representation to embody resistance against the nationalist currents of Donald Trump’s second presidential term.

Roots of Rebellion

To understand how Mamdani reached this moment, one must look to the inheritance that shaped him. Born on October 18, 1991, in Kampala, Uganda, to Indian parents, Mamdani grew up carrying the legacies of dislocation and resistance. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a renowned Gujarati Shia Muslim scholar at Columbia University, whose work on decolonisation reshaped how generations understood power and citizenship. His mother, Mira Nair, an acclaimed Punjabi Hindu filmmaker, gave voice to diaspora stories through her cinema.

The middle name Kwame, a tribute to Ghanaian revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, was entirely intentional. It was a signal. Mahmood Mamdani’s own life had been a study in resistance: expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin for being Indian and outspoken, he passed through London refugee camps before returning to a post Amin Kampala. His resignation from the University of Cape Town, after white faculty resisted efforts to decolonise the curriculum, led to his landmark book Citizen and Subject, which reframed Africa’s colonial inheritance as one that divided urban citizens from rural subjects.

That defiant, searching spirit filtered down. Zohran’s undergraduate thesis at Bowdoin, on Uganda’s expulsion of Indians, reflected far more than an academic interest but a personal reckoning. It brought him closer to immigrant communities whose lives echoed his family’s. The narrative of loss and return, of exile and belonging, lived in him.

After arriving in New York at age seven, Mamdani came of age in the city’s multitudes. At Bowdoin, he studied Africana Studies and co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine—his politics expanding beyond borders, his compass set to global justice.

From the Streets to the Statehouse

The path from Bowdoin College to City Hall was anything but conventional for Mamdani. After graduating with a degree in Africana Studies, where he co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine, he spent time pursuing an unlikely passion: hip-hop music. Under a stage name he now prefers to keep private, Mamdani briefly tried his hand as a rapper, before concluding that community organizing offered more direct routes to social change.

His transition to housing advocacy proved formative. Working as a foreclosure prevention counsellor in Queens, Mamdani spent his days in cramped apartments with families facing eviction, navigating bureaucratic mazes to keep people housed. The work provided intimate knowledge of the housing crisis that would later inform his policy prescriptions, but more importantly, it connected him to the human cost of policy failures that most politicians encounter only in statistics.

By 2019, Mamdani was organizing tenant unions in Astoria. Renters, once isolated, began to act collectively. They fought back. And in those tight hallways and cramped living rooms, he learned what real power looked like. The power of platforms paled next to the power of listening, of showing up, of helping people see themselves as part of something larger.

His 2020 election to the New York State Assembly at age 29, defeating a four-term incumbent in Astoria’s diverse district, marked his formal entry into electoral politics. The victory, followed by unopposed re-election, established him as a rising star in progressive circles. His legislative record, including securing $100 million for subway service improvements and piloting fare-free bus programmes, demonstrated his ability to navigate Albany’s complex coalition politics while maintaining his progressive credentials.

The 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes offered another proving ground. Mamdani stood with the unions. His face became familiar on picket lines. His solidarity went beyond symbolism and built the trust that would carry him through a citywide campaign.

A City Crying Out for Bold Answers

When Mamdani unveiled his mayoral platform, critics immediately branded it “radical.” The label didn’t seem to bother him. “These policies reflect what working people demand,” he argued in response, “not what billionaire donors or real estate speculators prefer.” It was classic Mamdani—turning a potential weakness into a populist rallying cry.

His comprehensive agenda reads like a progressive wish list: freeze rents on over one million stabilised apartments, eliminate fares on city buses, fund universal childcare, raise the minimum wage to $30 by 2030, and establish city-run grocery stores to combat food inflation. The financing mechanism—a $10 billion tax on corporations and the ultra-wealthy—represents perhaps the most controversial aspect of his platform, prompting business elites to threaten a capital strike.

Mamdani’s housing strategy represents a particular departure from conventional wisdom, shifting emphasis from developer incentives to tenant-owned buildings—a approach he describes as informed by his years of tenant organising experience. “We’re not going to build our way out of this crisis by making developers richer,” he said during a campaign debate, a line that became a signature applause generator at his rallies.

His public safety vision, prioritising what he calls a “Department of Community Safety” over militarised policing, reflects progressive thinking on criminal justice reform but has drawn scepticism from centrists like Mayor Eric Adams, whose 2024 corruption indictment was ultimately dismissed. When pressed on specifics during a contentious radio interview, Mamdani argued that “public safety means people feeling safe in their homes from eviction, safe in their neighbourhoods from violence, and safe in their workplaces from exploitation.”

David Slays Goliath: How the Upset Happened

The mechanics of Mamdani’s campaign victory represent a masterclass in modern political organising. Defying 31 of 32 polls that favoured Cuomo, the campaign leveraged New York’s ranked-choice voting system with surgical precision. A strategic cross-endorsement with City Comptroller Brad Lander, who secured 11.4 per cent of first-choice votes, provided the crucial margin in reallocations that secured Mamdani’s seven-point victory margin.

The ground game was unprecedented in its scope and intensity. Fifty thousand volunteers conducted 1.2 million door-knocks, reaching diverse communities across the city’s five boroughs. The campaign’s ability to mobilise South Asians in Richmond Hill, Latinos in Jackson Heights, Chinese voters in Flushing, and even make inroads among Brooklyn gentrifiers demonstrated sophisticated targeting and messaging. Even in conservative Staten Island, traditionally hostile territory for progressive candidates, Mamdani narrowed the gap to just nine points.

The financial contrast between the campaigns tells its own story. Mamdani’s $8 million, raised from 21,000 small-dollar donors—75 per cent contributing under $100—stood against Cuomo’s $33 million war chest, including a $25 million super PAC, Fix the City, backed by billionaire Bill Ackman, a Trump supporter and Israel advocate. This David-versus-Goliath dynamic resonated with voters increasingly cynical about money’s role in politics.

Cuomo’s campaign, by contrast, seemed to embody everything voters found objectionable about contemporary politics. Heir to a political dynasty through his father Mario Cuomo, who served as governor from 1983 to 1994, Andrew Cuomo relied heavily on name recognition but failed to qualify for public matching funds. His record—hiding nursing home deaths during COVID-19, discrediting over a dozen women who accused him of sexual harassment, and cutting a 2022 gerrymandering deal that aided Republican House gains—made him a symbol of status-quo failure, unable to withstand Mamdani’s populist surge.

When Identity Meets Authenticity

Mamdani’s relationship with New York’s 600,000-strong South Asian community exemplifies his sophisticated approach to identity politics. Drawing on his mother Mira Nair’s Sikh heritage, he engaged authentically with community institutions, speaking Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi at gurdwaras and community events. His support for India’s 2020-21 farmer protests and praise for Kerala’s Communist leadership demonstrated his ability to navigate complex subcontinental politics while maintaining progressive credentials.

His critique of Hindu nationalism, including calling Narendra Modi “the butcher of Gujarat” for the 2002 riots and condemning the Ram Temple consecration as majoritarian oppression tied to the Babri Masjid’s demolition, drew predictable criticism from BJP MP Kangana Ranaut but solidified his standing among progressive South Asian groups like DRUM. This willingness to take controversial positions on international issues distinguished him from conventional politicians who avoid diaspora controversies.

Perhaps no issue tested Mamdani’s political courage more than Palestine. His characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” and his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement became a litmus test for progressive authenticity. His pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an indicted war criminal—if elected mayor and Netanyahu visited New York represented a direct challenge to the Democratic establishment’s unwavering support for Israel. During a heated March 2025 confrontation with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, Mamdani demanded the release of detained activist Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American organizer arrested while protesting weapons shipments to Israel. The moment, widely shared on social media, further galvanized his support among pro-Palestinian groups and cemented his stance as a rare voice of solidarity within mainstream American politics.

This stance contrasted sharply with Cuomo’s offer to join Netanyahu’s defence team before the International Criminal Court, aligning him with establishment Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Mamdani’s position, amplified through 135 mosque visits during the campaign, mobilised Muslim voters despite drawing antisemitism accusations from Representative Laura Gillen. The defence mounted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, citing his clear condemnation of antisemitism as a “disgusting and dangerous ideology,” helped neutralise these attacks.

The Hard Part: From Nominee to City Hall

The transition from primary winner to governing will test Mamdani’s political skills in new ways. With the November general election looming, he must first survive what promises to be a bruising campaign against the Republican nominee while managing New York’s complex electoral dynamics. Should he win in November, governing the city’s $115 billion budget and 300,000 employees will require executive experience that his critics, led by Cuomo, have questioned. The New York Post and business elites, alarmed by his tax proposals, may support Cuomo’s rumoured independent run, creating additional political complications.

Federal budget cuts under Trump’s second term, combined with potential state resistance to progressive policies, will create fiscal constraints that may limit Mamdani’s ability to implement his agenda. However, some of his key proposals, particularly the rent freeze, appear feasible through existing mechanisms like the Rent Guidelines Board.

His electoral coalition—South Asians, Latinos, progressive young voters—provides a strong foundation for governance, but maintaining unity while making the inevitable compromises required for effective administration will require careful political management. His consultations with technocrats like Maria Torres-Springer suggest preparation for the practical challenges of potential governance, though media scrutiny and a Republican opponent in the general election will test his campaign from now until November. Should he prevail in November, potential opposition from figures like Eric Adams would test his administration from the outset.

If Mamdani reaches City Hall, he may join the lineage of American progressives who governed boldly: Milwaukee’s “sewer socialists,” Bernie Sanders in Burlington.

“It always seems impossible until it is done,” he said, quoting Mandela. Mamdani has done what many thought impossible. What remains is to prove it was entirely intentional.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post New York’s New Equation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The official statement further said that, on average, 143 identified cases were resolved, and 187 criminals convicted each working day, the state government said. “Launched on July 1, 2023, Operation Conviction has proven to be a game-changer, leading to the conviction of 97,158 criminals between July 2023 and mid-June,” ADG prosecution was reported by HT to have Deepesh Juneja said.

Juneja also stated that of the 1,14,029 identified cases, 74,388 cases were disposed of. Under the campaign, 68 accused persons were sentenced to death, 8,172 received life imprisonment, 1,453 were sentenced to over 20 years, and 87,465 were given up to 20 years’ imprisonment. The state government claims that the data showcases this government’s commitment to delivering swift and decisive justice particularly in cases involving serious crimes needs to be closely examined however. To justify these methods the government statement also states that “395 accused were convicted in 272 cases involving the top 10 criminals.” Besides, when it came to crack down on the mafia, 29 of the 69 identified mafias were convicted, reaffirming that the crackdown was not limited to petty offenders, the statement added.

The campaign was stated have also delivered results in cases of crimes against children as reflected from 17 accused being sentenced to death under the POCSO Act which included three such punishments in a month and 619 persons being handed out life imprisonment. Of the 68 death penalties, 17 were under POCSO, 48 for heinous crimes, and the rest in other cases. On average, 143 identified cases were resolved, and 187 criminals convicted each working day, it said.

The post 97,000 persons convicted in UP under ‘operation conviction’: State Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brahmdev Maharaj temple, was also where the Muslim caretaker w lived alone after separating from his family. For more than 35 years, Mohammad has quietly tended to the temple, a place he also called his home. On most days, he has fed animals, cleaned the temple grounds, assisted during aarti, and found quiet moments to pray, yes offer namaz.

However, something he has done for years, the namaz, discreetly offered near a tree on the premises, became a matter of public controversy when someone filmed it — reportedly around two months ago — and uploaded the video online on June 28.Within hours, Ali found himself behind bars for “defiling a place of worship with intent to insult religion”. This act is symptomatic of the street vigilantism encouraged by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) be it in Uttar Pradesh where the incident happened, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat or Maharashtra. Local police also immediately tend to bend to the will of these mobs on the prowl, influenced by the fact that they enjoy political patronage.

In this case, Ali Mohammad had reportedly earlier apologised to some local villagers when questioned about the prayer, and the matter had initially subsided until the clip resurfaced. Paramanand Das told TOI he was taken aback by the arrest of the man who had served the temple faithfully since the days of his late mentor, Radheshyam, in 2002 and promised to personally arrange help for Ali’s bail if his family were unable to do so. “What happened to Ali Mohammad was wrong and unexpected,” Das said, adding that the village panchayat would “punish” the individual responsible for circulating the video. “The unidentified man who slyly shot and posted the video has committed a greater offence than Ali. If the police take our statement, we will support Ali. Humanity is above religion,” he added. However, Das also said, “Whatever he did here was wrong. “Das added that the temple is a place of devotion for people from all faiths. “On Diwali, people of different religions come to offer prayers at the feet of Brahmdev Maharaj. Ali respected every religion, committed no crime, and never harboured any religious hatred. He worked with dignity and respect, maintaining the temple’s sanctity.”Dataganj circle officer K K Tiwari said, “An FIR has been registered against Ali. He has been arrested. Investigation has so far revealed that Ali was living for decades near the Brahmdev Maharaj temple complex. Someone recorded a video of him offering a prayer supposedly near a tree inside the premises and shared it online. Police force was deployed at the temple premises as soon as we received information in this regard.” Ali himself, in a video released by police, seemed utterly bewildered by the stringent charges slapped on him. He said, “The temple is my sanctuary, the place I found peace. I left my family to serve here. I received meals three times a day from the temple, sometimes even clothes. I did not commit any crime – I would not even think of defiling a place that is home for me.”

Related:

Mumbai Walks for Peace | Citizens Unite Against Hate

Pahalgam Attack: Kashmir unites in heroic resilience amid terror attack, proving humanity’s strength against hate narrative

Faith Knows No Religion: Banke Bihari Temple again rejects boycott call against Muslim artisans and businesses

The post ‘What happened to Ali Mohammad was wrong’: UP temple’s Muslim caretaker held for offering namaz; Hindu priest to arrange bail, says he served with dignity for 35 years reports TOI appeared first on SabrangIndia.