The recent applications were filed in response to the ongoing misuse of anti-conversion laws by several states. The petition was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Within weeks of the ordinance being first enforced in Uttar Pradesh in 2020 and then being passed as a law (2021) incidents of assault, violence and intimidation against adult couples, especially those belonging to marginalised sections were reported, and these in the past four years plus, have only intensified.  Set in its path the Uttar Pradesh government however, further amended the law last year in 2024, amending sections to further enhance punitive measures, both monetary and penal for those that the state considers “offenders.” CJP’s present applications incorporate these developments.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing CJP, argued that the anti-conversion laws were being “weaponised” to target specific communities and interfaith couples, stressing that the laws were being misused repeatedly. Singh requested the bench to issue a notice on the application for interim relief to prevent further misuse of these laws, which he claimed were infringing upon individual freedoms, including the right to marry across faiths. He also urged that the most damaging sections be stayed until the final hearing of the matter.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, stating that there were no instances of misuse to support the claims made by CJP. At this point, CJI Khanna instructed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to review the various petitions and instances being highlighted, and inform the Court which applications the Union government may not oppose, while also filing responses where objections existed. The Court directed that non-applicants submit their responses to the applications, even in the absence of a formal notice being issued. The matter has now been scheduled to be heard again on a non-miscellaneous day, ensuring that proceedings would move forward expeditiously.

The hearing that took place on April 16 formed part of a larger challenge to the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws, with CJP asserting that such laws violate individuals’ freedom of choice and the right to choose their religion. Additionally, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has also filed a transfer petition to have 21 cases pending in six High Courts consolidated before the Supreme Court. In Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, High Courts have granted partial stays to some sections. These interim orders have also been challenged by these state governments before the Supreme Court.

Details of the IA filed by CJP

The interim application (IA) filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace in the Supreme Court is aimed at emphasising how the practice of the law –over the past four years and more –has resulted in widespread mis-use, to further enhance the original argument on constitutionality of the statutes. The IA contains a detailed table of reported instances of mis-use and attacks on fundamental freedons of life and choice especially from Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh. The application specifically addresses the pattern of abuse of these laws to target women, couples and also to harass minorities, including Christians and Muslims, under the pretext of ‘regulating religious conversions.’

The CJP has contended that these anti-conversion laws, although allegedly framed to prevent forced conversions, are being weaponised by far right organizations and state authorities to falsely accuse individuals, create a climate of fear, and discriminate against minorities. One of the key concerns highlighted in the IA is the pattern of abuse by far right groups, who use these laws to initiate false complaints and pressure law enforcement to act against individuals or communities, often without any credible evidence. In several instances, these complaints are lodged by third parties with vested interests, such as organisations or individuals aligned with right-wing political agendas, rather than the individuals or families affected by the alleged conversions.

The application further argues that the laws do not provide adequate safeguards against misuse, with one of the major concerns being the tendency of state authorities to act on complaints without conducting any preliminary inquiry or verification. This has led to arbitrary arrests, detentions, and the imposition of social and legal stigma on the accused, particularly from minority communities. The CJP has urged that the Court issue detailed guidelines mandating a pre-FIR inquiry by competent authorities to prevent the misuse of these laws. The organisation has emphasised that such safeguards are necessary to ensure that the laws are not used for political or social persecution, which is the current trend in certain states.

CJP has also raised the concern that these laws violate fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion and the right to live with dignity. The application has cited multiple instances where individuals, particularly from marginalized communities, have been wrongfully accused under these laws, leading to their harassment, societal alienation, and even criminal charges based on unfounded allegations. This is particularly evident in Uttar Pradesh, where the law has been used extensively to target Muslim communities, despite there being no evidence of forced conversions.

A significant concern raised in the IA pertains to the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. This amendment removed a key safeguard that had previously limited the filing of complaints to the person whose conversion was allegedly coerced or their immediate family. Following the amendment, any individual—including politically motivated third parties or members of Hindutva groups—can now lodge a complaint, regardless of their relationship to the concerned parties. CJP has argued that this has legitimised and expanded the role of communal vigilantes, allowing them to misuse the law to harass consenting adults in interfaith relationships, often with the support or inaction of law enforcement agencies. Additionally, stringent punishments have also been introduced through the said amendment.

In light of these abuses, the CJP has requested urgent judicial intervention from the Supreme Court. Specifically, the IA seeks interim relief in the form of directions to the authorities to ensure that no FIR is registered under the anti-conversion laws without a thorough investigation and a genuine, evidence-based complaint. It has also urged the Court to consider issuing interim guidelines that would prevent the automatic registration of cases and would impose a more rigorous procedural requirement before such charges can be brought.

The application stresses that these anti-conversion laws, instead of protecting individual rights, have become tools for furthering divisive and discriminatory agendas, violating the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. By seeking these safeguards and judicial oversight, CJP hopes to curb the misuse of these laws and ensure that they are not used to further religious persecution or target specific communities under the guise of religious freedom.

Brief background of the petition

In February 2021 notice had been issued to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Then in 2023, the Supreme Court had issued notice to five states—Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—following a renewed challenge to their anti-conversion laws. This petition, filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), was a continuation of their previous challenge to similar laws in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. 

The CJP writ petition, amended in 2023, challenged the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws passed by these states, arguing that these laws violate fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of individuals to marry and convert based on their personal choices. This renewed challenge followed CJP’s initial petition in 2020, which led to the issuance of notices by the Supreme Court. The Court had granted CJP permission to amend its original writ petition to include newer anti-conversion laws enacted in additional states. The petition contends that the laws have been weaponised to harass and intimidate interfaith couples, often under the guise of combating “Love Jihad.” According to CJP, the laws not only infringe on personal freedoms but also legitimize discriminatory and unconstitutional practices that target minorities, especially women, and exacerbate communal tensions.

This table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, computes the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:

Central to CJP’s arguments has been the assertion that the anti-conversion laws create an atmosphere of suspicion around interfaith marriages, subjecting them to legal and social scrutiny. These laws equate conversion for marriage with coercion, fraud, or force, thus casting a shadow over consensual, interfaith unions. The petition had highlighted several troubling provisions, including mandatory prior and post-conversion reporting requirements, vague and overbroad definitions of “inducement” or “allurement,” and a reversed burden of proof, which forces individuals to prove that their conversion and marriage were not coercive. CJP has argued that such provisions violate key constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, autonomy, and the freedom of conscience under Articles 14, 21, and 25.

Moreover, CJP has contended that these laws disproportionately target interfaith couples, effectively deterring individuals from exercising their right to choose their partner and religion freely. The petition asserted that the laws, while ostensibly neutral, disproportionately affect certain religious communities and undermine the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. By criminalising conversions linked to marriage, the laws place unnecessary hurdles in the way of interfaith unions, undermining both personal freedoms and the very fabric of constitutional equality. As the matter progresses, the Court’s eventual decision could have significant implications for the legal treatment of religious conversions and interfaith marriages in India, potentially reshaping the boundaries of personal freedom and religious choice.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

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

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

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

The post “Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP urges SC to curb misuse of anti-conversion statutes by states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is the story of resilience, legal perseverance, and an unjust system that continues to persecute the marginalised on the basis of ‘doubt’.

Background: Suspicion cast on a woman born in independent India

Alijon Bibi, a Muslim woman born on February 25, 1955 in Gopalerkuti village, Coochbehar district, West Bengal, was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) in Assam in 2004 under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. She had moved to Assam after marrying Rahman Ali from Boromera village, Dhubri district, approximately 53 years ago. Despite having lived, voted, and raised five children in Assam, she was labelled a “doubtful voter” and suspected of being an illegal Bangladeshi migrant. The reference continued even after the IMDT Act was struck down in 2005 and was re-registered as FT-10/AGM/2297/2020 under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The Tribunal notice sent to Alijon Bibi tore through her family’s life. Sheikh Alimuddin, father of Alijon, was 31 years old when India gained independence, yet decades later, his daughter was being persecuted as an illegal foreigner. She had voted in Assam since 1985, yet the stigma of being suspected as a foreigner was unbearable. The social repercussions were equally severe—her son, a respected Mufti at the local mosque, began facing questions. The family requested CJP not to disclose the case to their neighbours for fear of social ostracisation. Their dignity had come under attack.

For a woman whose father had voted in Indian elections in 1966 and owned ancestral land in West Bengal, it was a cruel irony to be forced to prove her belonging in her own country.

CJP Assam Team with Alijon Bibi

Mounting the Defence: CJP’s tireless efforts

From the moment CJP took on her case, it became a meticulous process of documentation, field visits, and advocacy. CJP’s para-legal team, especially Dhubri’s District Volunteer Motivator (DVM) Habibul Bepari, tracked down her family history and vital records in both Assam and West Bengal. CJP’s advocate, Mr. Iskandar Azad, and team conducted extensive follow-ups with government offices to collect original documents and arrange witnesses.

One of the biggest hurdles was securing witnesses from West Bengal—an entirely different state—to testify in an Assam court. Repeated visits were made to the Pradhan’s house in Balabhut Gram Panchayat to convince him to appear before the Tribunal. This logistical nightmare illustrates how citizenship battles can be stacked against the poor and marginalised.

Legal arguments and documentary evidence presented

In her written statement and oral testimony, Alijon asserted that she was a citizen of India by birth. She supported her claim with the following:

Primary legal evidence:

1. Voter list of 1966 (Ext A): Proved her father Sekh Alimuddin was a registered voter under Tufanganj constituency, West Bengal. This document was authenticated by the Director of the Directorate of State Archives, Government of West Bengal, who confirmed it was genuine.
2. Land records (Ext C): Certified copy of land in her father and uncles’ names—prepared in 1955—proving their residence and landholding before January 1, 1966.
3. Multiple voter lists (Ext D, E, M, N): Her name appeared in Assam voter rolls from 1985, 1997, 2010, and 2022 alongside her husband and children, showing continued residence.
4. Identity documents (Ext G, H, I): Voter ID, Aadhaar card, PAN card—supporting evidence of Indian identity and address.
5. Brother’s testimony (DW-2): Mojammel Hoque corroborated her family background and origin. He submitted his own verified voter ID, Aadhaar, and PAN details as additional linkage evidence.
6. Official witnesses:

1. • DW-3: Head Clerk of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Tufanganj, who authenticated Ext C.
   • DW-4: Gram Pradhan from Balabhut Gram Panchayat confirmed earlier issuance of linkage certificate (though it was ultimately not relied upon due to documentation gaps).

Tribunal’s Finding: Not a foreigner

After reviewing all documents and depositions, the Tribunal noted:

• The 1966 voter list and 1955 land records proved her father’s Indian citizenship.
• Her own presence in voter rolls since 1985 confirmed continuous residence and civic participation.
• No rebuttal evidence was offered by the state; the referral authority itself had noted that she did not appear to be a foreigner.

The Tribunal concluded by holding Alijon Bibi to be a citizen of India.

Broader Implications: Citizenship trials and structural injustice

Alijon’s case is emblematic of the deeply flawed citizenship determination process in Assam. Despite clear documentary proof and a history of voting in Indian elections, she was forced to prove her “Indianness” in a quasi-judicial proceeding lasting nearly two decades.

This process places an unfair evidentiary burden on the accused, often the poor, rural, and marginalised, while the state is not required to prove its claims. Women like Alijon, who move to another state after marriage and often lack birth certificates, are especially vulnerable.

Despite societal stigma and bureaucratic hurdles, Alijon and her family now speak openly, hoping their story will inspire others to resist. On April 8, when CJP state in-charge Nanda Ghosh, Dhubri’s DVM Habibul Bepari and office driver Asikul Hussain went to Alijon’s house to handover the FT order, she told the CJP team:

“Allah gives you strength to be with poor people. I’ll pray to Allah.”

Alijon Bibi sits holding the order that proves her citizenship along with her husband out their home

Her recognition as an Indian citizen is not just a personal triumph, but a powerful indictment of a system that continues to cast suspicion on its most vulnerable. It is a reminder that legal advocacy, community support, and collective resolve can still defeat institutional injustice.

The order may be read here.

Related:

CJP Triumph: Bipul Karmakar wins citizenship battle after a two-year struggle

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

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

The post Alijon Bibi’s 20-year battle ends in justice, CJP helps secure her citizenship after 2-year legal battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incidents documented here range, from communal targeting and inflammatory speeches to acts of inhuman violence and systemic discrimination, took place in the month of January till now. Public platforms and political events have been weaponised to spread hateful ideologies, with prominent leaders openly calling for boycotts, violence, and exclusion of minority communities. Vulnerable groups, particularly Muslims, Dalits, and tribals, have borne the brunt of this assault, facing economic sabotage, public humiliation, and even physical attacks.

This alarming trend is not just an affront to individual victims but a grave threat to Maharashtra’s legacy of cultural diversity and harmony. The state, once celebrated for its progressive movements and commitment to social justice, now finds itself mired in a toxic environment where fear, division, and hate dominate public discourse. These incidents expose the failure of the government to uphold the rule of law and protect its citizens, raising urgent questions about accountability and justice.

What follows is a detailed account of some of the most glaring incidents of hate and discrimination in Maharashtra in the month of January 2025. These accounts are not isolated events but part of a larger, systemic assault on the principles of secularism, equality, and human dignity. They demand immediate action and an unwavering commitment to restoring the ideals enshrined in India’s Constitution.

Detailed reports of hate incidents

• Targeting of Muslim-owned businesses in Yavatmal

On January 14, two Muslim-owned restaurants in Wani, Yavatmal, were forcibly shut down by members of the Bajrang Dal. The group accused the establishments of serving beef, leading to the police seizing the meat without providing any evidence or conducting a fair investigation. This incident underscores a worrying pattern of weaponising religious sentiment to economically and socially marginalise Muslims. Such acts not only deprive individuals of their livelihoods but also perpetuate a climate of fear and exclusion, eroding the rights of minority communities.

• Brutal assault on a tribal elderly woman in Amravati

In one of the most horrifying incidents, a 77-year-old tribal woman in Retyakheda village, Amravati, was subjected to medieval-style violence on December 30, 2024. While the incident occurred on December 30, it surfaced on January 5, 2025 after a police complaint was lodged by the victim’s son and daughter-in-law.

As per a report of Siasat, accused of practising black magic, the tribal woman was tied up, beaten with sticks, branded with hot iron rods, and forced to inhale chilli smoke. The assailants, led by the village head, further degraded her by making her consume urine and dog excreta and parading her through the village adorned with a garland of slippers. Despite the gravity of the attack, authorities have yet to invoke the Anti-Superstition Act, raising serious questions about the systemic apathy towards tribal and marginalised communities.

The victim’s family has since approached higher authorities, including the Maharashtra State Women’s Commission and the Inspector General of Police, seeking justice. While the district collector assured them of further investigations, such delays and the initial reluctance to file appropriate charges reflect a larger failure to deter such barbaric acts.

#Horrific An elderly tribal woman was tied with a rope, beaten and forced to eat dog excreta, burnt with a hot iron rod, incident took place in Amravati, Maharashtra. pic.twitter.com/GRd8bWe8sv

— The Dalit Voice (@ambedkariteIND) January 19, 2025

• Anti-Muslim rhetoric at Kurla event

At the “Samrast Yatra” event in Kurla, Mumbai, organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, a Jain monk disseminated hate speech rife with anti-Muslim propaganda. He falsely attributed statements to Dr B.R. Ambedkar, claiming the Dalit leader had called for the expulsion of Muslims from India. Such deliberate distortions of history weaponise revered figures to justify communal hatred.

The monk’s speech also demonised Bangladeshi Muslims, referring to them as “lungiwallas” and inciting Hindus to take violent action against them. This open propagation of hate speech at a public event, without any fear of legal consequences, underscores the emboldenment of extremist voices under the current political climate.

• Minister Nitesh Rane’s hate-filled speech

Maharashtra cabinet minister Nitesh Rane has become a recurring figure in the spread of communal hatred. At the Hindu Jagran Sabha in Sangli on January 10, Rane openly called for the economic boycott of Muslims, accusing them of using their businesses to fund fabricated plots like “love jihad” and “land jihad.” He further stoked paranoia by claiming that Muslims aim to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047.

As per multiple media reports, Rane also coined the communal slur “every vote against Mulla” as a divisive rallying cry. His speech, laced with inflammatory rhetoric and veiled threats, exemplifies how elected representatives are misusing their positions to deepen communal fissures, rather than promoting harmony and inclusivity.

• Sadhvi Ritambhara’s provocative speech in Dadar

At an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Matrishakti and Durga Vahini in Dadar on January 5, Sadhvi Ritambhara delivered a speech designed to incite violence. She vilified historical Muslim figures as well as women, proclaiming that “women who give birth to people like Aurangzeb and Taimur can’t be our ideal women.” Such statements not only demonise entire communities but also perpetuate divisive stereotypes.

Ritambhara amplified the baseless conspiracy theory of ‘love jihad,’ urging Indian women to “poke out the eyes of love jihadis.” The event concluded with participants taking an oath against this fabricated menace, further cementing hatred against a specific group.

• Casteist slur by Shiv Sena MLA Sanjay Gaikwad

At a public gathering in Buldhana, Shiv Sena MLA Sanjay Gaikwad demeaned voters by accusing them of selling their votes for paltry amounts of money, alcohol, and meat. He shockingly stated, “Even a prostitute is better than that,” displaying an utter lack of respect for both voters, women and marginalised groups. Such derogatory remarks from a public representative not only degrade the dignity of citizens but also highlight the normalisation of casteist and classist language in political discourse.

While addressing a public gathering in #Maharashtra‘s #Buldhana, #ShivSena (#EknathShinde faction) MLA #SanjayGaikwad says, “The voters here were sold for 2-5 thousand rupees, alcohol, and meat. Even a prostitute is better than that” pic.twitter.com/MXKRf6bhy0

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) January 7, 2025

A dire need for accountability and action

These incidents are not isolated but part of a broader, systematic pattern aimed at normalising hatred, targeting minorities, and eroding India’s pluralistic ethos. What is particularly troubling is the state’s apparent complicity, whether through direct endorsement, tacit approval, or sheer apathy. Police inaction, delayed investigations, and the absence of legal consequences embolden perpetrators and send a dangerous signal that hate crimes and divisive rhetoric will go unchecked.

The rise in hate incidents also points to a calculated strategy to divert attention from pressing socio-economic issues by deepening communal and caste divides. Elected representatives and influential figures who engage in hate speech must be held accountable under the law? Furthermore, civil society must amplify its efforts to counter such narratives, and judicial interventions must be swift and decisive in upholding justice.

The escalation of hate incidents in Maharashtra underlines the urgent need for introspection and systemic reform. The state government must decisively act to restore public trust by cracking down on hate speech and violence, irrespective of the political or social standing of the perpetrators. Anything less would not only betray the ideals of justice, equality, and secularism but also embolden those seeking to dismantle the fabric of Indian democracy.

Related:

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

CJP calls for electoral action against BJP leader’s hate speech at Rohini Chetna event

From fact-checking to chaos: How meta’s new moderation model risks eroding trust and democracy

Unity Beyond Religion: Stories of shared humanity and mutual respect

The post Maharashtra’s Descent into Hate: Six incidents reported in January 2025 highlight Maharashtra’s rising communal and caste-based violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Responding to this, the PUCL in a detailed statement has outlined how, the views encapsulated in paragraphs 185-188 seek to delegitimize the work of Human Rights organisations around legal aid, fact finding visits and monetary aid. These are vital Constitutional tools that independent organizations use to establish facts, fix accountability and ensure succour for victims of communal strife. By casting aspersions on organisations, the hon’ble court is taking recourse to the baseless narrative of “anti-national” interests working against the State.

This statement by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) provides a comprehensive response to the observations made by the Special NIA Court, Lucknow; against the PUCL and other Human Rights organisations. (FIR 60/2018; Case numbers 1049/2022, 1758/2022 and 2766/2022)/ The statement has been issued by President, PUCL, Kavita Srivastava and V Suresh, General Secretary.

The contentious points in paras 185 to 188 of the judgement delivered in January 4, 2025 are as follows:

• The court observed that ‘the Prosecutors have expressed concern that in NIA courts across the country, when accused in cases under the UAPA or other anti-national/terrorist activities are brought for trial, NGOs—primarily advocating Muslim interests—promptly provide legal aid. This contradicts constitutional principles, as it boosts the morale of undesirable elements.’

• The Court went on to observe that human rights reports by written by various NGOs like Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York), Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai), Indian American Muslim council, Washington DC, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch (Lucknow), South Asia Solidarity group, London and United Against Hate (New Delhi), ‘exert undue pressure on the judiciary and the communal sentiment with stealth creep into the realm of ideas.’

• The Court went on to castigate ‘lawyers from NGOs’ for representing cases of national security, terrorism etc.’ Shocking the Court violates the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court by stating that it’ is not the right of an NGO to provide free legal aid to the accused who are involved in heinous crimes’… NGOS providing legal aid and lawyers is resulting in promoting a point of view which is very narrow and dangerous.’

• The Court concluded that, ‘Citizens for justice and Peace, Mumbai, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch, (Lucknow), United Against Hate (New Delhi), along with NGOs located abroad, like in America and the Great Britian, like the Alliance for Justice and Accountability, New York, Indian American council, Washington, DC), South Asia Solidarity Group (London), were “bogus”, not legitimate human rights organisations. As the Court put it, what could be their interests? Where is their funding coming from, and what are their collective objectives? To investigate this, prevent their unwarranted interference in the judicial process, and to take necessary action to stop them, a copy of this decision should also be sent to the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India”.

 The PUCL in their statement thereafter states as follows

1. Courts should not make adverse remarks against individuals or groups without giving them an opportunity of being heard: Supreme Court of India

Firstly, it should be noted that, none of the implicated organisations were before the Court or were put to notice that observations were likely to be made against them. The Supreme Court has laid down time and again that Courts should not make adverse remarks against individuals or groups without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

In the case of Teesta Setalvad V. State of Gujarat (2004) 10 SCC 88) Supreme Court observed that: “Time and again the supreme Court has deprecated the practice of making observations in Judgments, unless the person in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings and further were granted opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons. ……Observations should not be made by Courts against persons and authorities unless they are necessary or essential for decision of the case.”

The PUCL has stated that, “We are shocked to note that the ruling has passed prejudiced, unsubstantiated and potentially damaging comments about the role of human rights organisations in general and PUCL in particular, when these comments are not germane to the issues in the criminal trial nor were they based on evidence led during the trial. Apart from the fact that these comments are in the nature of an obiter dicta, the fact that such comments have been incorporated into the ruling in a criminal case, which is bound strictly to the facts on record which have been tested during cross-examination and trial, raises doubts about fairness and impartiality in delivering justice in the specific criminal case.

Further the detailed statement issued by the human rights platform founded by Jayprakash Narayan states that, “It should be pointed out that third parties to the criminal trial don’t have any role or scope to intervene in specific criminal cases. Thus, while parties to the criminal case have the option of filing appeals in higher courts both to challenge the verdict of the trial court and also to challenge comments made in the trial court’s judgment, such is not the case with third parties.”

Besides the PUCL statement makes the following points:

2. Conducting Fact Finding, not unconstitutional or unlawful

Secondly, the incident pertains to communal violence which happened in Kasganj in U.P. in 2018. UP has been a hotbed of growing communal tension and violence since even before the Ram Mandir Agitation that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. There have been allegations against the State authorities and the police of helping, provoking, aiding and abetting, communal tension more particularly targeting the minority religious communities. A biased narrative is built up by the authorities invariably blaming the minority community for any violence and then engaged in targeted arrests. It is in this context that it is vital that every such conflagration be investigated by independent civil society organisations to bring forth the true facts. PUCL has been involved in large number of fact findings throughout the country irrespective of the party in power and its fact findings have great credibility. In any case, fact finding, giving legal aid to accused and victims or even providing financial aid to accused or victims can by no stretch of imagination be considered as anti-national activity as sought to be conveyed by the Court. Campaigning on issues, bringing out an alternative viewpoint and public discussion are essential work of civil society organisations, an exercise of constitutional freedom and a key contribution to the idea of an associative democracy.

3. Promoting by peaceful means civil liberties, harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood, agenda of the PUCL 

Thirdly, it should be noted, that even when it comes to the present case as regards PUCL the only action it had taken pursuant to the violence was to act according to the objects of the PUCL Constitution which has as its aim and objects, ‘To uphold and promote by peaceful means civil liberties and the democratic way of life throughout India’

The visit to Kasganj was in pursuance of this object. The aim of the visit is to take forward the fundamental duty enjoined upon all citizens under Art 51(e) which is ‘to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.’ As such, the PUCL has only acted in accordance with the values of the Indian Constitution and such actions do not merit such prejudicial judicial comments.

The judicial censure seeks to mark and target citizens for forming organisations exercising their right under Art 19(1) (c) and getting together and putting forward a collective voice in defence of the ideals envisaged in the Constitution! As Babasaheb Ambedkar put it, ‘constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated’. The PUCL activities under its Constitution, aims to cultivate the constitutional morality embodied in the principle of ‘harmony’ and the ‘spirit of brotherhood’. This we submit is the responsibility of the state as well as members of civil society.

The UN Declaration on human rights defenders has also unequivocally recognised that, ‘Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.’

4. The Public Interest work of the PUCL, through Public Interest Litigation (PILs) in the HC and SC strengthened the basic rights of citizens.

The fact that the PUCL has been a petitioner before both the Supreme Court and High Courts in numerous cases highlights the constitutional work of the PUCL and further exposes the unwarranted and prejudicial nature of the judicial observations. A number of judgments of the Supreme Court which ensure basic rights for citizens including the right to food, freedom from bonded labour and liberation of persons in manual scavenging have had the PUCL as the petitioner. PUCL has also worked towards enhancing the quality of our electoral democracy and has been the petitioner in the Supreme Court decisions recognizing NOTA as a valid option. The PUCL is also the petitioner in the decision of the Supreme Court recognizing that the voter has a right to know the antecedents of their candidate including the assets he or she possesses as well as criminal antecedents.

5. Facts overlooked by the Court 

Fourthly, the judicial comments also violate the judicial discipline of basing conclusions on facts which form part of the record. It should be noted that in terms of ‘facts’,

PUCL did not prepare a fact-finding report, nor did it provide any financial or legal support to families and accused. Though PUCL has in effect done none of the above, we strongly assert that conducting a fact finding is not a crime, providing financial or legal support to families and accused is a humanitarian task and completely within the bounds of the Constitutions.

It is also important for all to know that the PUCL is an unregistered citizens organization and gets no Institutional funding, foreign or Indian and works through contributions of its members and well-wishers and therefore the allegations of funding are baseless.”

Finally, the detailed statements sum up that the stated observations by the NIA court are a) lacking in factual substance; b) attack the credibility of human rights work and c) seek to actively discourage perspectives rooted in the Constitution which seek to expose the state for not abiding by the Constitution. “In the interests of fidelity to the constitutional values of freedom of speech, expression and association, and in the interests of truth and reason, we hope that these prejudiced and invidious observations are suo moto deleted from the reported judgment. “

Related:

Convictions in Kasganj communal riots by NIA Special Court

The post Targeting human rights activism, comments by NIA Court shocking: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a complaint before the District Administration of Ahmednagar, CJP stated that the event’s agenda remains unclear, but based on the track record of the organizers and possible that it could escalate into inflammatory speeches and provocative statements that may jeopardize the peace and harmony of the region. In its complaint, CJP urges the authorities to take pre-emptive measures, in line with the directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, to avoid any escalation of communal tensions.

A dangerous precedent: the risk of provocative rhetoric and hate speech

The primary concern of CJP lies in the potential for hate-filled speeches and provocative rhetoric at the event, which could easily stoke communal discord. The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, known for its history of making incendiary statements against religious minorities, has previously been involved in organizing events that led to communal disharmony. CJP anticipates that the upcoming event could follow a similar pattern, as there is no transparency regarding the speakers or their content. Given the organization’s controversial stance, it is highly likely that speeches at the event will include inflammatory statements that could provoke violence.

CJP draws parallels to recent incidents in other parts of India, where events centered around religious issues, particularly places of worship, have spiraled into violence and unrest. For instance, in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, clashes erupted over a mosque survey, resulting in loss of lives and severe communal tensions. Such incidents have shown how sensitive issues involving religious spaces can be exploited by extremist groups, with catastrophic consequences. The CJP complaint warns that the event in Shirdi could follow this trajectory, affecting the communal harmony not just the region but the entire state of Maharashtra.

CJP’s urgent appeal to the authorities

In its complaint, CJP stresses that the authorities must act promptly to prevent any incitement of violence or hate speech. The complaints highlight the importance of not just monitoring the event but ensuring the accountability of the organizers for the content of the event. The local law enforcement agencies must take the necessary steps to prevent any inflammatory statements, ensuring that no one uses religious spaces or gatherings as platforms to sow division and hostility between communities.

Supreme Court appeals to authorities to uphold peace and harmony

The petition also references recent Supreme Court directives that emphasize maintaining peace and harmony, particularly in situations involving religious sensitivities. CJP invokes the Court’s appeal in the case of the Sambhal Jama Masjid incident, where the Supreme Court stressed the need for authorities to take preventive action to avoid violence stemming from disputes over religious matters.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s recent appeal for peace and harmony in the case concerning the Sambhal Jama Masjid, CJP submit this preventive complaint regarding the “Third Maharashtra Mandir Nyas Parishad” scheduled for December 24-25, 2024, in Shirdi. The Supreme Court, during its hearing on November 29, 2024, urged that “peace and harmony must be maintained” and expressed the desire for no further escalation, following the violence that erupted in Sambhal over a mosque survey. The survey, which was ordered based on claims that the mosque was built on a demolished temple, triggered violent clashes, resulting in the loss of four lives. This tragic event highlights the serious risks of escalating tensions when sensitive issues related to religious sites are addressed in provocative ways. The upcoming event in Shirdi, organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, raises similar concerns. Given the known history of inflammatory rhetoric associated with the organization, there is a real danger that the event could inflame communal tensions and lead to violence, particularly around religious spaces” according to CJP’s complaint.

Shirdi: a city of coexistence, at risk of unraveling due to extremist agendas

Shirdi, known for being the home of the revered saint Sai Baba, is a symbol of religious unity, where both Hindus and Muslims coexist in harmony. The city has long been a beacon of peace, where Sai Baba’s teachings of tolerance and respect for all religions have been embraced by millions of devotees. However, with the “Third Maharashtra Mandir Nyas Parishad” event scheduled to take place in the heart of Shirdi, there is an alarming risk of disturbing this delicate balance.

CJP further mentioned in its complaint that, the potential for divisive rhetoric to erupt at the event and provoke tensions between communities cannot be underestimated. If left unchecked, the event could cause irreparable damage to the social fabric of Shirdi, turning a city once known for religious unity into a flashpoint for communal conflict. CJP urges the authorities to prevent this by ensuring that the event remains peaceful and free from hate speech, in line with the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom.

Inflammatory speech threatens religious Harmony & Safety

The CJP complaint outlines the risks posed by inflammatory statements that target religious minorities, calling attention to the broader implications such rhetoric can have on society. The recent spate of violence related to religious issues underscores the dangers of allowing hate speech to flourish unchecked. It is not only a threat to public safety but a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. CJP cites several previous Supreme Court rulings, which have emphasized the importance of preventing the spread of hate speech and ensuring the peaceful conduct of public events.

By urging immediate preventive measures, CJP asks the authorities to take their responsibility seriously and act swiftly to avoid any potential escalation. As the complaint notes, the events organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti have a history of causing communal polarization, and it is imperative that the authorities intervene to prevent any harm to the social and religious harmony of Maharashtra.

CJP’s complaint dated December 23, 2024 can be read here

Related:

CJP seeks preventive action against Hindu Janjagruti Samiti’s Hyderabad event

Mahim Police refuse permission to HJS August rally, reassure CJP delegation

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

The post CJP files preventive complaint to safeguard Shirdi’s religious harmony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the said complaint, CJP pointed out that leading political parties, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), and the Shinde faction of Shiv Sena, placed full-page advertisements in prominent newspapers such as The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Mid-Day, and Maharashtra Times. These advertisements, published during the silence period, are seen as attempts to influence voter sentiment and solicit votes, a direct breach of electoral ethics and established legal guidelines.

Undermining Electoral Integrity

CJP emphasised that the silence period is a critical safeguard designed to ensure that voters have an impartial environment to make informed decisions, free from last-minute persuasion. By publishing political propaganda during this period, CJP contends, political parties and media outlets have undermined this democratic safeguard, distorted the electoral playing field, and eroded public trust in the electoral process. The complaint elaborates on the potential long-term repercussions of such violations. It warns that these actions set a dangerous precedent, enabling wealthier political parties to leverage financial muscle for electoral advantage, further marginalising independent candidates and smaller parties.

Legal and ethical breaches

CJP has drawn attention to several legal and ethical frameworks that these actions contravene:

• Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Prohibits election propaganda during the 48-hour silence period. While print media is not explicitly mentioned, CJP argues that the intent of the law is clearly violated through such advertisements.
• Press Council of India (PCI) guidelines: These guidelines mandate neutrality in election reporting and prohibit paid news, especially during the silence period.
• Model Code of Conduct: Though not legally binding, the Code discourages indirect campaigning and other actions that influence voters during the restricted period.
• Constitutional principles: By compromising the level playing field, the advertisements allegedly violate Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates free and fair elections.

Demands for action

In its submission, CJP has called on the Maharashtra State Election Commission to take decisive action, including:

1. Investigating the advertisements to determine if they qualify as paid news or unauthorised election propaganda.
2. Penalising political parties and media outlets responsible for the violations.
3. Issuing public clarifications and warnings to reinforce the sanctity of the silence period.
4. Strengthening surveillance mechanisms to prevent further breaches.

Preserving democracy

CJP underscored the critical role of the Election Commission in safeguarding democracy. The organisation has urged for strict enforcement of electoral laws, noting that failure to act decisively risks normalising unethical practices, diminishing public trust, and weakening the democratic framework. The complaint is a reminder of the need for vigilance in ensuring that elections remain free, fair, and reflective of the people’s informed choice, untainted by manipulative tactics or undue influence.

The complete complaint may be read here:

Related:

Voting manipulation and police brutality plague 8 out of 15 by-poll seats; Muslim voters denied their right to vote in UP

Elections amidst glitches: Maharashtra’s crucial poll day unfolds with complaints of barricading and EVM glitches

UP by-elections: Reports of serious disturbances and disruption of voters

Communal rhetoric in Jharkhand elections: CJP files complaint against MP CM Mohan Yadav and BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari

The post CJP files complaint against BJP, MNS, and Shinde-Led Shiv Sena alleging silence period breach during Maharashtra polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sahid’s story is emblematic of the struggles faced by many in Assam, where allegations of being a foreigner often arise from cursory investigations and inadequate verification of records. For Sahid, the intervention of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), a human rights organisation, proved to be a lifeline. Their relentless advocacy and legal support not only secured his release but also brought hope to others fighting similar battles. This case sheds light on the human cost of flawed systems and the power of collective efforts in ensuring justice and restoring dignity.

Sahid Ali’s ordeal: a citizen branded a foreigner  

Sahid Ali, also known as Shwahid Ali, has lived his entire life in Assam, a state his family has called home for generations. Born and raised in Tupar village under Nagarbera Mouza, Boko police station in Kamrup district, Sahid’s citizenship seemed unquestionable. His grandfather, Jasim Mundal, possessed land records from 1957-64, and his name was also listed in the 1966 voter list. Furthermore, Sahid’s father, Basir Ali (also known as Bashiruddin Ali), appeared on the 1971 voter list for Tupamari village under Nagarbera Mouza.  

Despite this strong documentary evidence, Sahid found himself ensnared in a legal battle when he was accused of being a foreigner by the Assam government. The case against Sahid Ali was initiated by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Darrang, based on allegations of foreign nationality, without conducting proper verification. This led the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) to register a case against him and issue a notice, further intensifying his ordeal. Notably, Sahid’s family had been actively participating in the electoral process, casting their votes in the village of Fuhuratali under the No. 66 Sipajhar Legislative Assembly Constituency, a fact that should have supported his claim of Indian citizenship.

Sahid’s grandfather, Jasim Mundal, possessed certified land records from village Tupamari in Pachim Samariya Mouza, dating back to 1957-64 (Dag No. 580 New, Dag No. 480 Old). These documents, coupled with Sahid’s other evidence, clearly demonstrated his citizenship. However, on September 29, 2023, the Darrang Tribunal declared him a foreigner. This decision turned Sahid’s life upside down, leaving him in constant fear and severely impacting his health. With the looming threat of detention in a camp, Sahid faced an unimaginable future filled with uncertainty and despair.

The struggles following the Tribunal’s decision  

The tribunal’s ruling shattered Sahid Ali and his family, plunging them into a nightmare of uncertainty and despair. Despite possessing substantial documentary evidence that firmly established his Indian citizenship—documents spanning generations that tied his family to Assam—Sahid was declared a foreigner. The tribunal’s decision not only stripped him of his identity but also left him facing the grim prospect of being sent to a detention camp, a fate that loomed like a dark shadow over his life. The thought of losing his freedom and being confined to such a camp deeply affected his mental well-being, causing his health to deteriorate as he struggled with relentless fear and anxiety. For Sahid, every passing day was marked by anguish and a sense of helplessness.  

Just as Sahid’s hopes seemed to be slipping away, a ray of hope emerged in the form of the CJP Assam legal team. Senior legal member Advocate Mrinmay Dutta, recognising the glaring injustice, took up Sahid’s case with determination and compassion. Filing a petition in the Gauhati High Court, Dutta contested the tribunal’s ruling and sought to overturn the judgment that had upended Sahid’s life. This intervention not only brought hope to Sahid but also shed light on the broader systemic failures that plague many similar cases in Assam. Allegations of being a foreigner often arise from flawed investigations and cursory scrutiny of documents, leaving countless individuals like Sahid to bear the brunt of administrative oversight. His case is a stark reminder of the immense human suffering caused by these failings and the urgent need for fairness and due diligence in such matters.  

CJP steps in- a fight for justice  

Recognising the glaring injustice in Sahid Ali’s case, the legal team from CJP, under the leadership of Senior Advocate Mrinmay Dutta, stepped in to provide crucial support. With unwavering dedication, they challenged the Foreigners’ Tribunal’s decision by filing a petition in the Gauhati High Court. Building a strong case grounded in documentary evidence—records spanning decades and proving Sahid’s Indian citizenship—they sought to overturn the ruling that had upended his life. Their efforts bore fruit when, on November 6, 2024, the High Court granted Sahid bail. This decision brought a wave of relief to Sahid and his family, marking a turning point in their ordeal and reaffirming their faith in the judicial system.  

However, the battle was far from over. Securing bail was just the beginning of yet another formidable challenge—finding a bailor and completing the procedural formalities within a rigid timeline of ten days. Despite the urgency and limited time, the team at CJP demonstrated remarkable resolve. When their search for a bailor initially yielded no results, the organisation’s Darrang District Volunteer Motivator (DVM), Joinal Abedin, took it upon himself to ensure justice prevailed. Stepping forward as the bailor, Joinal’s selfless act underscored the essence of solidarity and commitment within the CJP team. His gesture not only expedited the process but also highlighted the collective effort required to combat systemic injustices. This critical milestone ensured that Sahid’s bail bond was submitted on time, symbolising hope and resilience in the face of adversity.  

Formalities completed; freedom restored  

On 13 November 2024, CJP’s Assam state in-charge, Nanda Ghosh, accompanied by Darrang DVM Joinal Abedin and Sahid Ali, submitted the bail bond at the Border Branch of Darrang. This crucial step marked significant progress in Sahid’s case. The following day, the formalities were completed at the local Border Branch under the Sipajhar police station, bringing a sense of closure to a process fraught with hurdles and urgency. The dedication and efficiency demonstrated by CJP’s team ensured that Sahid’s release was not delayed further, a testament to their commitment to justice and humanity.  

When Sahid learned that his bail had been granted, his emotions overflowed with gratitude. “Now at least I can go out freely and work to feed my family. It’s because of you (CJP) that this became possible. Thank you, thank you so much,” he said, his voice trembling with relief and hope. These heartfelt words revealed the profound weight of the ordeal he had endured. Stripped of his identity, living under the constant threat of detention, and fearing for his family’s future, Sahid had been pushed to the brink. For him, the High Court’s decision was not merely legal relief—it was a lifeline, restoring a sense of dignity and freedom he thought he had lost forever.  

However, the grant of bail is only a temporary reprieve. The fight to secure Sahid’s citizenship remains a daunting challenge. CJP has pledged to continue supporting him, determined to ensure that his identity as a legitimate Indian citizen is restored. This commitment extends beyond Sahid’s case, reflecting CJP’s unwavering resolve to stand by all those who face similar injustices. Their efforts underscore the critical need for systemic reforms to address the deeply flawed processes that brand individuals as foreigners, often without fair scrutiny or due process.  

Sahid’s story is a microcosm of the broader crisis in Assam, where countless individuals are trapped in a web of suspicion and procedural failures. Despite having lived in India for generations, many are unjustly accused of being foreigners, with devastating consequences for their lives and livelihoods. His ordeal highlights the human cost of these systemic flaws, exposing the urgent need for a fair, transparent, and humane approach to resolving citizenship disputes. Sahid’s resilience, combined with the steadfast efforts of CJP, serves as a powerful reminder that justice is not a privilege—it is a right, and it must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable.

A testament to perseverance and advocacy  

Sahid’s journey, from being unjustly branded a foreigner to finally securing bail, is a profound testament to the strength and resilience of individuals fighting for justice in a system that often fails to protect the most vulnerable. For Sahid, the process was not just a legal battle; it was a deeply personal fight for his dignity, his identity, and his right to live as a citizen in the land of his ancestors. The terror of being labelled an outsider, despite generations of living in Assam, compounded by the looming threat of detention, created a reality where every moment was filled with uncertainty and fear. Yet, throughout this tumultuous ordeal, Sahid’s perseverance and determination to prove his rightful place in India never wavered. 

Behind Sahid’s victory stands the unwavering support of organisations like CJP, whose commitment to social justice and human rights played a pivotal role in challenging the flawed system that nearly robbed him of his citizenship. The collective advocacy, led by CJP’s legal team, helped bring the necessary legal pressure to secure his temporary relief. This victory, however, is not just about one man’s case—it represents a broader fight for fairness, dignity, and the recognition of rights for all individuals, particularly those marginalised by systemic failures. CJP’s work underscores the critical role that organisations committed to social justice play in challenging injustice and empowering individuals to reclaim their lives and rights.  

As Sahid begins to breathe easier with his newfound freedom, his story is a powerful reminder of the importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights of every individual, especially those whose voices are most often silenced. His case illustrates the vulnerability of individuals caught in a web of bureaucratic oversight and legal ambiguities, and how vital it is for society to rise to their defence. For Sahid, the road ahead is still fraught with challenges, but the grant of bail represents a significant first step in a long and arduous journey towards reclaiming his full rights as an Indian citizen. His story is a call to action—to ensure that no one, regardless of their background or status, is denied justice or the fundamental right to live free from fear. It is a powerful reminder that, no matter how insurmountable the odds may seem, justice must always prevail, and the fight for it is worth every step.

Related:

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

The post Victory for Sahid Ali: CJP’s legal battle brings relief in Ali’s citizenship crisis, bail granted by High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP’s complaint highlights the inflammatory nature of this messaging, arguing that it is part of a broader attempt to appeal to communal sentiments and polarise the electorate. The posters bear the name of Vishwabandhu Rai, a BJP leader, indicating his involvement in their dissemination. The complaint stresses that these posters mirror remarks made by Chief Minister Adityanath in August 2024 in Agra, where he referred to the political situation in Bangladesh, cautioning against divisions within India and hinting at violent consequences if such divisions occur. The posters leverage these remarks to stoke fear among voters by implicitly linking communal harmony with political outcomes.

 Specific concerns raised by CJP

1. Use of communal and fear-based messaging: The core message, “If divided, we will be cut,” positions the upcoming elections within a broader communal and national security framework. By warning of potential violence if certain communities do not “stay united” in line with a particular political vision, CJP argues that the posters are intended to play upon communal divisions, particularly affecting Muslim and minority communities. The complaint also notes that the use of saffron, yellow, and green as the dominant colours in the posters is a calculated move to invoke specific religious sentiments.
2. Context of CM Yogi Adityanath’s speech in Agra: CJP highlights that the poster’s messaging is drawn directly from CM Yogi Adityanath’s speech, where he raised concerns about the mistakes made in Bangladesh and suggested that a similar fate awaits India if communities remain divided. By utilising such remarks in the context of a highly polarised election environment, CJP argues that the BJP is indirectly fostering fear and sowing the seeds of communal discord.
3. Impact on Maharashtra’s communal fabric: Maharashtra is known for its political and religious diversity, and Mumbai, in particular, has historically been a flashpoint for communal tensions. CJP warns that such posters can heighten these tensions, especially in a politically charged environment. By invoking fear of communal strife, these messages aim to deepen the polarisation of voters along religious lines, potentially leading to unrest and violence in the state.

Violations cited in the complaint

CJP’s complaint argues that these posters violate multiple provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, as well as the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which came into effect following the announcement of the election schedule.

1. Violation of Section 123(2) and 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 123(2) prohibits undue influence in elections, including direct or indirect attempts to interfere with voters’ free exercise of their electoral rights. CJP alleges that the posters are designed to instil fear and promote hatred between different classes of citizens based on religious lines, particularly targeting minorities.
   Section 123(3) prohibits electoral appeals based on religion, race, caste, or community. By invoking religious sentiments and playing upon fears of division, the posters, according to CJP, are clearly designed to influence voters by stoking communal tensions, which breaches this provision.

2. Violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC): CJP contends that the posters also breach the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which is enforced by the Election Commission of India during election periods to regulate the behaviour of political parties and candidates. The MCC clearly states that no party or candidate should indulge in any activity that aggravates existing differences or creates mutual hatred between communities. It further prohibits the use of inflammatory language, symbols, or slogans that can fuel communal or caste-based divisions.

The complaint comes at a time when the political atmosphere in Maharashtra is already tense. With the Assembly elections approaching, political parties are vying to consolidate their voter bases, and the appearance of these posters could exacerbate existing communal divides. CJP warns that if left unchecked, these posters could contribute to communal violence, disrupt public order, and undermine the integrity of the electoral process.

CJP underscores the importance of maintaining electoral integrity and the secular character of the election process, particularly in a diverse state like Maharashtra. The organisation warns that such attempts to polarise voters along communal lines are likely to result in significant unrest, potentially derailing the entire election process.

CJP’s call for decisive action aims to prevent the use of communal fear-mongering as a political tool and to preserve the integrity of Maharashtra’s democratic process. Through the complaint, CJP made several key demands: the immediate removal of all posters featuring the communal slogan “बटेंगे तो कटेंगे” from public spaces across Maharashtra; a thorough investigation into BJP leader Vishwabandhu Rai’s involvement in the poster campaign, with legal action if he is found in violation of election laws; strict enforcement of the MCC to prevent political parties from using divisive or communal rhetoric; and a public clarification from the BJP leadership disassociating itself from the inflammatory messaging of the posters.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

The curious case of Mumbai Mahanagari’s 36 seats: who holds the winning card?

Suresh Chavhanke: The voice of extremism and champion of division media

SP chief Akhilesh Yadav alleges state-sponsored violence in Bahraich, UP, brings attention to the attack on journalist who captured the initial outbreak of violence

The post CJP files complaint with Maharashtra Election Commission over communal posters featuring UP CM Yogi Adityanath appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mahim police station senior PI S Shirsat informed CJP led delegation that permission to the HJS rally had been turned down. A Citizens’ delegation, led by CJP, meets with senior police officer to urge preventive action against scheduled Hindu Janajagruti Samiti morcha in Mumbai on August 10, 2024 at 6 pm

On Friday, August 9, a citizens’ delegation led by Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai (CJP) met with Sudhakar Shirsath, Senior Police Inspector, Mahim Police Station to discuss and seek immediate preventive action against Hindu Janajagruti Samiti morcha in Mumbai on August 10, 2024 at 6 pm. The delegation, which comprised Teesta Setalvad (Secretary, CJP) and Dolphy D’Souza (President, The Bombay Catholic Sabha and Trustee, CJP), submitted a memorandum to urge the police official to deny the permission given to HJS for the rally as well as follow the preventive measures in case of hate speeches that have been issued by the Constitutional Courts time and again.

At the meeting, Senior PI, Mahim police station told the delegation that just a few hours back permission for the HJS rally had been turned down in the interests of preserving communal harmony.

The HateWatch campaign spearheaded by CJP minutely monitors such hate driven events and also files pre-emptive complaints against them.

Today’s memorandum submitted:

The memorandum that was submitted included the recent orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court as well as Orders issued by the Director General of Police Maharashtra on steps that need to be taken, especially pre-emotive ones, in situations involving delivery of hate speech by offenders.

The memorandum further highlighted the background of HJS, which have been conducted events and workshops that advocate for the passing of anti-Love Jihad laws in Maharashtra, create divisions along religious and caste lines by making Hindus “aware” of the consequences of autonomous and free choice marriages, raise calls for boycott of Halal and the economic boycott of Muslims in India, and given a communal colour to issues such as religious conversions and cow slaughter. As per the delegation, preventing such events and rallies to take place in the state of Maharashtra was crucial, especially in view of the impending state assembly elections, as there is an attempt to create an environment of oppression and otherisation of the Muslim community in the state.

The memorandum states “It is crucial to highlight here that HJS has been notorious for organizing such events and making controversial and derogatory statements amounting to hate speech against the Muslim minority community. This has grave potential of being blown up and leading to a law-and-order situation in the city, not just in the immediate future but collectively, as these events are held state-wide could have dangerous implications in the near future.”

It was further highlighted through the memorandum that even though the speakers at the present event are not clear, HJS has been providing a platform to many notorious hate offenders and hate speakers, such as BJP MLA T.Raja Singh, PramodMuthalik, Meenakshi Sharan, H.H. Sambhajirao Bhide, Kalicharan Maharaj and Suresh Chavhanke, who have taken this opportunity to create communal disharmony and public disorder.

As a part of the memorandum, the slew of directives that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued time and again for effective prevention of social disharmony, hate crimes and communal violence through the judgment of Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 252], Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India [W.P (Civ.) No. 956 of 2020] and Tehseen Poonawalla v UOI and ors [(2018) 9 SCC 501] and Amish Devgan vs Union Of India [2021 1 SCC 1] were highlighted. Additionally, the multiple directions issued by the Supreme Court of India, through interim orders, in the case of Shaheen Abdullah vs Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022] was also emphasised upon. Notably, in the said case, the Apex Court had outlined the already codified statutory duties of a police officer to take action under section 151 of CrPC in case there is apprehension of hate speech. Video-tapping of events with apprehension of there being hate speeches was also directed.

Based upon the same, the citizens’ delegation urged the police officials to take action as per sections 130 (Police to prevent cognizable offences), 131 (Information of design to commit cognizable offences) and 132 (Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences) of the BNSS and any other provisions of law as were necessary. They also highlighted that the if wider public is kept abreast of developments in this particular case, as well as in others, it would go a long way in re building faith and confidence in the rule of law in general and a police-citizen relationship in particular.

The delegation also handed over a ready to use Handbook, “Towards a Hate Free Nation” to the official as it succinctly provides latest jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of India (SC) and Bombay High Court (HC) that re-emphasise the role and responsibility to both prevent and prosecute targeted violence. This comprehensive booklet on preventive and other measures provides the measures that must be adopted by police and district administration in cases of such provocative events where inciting hate speeches are likely to be delivered. CJP believes that countering hate is a collective responsibility of both the concerned citizenry and the authorities.

The post Mahim Police refuse permission to HJS August rally, reassure Citizens delegation  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the north-eastern state of Assam, India, the quest for citizenship has been a long-standing issue, entangling countless lives in a web of uncertainty. The gravity of the situation can be felt when stories of those being unjustly targeted and scrutinised by the state, based on their religious identity in most cases, comes forth. It takes the Tribunals and Courts many years to hear and decide the cases of those under the scanner, especially since the officer’s in-charge of the investigation do not discharge their duty fairly in verifying the documents presented by the accused to establish their citizenships. Meanwhile, those who have their nationality and identity hanging by a thread keep on suffering. Among those who had to suffer through a series of injustice and targeting was Rahim Ali, a man whose story is a poignant testament to the human cost of this citizenship struggle.

It was after the delivery of the Supreme Court judgement that the lawyer representing the accused, Advocate Kaushik Chaudhary, got to know about the demise of Rahim Ali. As per the report of The Indian Express, Chaudhary had stated that he was fighting Rahim Ali’s case pro bono and became aware of the death of Rahim Ali as the family was contacted in regards to the judgment.

The Assam team of Citizen’s for Justice and Peace met with the family of Rahim Ali in their village to talk to them about the judgment, the establishment of the Indian nationality of deceased Rahim Ali and to provide her with emotional support for the ordeal that the family had to go through. Dealing with families who remain fearful of having their loved ones snatched away due to indifference of the state is a situation that the CJP Assam team, who helps the residents of Assam put under the scrutiny of the state to fight the legal battle of proving their citizenship, has had to face often.

Team CJP with Rahim Ali’s family

Brief facts of the case:

The case against the present appellant, Md. Rahim Ali, had begun in the year 2004. The charges against Ali were regarding his alleged “illegal migration from Bangladesh post March 25, 1971.” The said date of March 25 of the year 1971 is significant as it is the cut-off date as per section 6A (Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord) of the Citizenship Act.

The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bipin Dutta, sending the “notice” under the dreaded Foreigners Act, 1946, reported that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of entry into India before January 1, 1966. As a matter of course, as the experience of Citizens for Justice and Peace (www.cjp.org.in) in Assam reveals, the very basis of such notices are without basis or material facts.

In this case too, as provided by the order of the Supreme Court, the appellant stated that his parents’ names appeared in the voter lists of 1965 and 1970 for Village Dolur Pather, under Bhabanipur Legislative Assembly Constituency in Assam. Ali had also stated that he was born in the same village, and his name, along with his family members, appeared in the 1985 voter list. After marrying in 1997, he moved to Village Kashimpur, Nalbari district, where his name appeared in the 1997 voter list.

On the receipt of notice by the Tribunal, the appellant appeared on July 18, 2011, and has sought time to file the written statement as he was suffering some serious health ailments. It is to be noted that despite obtaining a medical certificate indicating his illness, the tribunal had passed an ex-parte order on March 19, 2012. Passing such ex-parte orders is also often routine in Assam. As per the order of the Tribunal, appellant Md. Rahim Ali had been declared a foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari on March 19, 2012. The said declaration had been made by the Tribunal on the ground that Ali had failed to prove his Indian nationality.

After the order of the Tribunal was delivered, Ali moved the High Court on May 30, 2012, to challenge the order of the High Court. On June 6, 2012, the High Court stayed the tribunal’s order by passing an interim order, directing the authority not to deport the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. However, on November 23, 2015, the High Court dismissed the writ petition moved by Ali, affirming the tribunal’s order declaring Ali a foreigner and clearing the path for his deportation. Challenging the said order of dismissal of the High Court, Ali moved the Supreme Court.

On July 11, 2024, in a significant judgment, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners and initiate investigation into a person’s nationality without there being some material basis or information to sustain the suspicion. Holding the same, the bench overturned the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, through which the present appellant had been declared foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and failed to prove that he is not a foreigner.

The details of the case can be referred to here.

CJP’s team meeting family of Rahim Ali:

On behalf of CJP Assam team, State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and legal member Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury went to meet with Rahim Ali’s family in Kashempur village of Nalbari. The team experienced a range of emotions when they first met Rahim Ali’s wife, Hajera Bibi. Hajera was relieved that her husband had at last been recognized as an Indian, but her happiness was overshadowed by the realisation that Rahim Ali was not around to see this day. She described how Rahim Ali’s health had suffered greatly as a result of the strain of the citizenship dispute, which ultimately resulted in his premature death.

Hajera described how Rahim Ali had grown more and more withdrawn, spending months at a time hiding from the authorities, and how his diabetes had gotten worse due to his fear of being arrested. The family sold everything they owned, including goats, cows, and even property, but they were unable to pay for Rahim Ali’s necessary medical care.

Hajera holds up the judgement declaring Rahim Ali an Indian

Hajera is now left to look after their son, who is 14 years old. Hajera took comfort in the knowledge that her husband’s suffering might not have been in vain, though, after learning that the Supreme Court’s decision had given hope to many others going through comparable difficulties. With a satisfied sigh, she said, “this judgment is crucial so that the injustice that happened to me does not happen to anyone else.”

As Team CJP consoled Hajera, they promised to support her and their villages going forward with any citizenship-related concerns. It is essential to note that through the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the Rahim Ali case, the bench had held that even for initiating an inquiry, there has to be some material basis or information to suspect that the person is a foreigner and not an Indian. Secondly, a mere allegation that someone is an illegal migrant is not enough to impose the burden of proving the citizenship on the accused under Section 9 of The Foreigners Act, 1946. As per the judgment, the fact that Section 9 burden only kicks in after the foundational facts have been established by the referring authority before the tribunal was once more established.

It further recognised the diversity in language which often renders the spelling of names in documents inconsistent. In Rahim Ali’s case, the court held that the State miserably failed to provide the material basis for initiating the case against him, rendering the inception of the case itself a nullity, void and without merits.

Thirdly, the bench had held that not giving a copy of the main grounds based on which the case has been referred or it is alleged that the person is a foreigner by the authority to the person proceeded against is violative of principles of natural justice.

Related:

SC highlights deplorable conditions in Matia detention Centre of Assam, calls it a “sorry state of affairs”

Assam CM makes misleading statement regarding Muslim population in Assam, attracts criticism from opposition leaders

SC directs Centre to deport 17 foreigners detained in Assam Detention Centre

SC issues notice to Union and NRC Coordinator over woman declared foreigner by tribunal and halts deportation

Triumphant Win for CJP: Jamila Khatoon, Assamese Bengali Muslim, officially recognised as Indian Citizen

The post 12-year legal battle for identity: Rahim Ali’s posthumous victory in Assam’s citizenship tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.