According to The Wire, on July 19 the police detained at least 74 migrant workers — 11 from West Bengal and 63 from Assam — whom they suspected were undocumented Bangladeshis. These numbers just kept rising as the days proceeded. While nearly all have since been released following sustained public outcry, Hindustan Times reported that ten individuals remain in custody, alleged to be “confirmed Bangladeshis,” with deportation proceedings underway. Gurugram Police PRO Sandeep Kumar, according to Hindustan Times, said these ten are “confirmed Bangladeshis” and immigration proceedings have begun. However, officials have failed to provide clarity on the basis for these designations or the total number detained beyond the approximate figures.

“They said we are from Bangladesh. I had my Aadhaar card and voter ID, but they didn’t care,” said Hafizur Sheikh, as reported by Kashmir Media Service, a cleaner from West Bengal’s Nadia district, who was taken into custody on July 19 despite offering to procure physical copies of his documentation.

A campaign marked by fear and prejudice

The operation has induced widespread panic in migrant-dense neighbourhoods. NewsLaundry and other outlets documented how nearly 400 out of 500 Bengali-speaking workers in Sector 49’s “Bengali Market” fled the area in fear of police action, many carrying luggage by their doors in case they were detained at night.

In interviews, detainees described being picked up solely due to language or origin — Bengali speakers from Assam or Bengal targeted, held for days, denied legal counsel or phone access, forced to sign unexplained documents, and often stripped of mobile phones permanently, as per the reports of The Wire and Hindustan Times.

Fatima Begum, a domestic worker detained en route to work, recounts evenings of her children crying unanswered in the absence of her. “No one told us why we were held,” she said. According to the report of Hindustan Times, Aisha Khatun added: “Even after being released, we are scared to step outside”.

The drive has also sown panic in migrant-dense neighbourhoods. The Wire found that Khatola village, home to nearly 2,000 Assamese Muslim workers, was eerily deserted, with only a handful of women left. “We stayed because our husbands are inside [detention centres],” said Rohima. “But most have fled to Dhubri in Assam.”

In interviews with The Wire, detainees described being picked up based solely on their language or place of origin. Some said they were held for days, denied access to communication or legal aid, and forced to sign papers before being released without explanation. Mobile phones were confiscated and, in many cases, never returned.

In Palam Vihar, landlords have started evicting Bengali-speaking tenants under police pressure. Migrants are boarding buses to Murshidabad, Malda, Barpeta, and Karimganj, afraid that their turn will come next, according to The Tribune.

A drive rooted in Delhi’s directives

The detentions align with a May 2, 2025 directive from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs mandating states to identify and deport undocumented Bangladeshis and Rohingyas, granting a 30-day window for verification under specified guidelines, according to the report of Times of India. In keeping, Gurugram set up four operational holding centres, a move confirmed by Deputy Commissioner Ajay Kumar in the Kashmir Media Service report, though detailed detainee counts and procedural transparency remain undisclosed.

Gurugram police have claimed the drive was part of ongoing verification operations and that most detainees were released after district-level identity confirmation. Arpit Jain, DCP (Headquarters), said suspects were “kept in holding areas till verification completed,” though he did not define the exact criteria or process for such determinations, as reported in The Week.

Voices of Resistance and Anguish

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee condemned the crackdown, calling it targeted, discriminatory and an attack on Bengalis across India. 

The second most spoken language in the country, Bangla, is also the second most spoken language of Assam.

To threaten citizens, who want to coexist peacefully respecting all languages and religions, with persecution for upholding their own mother tongue is discriminatory and…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) July 19, 2025

Have been increasingly receiving reports of detentions of and atrocities on our Bengali-speaking people from different districts of West Bengal in Gurgaon, Haryana. West Bengal police is receiving these reports from Haryana police in the name of requests for identity searches.…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) July 24, 2025

TMC MP Mahua Moitra, likened the situation to “living in Nazi Germany.” 

Nazi BJP targeting Bengalis. We will not tolerate these brazen attacks on our linguistic & ethnic identity. My interview on @timesofindia pic.twitter.com/jRXPreIozd

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) July 28, 2025

Attention! Migrant workers from Bengal being picked up illegally by @gurgaonpolice, is Sector 10 A community center an illegal detention camp? Maids, cooks, menial workers living in complete terror. #NaziGermany pic.twitter.com/uTaSQIK3s0

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) July 24, 2025

Asaduddin Owaisi, MP from Hyderabad, called the mass detentions illegal and classist: “This government acts strong with the weak, and weak with the strong. Most of those who are accused of being “illegal immigrants” are the poorest of the poor: slum-dwellers, cleaners, domestic workers, rag-pickers, etc.”

Police in different parts of India have been illegally detaining Bengali-speaking Muslim citizens and accusing them of being Bangladeshi. There have been disturbing reports of Indian citizens being pushed into Bangladesh at gunpoint. This government acts strong with the weak, and… https://t.co/wtQEKiDAaL pic.twitter.com/9BRSWsf31k

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) July 26, 2025

On July 21, CPI-ML’s Supanta Sinha visited one of the Gurugram detention centres and described conditions as “inhumane.” The party has threatened legal action, calling the entire operation unconstitutional. Sinha told The Wire that “These are illegal detentions, people are being held with no charges, no legal counsel, and no due process – only because they speak Bengali or are Muslims from Assam or Bengal.”

Cases of coercion and corruption

Multiple families report coerced release only after bribes or influence. In Khandsa’s ragpicker colony, Mijanur Molla claimed his father-in-law was released only after paying ₹6,000, despite valid documentation. He alleged beatings occurred in custody, as reported by Hindustan Times.

Another case involved Ashraful Islam, son of an Assam Industrial Security Force constable, detained on July 19 along with eight others. Despite presenting Aadhaar, PAN, school certificates, and even his father’s service ID, they were called “Bangladeshi” and held on suspicion — though local officials later intervened to seek his release, as per the report of Scroll.

‘We’re cooked for their kids, now we’re criminals’

Physical and psychological trauma continues: “This wasn’t just about legality — it was about dignity. We cook for their children, clean their houses, but they treat us like criminals,” reflected Aisha Khatun while speaking to Hindustan Times.

Meanwhile, Hindustan Times reported at least 10 trucks hauling migrants’ belongings out of Gurugram slum clusters — signalling early signs of a labour shortage in domestic and sanitation services.

Data Denied, Rights Denied

The entire operation also reveals a systemic absence of reliable migrant data. In Parliament, TMC MP Samirul Islam raised pressing questions to the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment on the status and deaths of migrant workers in the last five years. The Ministry failed to provide comprehensive data. “I sought data from the last five years, and we all know about the plight of migrant workers who were forced to walk long distances during the COVID-19-induced lockdown. There was no data available — or perhaps the BJP government is deliberately trying to hide its inefficiencies in protecting the rights of these migrants.” he wrote on X.

Islam also accused BJP-ruled states like Odisha, Maharashtra, and Delhi of unlawfully detaining and deporting Bengali migrants, with zero coordination with West Bengal. “I just want to warn the BJP: you cannot conceal your anti-Bengali attitude by hiding the data. Under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee, we will continue to fight for the rights of these people.,” he said.

I asked a few questions to the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment regarding migrant workers. If you go through the questions and answers (the document is attached below), it becomes clear that we live in a country where the government does not maintain a timely or reliable… pic.twitter.com/c0gHh6PPLE

— Samirul Islam (@SamirulAITC) July 26, 2025

Conclusion

This is not the first such episode of mass detention in India. In recent weeks, a chilling pattern has emerged across multiple Indian states, including Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, where Bengali-speaking migrant workers, most of them Indian citizens, have been rounded up in mass raids, detained without proper inquiry, denied recognition of valid Indian documentation, and in some cases, forcibly deported to Bangladesh. (Detailed report may be read here.)

What began as a bureaucratic drive for “verification” has morphed into a surveillance campaign against linguistic and religious identity, disproportionately targeting poor Bengali-speaking Muslims. The absence of legal transparency, arbitrary detentions, and disregard for basic rights reveal deep fissures in the fabric of India’s constitutional promise.

Until procedural safeguards, accountability, and respect for dignity are restored, those who migrate for work risk living in a perpetual state of suspicion — their citizenship conditional, their humanity contested.

Related:

Gauhati High Court demands Centre’s deportation order amid mounting legal questions over re-detention of bail-compliant individuals

Under Siege for Speaking Bengali: Detentions, deportations and a rising pushback against the targeting of Bengali migrant workers across India

No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

“Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders release of Goalpara man picked up despite complying with bail conditions

Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp

Pushed Out of Sight: The covert deportation and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia detention centre

The post Under Suspicion: Bengali Migrant workers face mass detentions, fear, and statelessness in Gurugram crackdown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the age of 34, Sharjeel Imam, who is currently a research scholar at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University is from Kako, a village in Bihar’s Jehanabad district. Imam studied his BTech at the Indian Institutes of Technology, Bombay and went on to serve as a Teaching Assistant at the same institute, following which he worked as a programmer in Copenhagen. Imam decided to further his education and in 2013, he enrolled in a Master’s program in Modern History at JNU after which he undertook an M.Phil. Programme in Modern Indian History, and a PhD. His MPhil thesis was titled ‘Exodus before Partition: The Attack on Muslims of Bihar in 1946.’

In December, during an anti-CAA protest at Jantar Mantar, Imam delivered a speech characterising the CAA as an assault on Muslim citizens of India. Furthermore, he advocated for a Chakka Jaam, arguing it was a well-tested means of democratic protest around the world to bring the attention of the authorities to address public demands.

Later, the Delhi Police used one of Imam’s speeches promoting the Chakka Jaam as evidence to file a case against him. They have accused him of aiding the February 2020 Delhi pogrom which saw over 40 people, mostly Muslims, killed in north-east Delhi.

Charges of sedition were levelled against Sharjeel Imam following the widespread dissemination of a two-minute excerpt from his speech at Aligarh Muslim University on January 16. This snippet was broadcasted by right-wing news channels and extensively shared on social media platforms on January 24, including a segment on Arnab Goswami’s Republic World. Right-wing media outlets interpreted the clip out of context and tried to portray him as an Islamic fundamentalist, subjecting him to a media trial. While in prison, like many other prisoners, he contracted COVID-19 in 2020. To which he stated, in an interview to Ajaz Ashraf, “My fear was not that I would die without meeting my family. It was rather that I would not be able to prove that I am not a terrorist.”

According to a report by The Wire, Imam has eight cases registered against him out of which he has been given bail 5 of them. For one of the remaining cases, he has never been arrested, and the other remaining cases are of the UAPA. According to the same report, Imam’s brother, Muzammil Imam, has stated that his bail plea has been listed about 46 times in the courts in the past four years.

Court Proceedings

Five Indian states namely Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Delhi had taken legal action against Imam. Assam Police registered an FIR citing UAPA and IPC sections. The same day, Aligarh Police in Uttar Pradesh charged Imam with sedition. Manipur Police filed an FIR for offences like waging war, sedition, and vilification. Arunachal Pradesh’s Itanagar police filed an FIR for sedition and promoting enmity and Delhi Police filed an FIR for sedition and promoting religious enmity.

In November 2021, Imam was granted bail by Allahabad High Court for his AMU speech. The court stated that his speech did not amount to calling for violence. He was granted bail by a single bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh sections 124 A (sedition), 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) as well as a few other sections of the IPC.

In March 2022, Delhi High Court issued notice on his bail plea, noting that sedition required call to violence, “why should he not be granted bail?”. However, the Delhi High Court set aside a trial court’s order, to discharge Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the Jamia violence case.

In September 2022, Imam was granted bail by a Delhi court for allegedly making inflammatory speeches during anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019. He was granted bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure’s Section 436A. The provision details bail for a person who has gone through detention for up to one-half of the maximum sentence specified for an offence during the trial period.

In November 2023, the judge presiding over the case was discharged and it was decided that the bail plea for the case would be heard afresh.

In January, 2024, the High Court directed the Delhi police to ask why Sharjeel Imam can’t be treated equally with those granted bail. As of now, Ishrat Jahan, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita have been granted bail in the case in 2021. The Delhi police has responded that it is for Imam to convince the court, and not up to the prosecution.

Related:

Human Rights Defenders

State-sponsored attempts at surveillance undermine the right to privacy, target specific individuals, and reveal gaps in legislation.

Census vs NPR

Opposition to the CAA is rooted in its discriminatory nature.

The post Four years behind bars, Sharjeel Imam still waits for a fair trial appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking strong note of irregular behaviour, in an incident of Uttar Pradesh Police detaining and taking away a young couple from their residence in the national capital to Ghaziabad last week, the Delhi High Court said it will examine how the cops allegedly carried-out the “operations” without intimating the Delhi Police.

Justice Anup J. Bhambhani has directed a sub-inspector of Delhi Police to collect the CCTV footage of cameras, if any, installed in and around the couple’s residence in Delhi in an effort to identify who entered and exited the premises on the night of incident. “Let the footage collected be placed on record under cover of a status report,” said the court.

The court was hearing a plea moved by the couple seeking protection against threats to their life at the hands of the girl’s relatives. While the woman is 19 years old, the man is 21 years old. The couple got married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at an Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi. A marriage certificate dated February 13 was also issued to them.

On February 16, the court had directed the SHO of Anand Parbat police station, under whose jurisdiction the couple has been residing, to ensure their safety and security against any threat by providing his as well as the concerned beat constable’s phone number.

However, the matter was urgently listed on February 18, after the couple alleged that certain persons, believed to be policemen from Uttar Pradesh’s Modi Nagar police station lifted them and took them away to Ghaziabad. The couple, even participated in the court proceedings through video-conferencing mode, and told court that on the night of February 16 at about 11.30 pm, UP police cops forcibly took them to Modi Nagar police station, where the man spent the entire night in the lock-up.

The testimony also disclosed that it was the next day that the girl was escorted to a court sometime in the afternoon where her statement was recorded in a closed room. Thereafter, she was brought back to the police station and the couple was allowed to leave. The court was also informed by the man that on the night of February 16, the phone calls made to SHO and beat constable of Anand Parbat police station went unanswered.

A ‘status report’ filed under the signatures of the sub-inspector concerned confirmed that no intimation or information was received at the Anand Parbat police station regarding arrival or departure of any officers of the UP police on the night of February 16. The matter will now be heard on February 23 on the aspect of the “operations” conducted by UP police officers in Delhi. The couple has been directed to remain present in court along with IO.

This is not the first time that UP Police has come under question for its operations against couples in national capital. “UP Mein Chalta Hoga Yaha Nahin,” stated the High Court in a case in 2021 as it slammed the police for arresting father and brother of a man who got married to a woman, against her family’s wishes.

Related: 

UP Police harassing journalist Ashish Dixit?

Inquiry into rights violations by UP police during 2019 anti-CAA protests: NHRC

The post Who are UP police officials who detained a young couple at midnight without informing Delhi Police, asks Delhi High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujarat High Court quashed the detention order of a person booked under the Prohibition Act, while observing that a solitary offence cannot deem a person to be bootlegger under the Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act (PASA). The bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav said, “Just because a solitary offence has been registered against the appellant-detenu under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, that by itself, does not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order”.

The letters patent appeal was filed against the order passed by single judge bench whereby the writ petition challenging the order of preventive detention was dismissed. The appellant, Karansinh Vaghela was detained basis detention order dated April 6, 2021 basis FIR registered against him under some sections of Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The contentions raised before the single-judge bench included the detenue not falling under the definition of “bootlegger” under section 2(b) PASA. Other contentions raised were that there was no breach of law and order much less public order and that there were no past antecedents against the detenue.

Bootlegger is defined under PASA as:

(b) “bootlegger” means a person who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the things described above by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing;

The government pleader, Shruti Pathak, opposed the appeal and submitted that the powers conferred on the detaining authority and the procedural safeguards are not devised to allow persons to continue with criminal activities and take advantage of technical loopholes. She submitted that the order passed by the detaining authority as confirmed by the Single-Judge deserves no interference.

The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the grounds on which the detention order was passed. The court said that it was loathe in interfering with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority however, considering the aspects of disturbance of public order, past antecedents of crime as well as definition of “bootlegger” under PASA, the court held that the appellant cannot be said to be a bootlegger, when the offence is solitary.

The court said, “In the absence of material about disturbance to public order, we find that no compelling circumstance was available with the detaining authority to exercise power of preventive detention and the overall facts do not reveal that preventive detention of the detenue was warranted”.

The court cited Aartiben W/o Nandubhai Jayantibhai Sujnani vs. Commissioner of Police (in L.P.A. No.2732 of 2010 dated March 28, 2011) wherein the decision of Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 852 was quoted. The apex court had drawn a distinction between public order and law and order. “The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest,” the apex court had held.

The court, in this case, observed that the law of preventive detention has to be construed not as in an ordinary criminal proceedings of detaining or arresting a person who is said to have committed crime. Instead, the law of preventive detention is to be strictly followed as per the statute and the settled law on the point. The court observed that there is only a single FIR related to prohibition offences and “by no stretch of imagination can we hold that such incidents could describe a person as a bootlegger,” the court said.

The court held that the detaining authority failed to substantiate that the alleged antisocial activities of the appellant-detenu adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.

“Just because a solitary offence has been registered against the appellant-detenu under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, that by itself, does not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. The order of detention, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and set aside,” the court said.

The court thus, quashed the judgement passed by the single judge bench as well as the detention order and directed the appellant to be released forthwith.

On August 18, Gujarat High Court Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay restricted the state government from issuing detention orders under PASA against three traders booked for some offences under the GST laws. 

Misuse of PASA

This is not the first time, the Gujarat High Court has pointed towards the indiscriminate misuse of PASA against people. In early April the bench of Justice Upadhyay had preemptively stalled the execution of detention order, and observed that it was a private dispute between the parties but the police had still filed the FIR and deemed the petitioner to be a ‘dangerous person’ under PASA and intended to detain him. The court observed, “Such tactics need to be nipped in the bud. Rampant misuse of PASA is noticed by this court. This is one of such examples, where it is the police authorities who take upon such responsibility to settle the financial transaction / disputes between the parties, with the aid / threat of PASA.”

The Gujarat High Court has time and again warned the state’s police and the detaining authority against the pertinent misuse of this law in force for over three and a half decades. In several cases one pattern of misuse and continued detention through this law was by the time-tested method of multiple FIRs registered against a person; even if some of these FIRs dated from several years ago. In one case it was found that the several allegations on which the man was detained were all false and despite the Police themselves attesting to this in a report, he was still detained!

The complete analysis of how PASA has been misused with the high court pointing out the same, may be read here.

The high court order may be read here:

Related:

Guj HC restrains state from passing detention orders under PASA
Guj HC points out “rampant misuse” of PASA Act
Gujarat’s PASA Act: A long running saga of misuse and abuse

The post Cannot be deemed bootlegger and detained under PASA based on one FIR: Guj HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 18, Gujarat High Court restricted the state government from issuing detention orders under the Prevention of Anti-social Activities (PASA) Act against three traders booked for some offences under the GST laws. 

The Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay had asked the state at which stage can the detention order be passed? However, in the absence of response from the state and uncertain statements of the tax department, the court called it a “hanging sword” over the traders. The court said that in such cases, the state cannot be permitted to resort to PASA, especially when the state is trying to regain momentum post Covid-19.

The petitioners, Amitkumar Patel, Sanjay Patel and Sanjaykumar @ Shankar Patel were apprehending detention under PASA in connection with the complaint filed by the State Tax Department before the Magistrate court, Ahmedabad. The complaint was filed under Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act and Central Goods and Services Tax Act as well as offence of criminal conspiracy under IPC.

At the previous hearing, the court had granted protection to the petitioners in case a detention order under PASA is issued against them. The court had also sought to know from the state at what stage could the detention order be passed and whether in cases of discrepancies in GST, the “sword” of detention under PASA should be kept hanging over the head of the trader community. The Finance Department did not respond, however the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Department filed an affidavit stating that no proposal is made to detain the petitioners under PASA, thus far.

The court observed that since the Finance Department had not responded to the court’s query, the sword is hanging over the traders of detention under PASA because the tax department has said that “so far” no decision has been made.

“Citizen can not be left in lurch like this. Further, when the State on the whole and the economy in particular is trying to regain the momentum post COVID, such hanging sword situation cannot be permitted to continue,” the court said.

The court, after considering material on record, held that in such cases the State Authorities can not be permitted to resort to the stringent provisions like detention under PASA and the court has restrained the state from issuing detention order against the petitioners and disposed the petitions.

Misuse of PASA

This is not the first time, the Gujarat High Court has pointed towards the indiscriminate misuse of PASA against people. In early April the bench of Justice Upadhyay had preemptively stalled the execution of detention order, and observed that it was a private dispute between the parties but the police had still filed the FIR and deemed the petitioner to be a ‘dangerous person’ under PASA and intended to detain him. The court observed, “Such tactics need to be nipped in the bud. Rampant misuse of PASA is noticed by this court. This is one of such examples, where it is the police authorities who take upon such responsibility to settle the financial transaction / disputes between the parties, with the aid / threat of PASA.”

The Gujarat High Court has time and again warned the state’s police and the detaining authority against the pertinent misuse of this law in force for over three and a half decades. In several cases one pattern of misuse and continued detention through this law was by the time-tested method of multiple FIRs registered against a person; even if some of these FIRs dated from several years ago. In one case it was found that the several allegations on which the man was detained were all false and despite the Police themselves attesting to this in a report, he was still detained!

The complete analysis of how PASA has been misused with the high court pointing out the same, may be read here.

Detentions under PASA

In April 2019, Times of India reported that since the announcement of general elections in 2019, over a period of 31 days, 228 persons were detained under PASA while 48 were externed from city limits. The then Additional Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Premvir Singh said that 49,423 persons have been detained and 6,866 arrest warrants issued. It is unclear to what period these numbers pertained. There is also every chance that the government of the day, indiscriminately uses the process of a problematic, draconian law to target protesters and political opponents. Due process, fundamental to restore balance in an unequal relationship between state and citizen has been given a complete go by here.

The high court order may be read here:

Related:

Guj HC points out “rampant misuse” of PASA Act
Gujarat’s PASA Act: A long running saga of misuse and abuse

The post Guj HC restrains state from passing detention orders under PASA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An important order delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, has held that the request of an Investigating Officer (IO) for time extension for detaining an accused beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, cannot be a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor under section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Section 43D(2)(b) provides that if the investigation agency has not been able to complete the investigation in the case within the prescribed period of 90 days, the public prosecutor appearing for the agency has to mandatorily file a report before the court. Further, if the court is satisfied by such a report, the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons provided by the prosecutor for detaining the accused, it shall extend the period of custody to 180 days.

In the present case before the High Court, the appellants, Showkat Ahmad and Nayeem Ahmad Khan, have had their detention period extended thrice by the trial court, Srinagar, beyond the period of ninety days. They contended before the High Court that there is no report of the public prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of ninety days. It was argued that the trial court did not provide any specific reason to extend their detention.

Showkat and Nayeem have been booked under sections 17 (punishment for raising funds for a terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation), 39 (offence relating to support to a terrorist organisation) and 40 (offence of raising funds for terrorist act) of UAPA.

Court’s observations

After being denied bail by the trial court, the appellants approached the High Court, averring that since the police agency couldn’t complete its investigation within a period of 90 days, they should be released on bail.

On the outset, the Division Bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Vinod Chatterji Koul, noted that the trial court had misdirected itself by not granting bail to them. “It is pertinent to mention here that the status of the prosecutor is not a part of the investigating agency as it is an independent statutory authority,” read the order.

The Bench referred to two cases of State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling (2019) and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (1994), where the Supreme Court has ruled that the public prosecutor has the option to agree or disagree with the reasons given by the Investigating Officer (IO) for seeking extension of time, and that the request of an IO for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor.

Citing these cases, the High Court Bench reiterated, “It comes to fore that emphasis has been laid by the Supreme Court on the importance of scrutiny by a Public Prosecutor so as not to leave a detenu in the hands of I.O. alone, inasmuch as Public Prosecutor has an option to agree or disagree with the reasons given by I.O. for seeking extension of time. Besides, request of I.O. for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of a public prosecutor under the provisions of Section 43D (2)(b) of ULA(P) Act.”

Noting that the trial court did not deal with the rights of the appellants to grant of default bail, the High Court set aside its order and granted bail to Showkat and Nayeem.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Understanding the UAPA
HRD Ishrat Jahan awaits bail in Delhi Violence Case
Delhi HC’s fitting reply to the criminalisation of dissent and protest
Bail under UAPA: Does the new SC judgment offer a ray of hope?

The post PP must submit report giving specific reasons for detention under UAPA: J&K and Ladakh HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Government recently admitted that as on November 28, there are 970 detainees in 6 detention centres in Assam. On the same question asked a few days ago the government had revealed that there were 988 detainees in Assam as of November 22. Eighteen detainees released in six days ?

The data provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs also revealed that there are 646 males and 324 females among these detainees, with Kokrajhar having the maximum number of women.

The government also claimed that men and women are kept in separate rooms and are provided with sufficient essential and basic facilities. It also claimed that the detainees are living with human dignity and they are allowed to meet their family and legal advisors without any restriction to this regard.

Earlier, the government had claimed, “All the basic facilities including medical care facilities are provided to foreigners in the detention centres in Assam. Basic facilities include food, clothing, daily newspapers, television facilities in every ward, sports facilities, performance of cultural programs, library, yoga and meditation. Apart from regular health checkups, indoor hospital facilities in every detention centres are also available with medical staff. Medicines are provided by the district Health Services Authorities.”

Reality check

However, these tall claims of the government fall flat when one hears stories from the ground, from the people released from detention camps, who have a completely different story to tell. MajiburRahman who was recently released from a detention camp said, “The food was of a poor quality and my health deteriorated significantly during the course of my incarceration,”

A woman named, Rashminara Begum, who was pregnant and rearing a child at the time of her detention, recounted the horrors of living in a detention camp after having been released. She said that they were kept in the company of murder convicts and she constantly feared for her life and the life of her unborn child. She also recounted how one mentally challenged woman amongst the detainees was beaten up once for demanding food after the time for serving food was over and the prison staff instructed the murder convicts to beat her up!

Subrata Dey was found dead under mysterious circumstances in Goalpara detention camp leaving behind his wife Karuna, teenaged son Biki, young daughter Sucheta and mother Anima Dey.

His family was dependent on the income from his modest tea shop but now they are living hand to mouth with whatever they could earn by making and selling cloth bags. All four of them have been also excluded from the final NRC.

Related:

28 deaths in detention camps, detainees down from 1043 to 988 in 9 days: Assam

Seven Detainees of Bongaigaon District released from Goalpara Detention camp

High level committee visited Kokrajhar Detention camp

“There are detention camps only in Assam, but Centres being set up in States/UT”: MHA

Assam man forced to rot in Detention Camp for over 3 years

Stories from beyond: NRC victims share their plight

Jailed in Detention Camp despite being Pregnant with one child and Breastfeeding another

The post Assam: Detainees in camps down from 988 to 970 in 6 days appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 25, 2019 a judgement from Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey of the Jammu and Kashmir high court kindled hopes for other detainees. The Judge quashed the preventive detention of Masood Ahmad Bhat dated January 22. The court further said the detenu, a resident of Chidder, Kulgam district should be released from preventive custody forthwith.

However the man would still remain in custody s since Bhat is also accused of a substantive offence in FIR No. 116/2018 under sections of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), is already in custody and has not applied for bail for that, he would, therefore, remain in custody unless granted bail for the UAPA offence.

What is significant, however, is that Justice Magrey found Bhat’s detention vitiated, in view of the settled position of law. Although Bhat’s detention predates the Centre’s controversial August 5 decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, and the subsequent clampdown in the state resulting in preventive detention of several political activists, the grounds cited to quash Bhat’s detention in Justice Magrey’s judgment could come to the rescue of other detainees, whose detention might be similar to that of Bhat.

The Hindu has today reported that the habeas corpus cases in the J & K High Court shot up to 120 in August and September 2019 respectively, The Hindu also reported that in an interview to the paper, the erstwhile state’s Director General of Police, Dilbar Singh admitted to 800 being detained with as many as 150 being sent to jails out of the state.

Bhat had sought his release through his brother.  Bhat challenged the order of his detention on the following grounds:
“a) that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, more so in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenu was already in custody;
b) that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;
c) that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is a pre-requisite for him before passing any detention order.”

Justice Magrey recorded his findings as follows:
Despite direction, the detention order was not produced.
In the absence of material, the detention order is passed on mere ipsi dixit (an assertion without proof) of detaining authority;  therefore, the detention order is bad in law.

Justice Magrey added:
“The only precious and valuable right guaranteed to a detenu is of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Such an effective representation can only be made by a detenu when he is supplied the relevant grounds of detention, including the materials considered by the detaining authority for arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. Since the material is not supplied to the detenu, the right of the detenu to file such representation is impinged upon and the detention order is resultantly vitiated. Judgements on this point, both of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts, including our own High Court, are galore.”

Relying on a Supreme Court judgment
Justice Magrey relied on a Supreme Court judgment delivered in 1982. In Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat (1982), the apex court, relying on its earlier judgments in Khudiram Das v State of W. B. (1975) and Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) in paragraph 10 of the judgment, held:
“Two propositions having a bearing on the points at issue in the case before us, clearly emerge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases:

(a) all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which had influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or in any event not later than 5 days ordinarily and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of his detention, and

(b) all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things would amount to a breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.”

In the Khudiram case (supra), decided by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in 1974, the Supreme Court had explained what is meant by “grounds on which the order is made” in the context of the duties cast upon the detaining authority and the corresponding rights accruing to the detenu under Article 22(5).
In Smt. Icchu Devi Case (supra), also authored by Justice Bhagwati in 1980, the Supreme Court took the view that documents, statements and other materials referred to or relied upon by the detaining authority as grounds for detention must be made available to the detenu. The court held that the state’s obligation to provide copies of this material flowed directly from a detained person’s right to make a representation against his detention at the earliest opportunity – a right that cannot be meaningfully exercised without the grounds for his imprisonment being known to him.

Justice Magrey concluded:
“Examining the present case on the touchstone of the above settled position of law and perusal of record, the detenu was not supplied the materials relied upon by the detaining authority. The detenu was provided material in the shape of grounds of detention with no other material/documents, as referred to in the order of detention. On these counts alone, in view of the above settled position of law, the detention of the detenu is vitiated, the detenu having been prevented from making an effective and purposeful representation against the order of detention.”

The post Preventive Detention of Masood Bhat quashed: J & K HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Saqib Majeed / SOPA Images/Sipa USA

While the J&K High Court has witnessed a upwards spiral  in habeas corpus cases in the wake of the crackdown against citizens that began on August 5 in the Kashmir valley, the “unprecedented situation” in the valley is holding back the Court from issuing any orders for relief in cases of detentions. This data from the HC has been accessed by The Hindu, and shows that while only 15 and 26 habeas corpus cases were filed before the court in June and July, respectively. The number shot up to 120 in August and about 115 in the first three weeks of September. Interestingly, no Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the past two months.

Tragically, while petitions have been filed, the case histories studied by the paper showed that none of the detainees were produced before the court nor any relief offered, except in the writ petitions filed by lawyer Shabnum Lone, sister of incarcerated Peoples Conference chief Sajad Lone, and National Conference MPs Hasnain Masoodi and Akbar Lone. The court granted permission to meeting with the detained leadership in these two cases.
 

 ‘Youth from J&K being sent to jails outside State’

The newspaper also has photographs of hundreds of hapless citizens waiting outside police station in Shopian to get information on detained relatives.

The Hindu has these case studies too:

Gulzar Ahmad Wagey has not seen his 11-year-old son for 22 days. Mr. Wagey, a shopkeeper in Shopian’s Keegam village, said his son was picked up by security forces in the last week of August from their home. He said he had been coming to the police station every day to know the son’s whereabouts. “I do not know why he was arrested. Saheb (Superintendent of Police) assured us that he will let me meet him,” said Mr. Wagey as he waited outside the Shopian headquarters. He later said the police had agreed to release his son.

Hundreds waited outside the police station in Shopian to get information about their relatives, friends and neighbours when The Hindu visited the place last week  800 in detention.

The J&K Director General of Police Dilbag Singh said in an interview to The Hindu that August 5 onwards, around 3,000 cases were reported where young men were picked up and released subsequently in the Kashmir Valley. Around 800 remain in detention and nearly 150 are lodged in jails outside J&K.

Shopian is one of the worst militancy-affected districts in South Kashmir. There are around 225 villages in the district spread over 60,000 hectares of which half is covered by apple orchards. It is the largest producer of apples in J&K. According to police, last year 42 men from Shopian joined various terrorist groups, while this year only 17 took to militancy. A police officer said that post August 5, only one man joined the terror group.

In the past one year, as many as 20,000 people have signed community bonds to secure the release of 800 young men and boys who were involved in incidents of stone-pelting. The J&K police have started a unique practice of engaging the community elders, religious teachers and family members to deter the youth from repeating offences like throwing stones at security forces. As per the bond, the community members are made to stand as guarantors for the youth at the local police station for first-time offenders. The bond has no legal sanctity though.

All markets remain shut in Shopian. Muzaffar Ahamd Ganai, a former sarpanch said that residents were not opening shops in protest. “Earlier separatists used to give call for a strike. We are not bothered about them. This hartal [strike] is by the people. We will not resort to any violence but are ready to sacrifice business for our rights,” said Mr. Ganai, adding that this was a civil protest against the Centre’s decision to revoke J&K’s special status.

“We are called terrorists when we go outside the State. Mobile phones are down. We are rotting in our houses. We do not trust any political leader. Leaders like Farooq Abdullah who stood with India have been put in jail,” he added.

The post 235 Habeas Corpus Cases in J & K HC since Aug 5, 800 Detained: Hindu appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the case of countries supposedly priding themselves in the lotteries of exaggerated freedom, the influence of this carceral mentality is less obvious but still significant.  In Australia, where offshore processing of naval arrivals and its own offerings of gulag culture were made, six years has passed since Nauru and Manus Island became outpost of indefinite detention.

During the years, legislation has been passed encasing these outposts in capsules of secrecy, superficially protected by island sovereignty. 
Whistleblowing has been criminalised; concerned doctors have been expelled; suicides, sexual assault and psychological mutilations have been normalised in the patchwork monstrosity that involves compromised local officials, private security firms and funding from the Australian tax payer.

A most obvious consequence of this is the cultivation of a thuggish lack of accountability.  Australian politicians keen to visit the handiwork of their government have been rebuffed.  Greens Senator Nick McKim had been trying to splash out some publicity on the anniversary, paying a visit to Manus Island.  He noted a deterioration in conditions since his 2017 visit.

On Thursday, he was approached by two immigration officials who informed him that he would be deported.  He had been attempting to see East Lorengau camp, was denied entry, and his passport confiscated.  To SBS News, he expressed his disappointment “that they are threatening to deport me because I am here to expose the truth about the treatment of refugees, to lift the veil of secrecy that’s been draped over Australia’s offshore detention regime.”

A mistake is made in assuming clear dates of commencement in terms of a distinct Australian approach.  Australia was, after all, itself a penal colony, an experiment in distant punishment and obsessive control.  It made, in turn, prisoners of the indigenous population.  Brutally, its various authorities relocated individuals to missions, camps and compounds.  A paternal mentality, one that has never left, took hold: we know what is best for you, be it the Bible or the dog tag. Infantilism, exploitation and dispossession thrived as mentalities.

Despite being an active participant in the post-war movement to establish an international refugee regime protecting human rights, Australian approaches have remained, as immigration law specialist Mary Crock puts it, “controlled and highly selective.”  For decades, Australian administrators and decision makers remained unperturbed by jurisprudence relevant to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951.  The country’s isolation, its continental expanse, and not sharing land borders, have offered governments an unparalleled luxury: “the ability to achieve near perfect control of immigration.”

During the 1960s, Manus Island was set up to take refugees from West Papua.  Salasia Camp, located near the current Lombrom detention centre, was established to isolate a certain number of West Papuan notables who had irked the Indonesian state’s efforts in claiming the former Dutch New Guinea colony.  Australia, not wanting to aggravate their Indonesian counterparts in providing safe havens for West Irian rebels, kept matters quiet, sometimes turning back refugees while offering “permissive residence” visas to others.

Not that the officials of Papua New Guinea were thrilled: thousands of West Papuans who made their way fleeing conflict between the rebels of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (West Papua Freedom Movement) and the Indonesian military were left without PNG citizenship for five decades.

The arrival of Vietnamese “boat people” fleeing in the aftermath of the country’s re-unification in the 1970s saw Australian officials flirt with variants of offshore processing.  The 1978 system established in response to these arrivals ensured a monopoly on the part of the immigration minister to determine the refugee status of arrivals. Lawyers and advisors were given a distant second billing in the role.  In the words of Professor Crock, “The regional processing regime established right across Southeast Asia was predicated on an offshore processing-type idea; stopping asylum seekers where they are, processing them there, and distributing them in an orderly fashion.”

There was the Tampa-Pacific solution orchestrated by Prime Minister John Howard in 2001; there was the re-commencement in fits and starts under dysfunctional, catty Labor governments: the Gillard administration reinstated offshore processing in 2012, while Kevin Rudd added his icing by insisting that no asylum seeker arriving by boat would ever be settled in Australia.  But the earth had already been disturbed, the mind oriented, towards cruelty in the name of necessity.

While refugees tend to be the fodder of periodic periods of demonization, there are many reminders about a condition that Australia has made its own.  Some of this features in the talismanic, urgently desperate writing of the Iranian-Kurdish refugee Behrouz Boochani.  In 2018, Hoda Afshar snapped a picture showing Boochani as a Christ-like figure, seemingly awaiting crucifixion.  Her subject chose to see it differently.  “I only see a refugee, someone whose identity has been taken from him.  Just bare life, standing beyond the borders of Australia, waiting and staring.”

The Australian Book Review has offered a Behrouz Boochani Fellowship worth $10,000, funded by lawyer and philanthropist Peter McMullin.  In of itself, it suggests the absurd condition that is offshore processing, a state of mind that now draws funding for analysis, for commitment, for understanding.  Having become as ordinary as the insufferably ugly Australian Hills Hoist, or bountiful cask wine, it will not be leaving any time too soon, itself a disfigurement rendered natural.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Manus, Nauru and an Australian Detention Legacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.