The post Beyond the ‘plum’ posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members of National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR – Gujarat) – a pan Indian collective of progressive lawyers and law professionals and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM Gujarat), along with many civil society organizations of the state have strongly objected to the proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006, notified on February 20, 2026. The groups have urged the State Government to withdraw the draft, citing serious concerns over constitutionality, privacy, and individual freedoms.

In a detailed letter of objections submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Health and Family Welfare Department, these organizations have stated that the proposed amendments introduce provisions requiring submission of Aadhaar details, mandatory disclosure of whether parents have been informed, and the sharing of parents’ contact information. Further, authorities would be required to notify parents of a marriage application and impose a 30-day waiting period before registration.

According to the both organisations, these provisions are unconstitutional and violate fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy, personal liberty, and individual autonomy. They argue that the amendments go beyond the scope of the parent legislation and impose unwarranted state intrusion into personal decisions of consenting adults.

A key concern raised is the mandatory parental intimation, which undermines the legally recognised right of adults to marry a person of their choice without interference. The groups warn that such provisions could expose couples—especially those in inter-caste, interfaith, or socially sensitive relationships—to harassment, violence, and even “honour-based” crimes. The autonomy granted to adult citizens to make marriages of choice has been a factor of Indian secular life since the enactment of the Special Marriages Act of 1954.

The amendments are also being criticised for failing the proportionality test laid down by the Supreme Court in privacy jurisprudence, as they lack clear necessity, legal backing, and a rational connection to their stated objective. Civil society groups noted that there is no empirical evidence justifying such sweeping measures.

Additionally, the proposal is seen as potentially deepening caste and religious divisions, discouraging inter-community marriages, and enabling misuse of laws such as the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act through false complaints by disapproving family members.

The impact on women’s autonomy and LGBTQIA+ individuals has been highlighted as particularly concerning. The requirement of parental involvement could reinforce patriarchal control over women’s choices and further endanger queer and transgender individuals who often face familial violence and coercion.

The groups have also expressed alarm over proposals for digitized and publicly accessible marriage records, warning that such measures could lead to misuse of personal information and threaten individuals’ safety and dignity.

In conclusion, the organisations stated that instead of addressing genuine concerns, the amendments risk discouraging marriage registration altogether, thereby undermining the very purpose of the law.

NAJAR (Gujarat) and NAPM (Gujarat) –in a joint statement issued –have both called for the immediate withdrawal of the draft amendments and urged the government to uphold constitutional values, individual freedoms, and the right to dignity and choice.

The actual communication may be read below:

To,                                                                                                       Dated: March 19, 2026

The Additional Chief Secretary,

Government of Gujarat,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

New Sachivalaya,

Gandhinagar – 382010

Subject: Objections to the Proposed Draft Amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006  (Notification dated February 20,  2026) and Demand for Withdrawal of Proposed Draft

Sir/Ma’am,

We, individuals, organizations and collectives associated with the National Alliance for People’s Movements Gujarat and National Alliance for Justice, Accountability, and Rights, Gujarat, would like to convey our grave worries and formal objections to the proposed amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006 announced by the government of the state of Gujarat vide notification No. GHY/02/HFWD/102026/5/B1 dated 20.02.2026.

The way in which the proposed amendment aims to achieve its supposed intention (according to media statements issued by the Home Minister) of cracking down on those men who misrepresent their identities to women and fraudulently marry them appears to be severely misguided and is likely to cause more damage to the personal liberties of a large segment of the state as well as a long term disintegration of the society along religious and caste lines. The new rules are in clear contravention of the Articles 19, 21 and 51A (e) of the Indian Constitution and therefore unconstitutional. With respect to this, we the undersigned, demand withdrawal of the proposed draft amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006.

We hereby submit the following key rule-wise objections:

1. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (3)(b)

Rule 4(3) prescribes for the mandatory accompanied documents with the memorandum, which already included identity establishing documents in 4(3)(a) and age verifying document as per 4(3)(c). There is thus no requirement of insertion of 4(3)(b) for submission of Aadhaar card. The courts [1]have time and again held that citizens cannot be denied basic services/entitlements/benefits for mere refusal to submit Aadhaar number. Further, it acts as an invasion of privacy even more so witnesses to the marriage. 

2. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (5)

Through the insertion of Rule 4 (5), a declaration by both parties is required stating if their parents, have or have not been informed of the marriage, which is categorically submitted to be baseless, unconstitutional and beyond the scope of rule-making power of the state.

• At the outset, the power to make rules by the State Government in Section 21 of the parent act in particular, specifically matters described in Section 21(2)(a) to (f); the requirement of information to parents does not fall under the ambit of the same.
• The Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, The Special Marriages Act, nor the personal laws from The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, there exists no requirement for the parties to marriage to inform/show consent/witness of their parents. In fact in Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, in 1978 amendment the farthest resemblance to guardians consent was also removed.

3. Objection against insertion of Rule 4(6)

Unequivocally, the insertion of this proposed sub-rule requiring both parties to submit not only the name of their parents, but their ordinary place of residence as well as mobile number- is fundamentally capricious, manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Fundamental Rights under Art 14 and 21. While details of parents of the parties is already submitted in the Memorandum of Marriage (as expanded in the Schedule under Section 5) the requirement of mobile number violates the ‘proportionality test’ for state intrusion to privacy rights. Further, it exceeds the scope of the parent act. The preamble of 2006 Act focuses on registration for evidence, not notification for parental oversight.

4. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (7)

The proposed rule provides for Assistant Registrar to ‘expeditiously’ within 10 days intimate the parents of the parties about the memorandum submitted by the parties to the marriage and to their concerned Registrar in that jurisdiction as well. The amendment read with Rule 4(6) is patently illegal exercise of delegated legislative power by the state.

1. The parent Act does not empower the state to change a procedural statute of an already solemnized marriage. Even though registration has been mandatory, mere non-registration cannot change the legal status of a solemnized marriage. The proposed amendment in the Rule 4(7) read with Section 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 and conditions laid down for a valid marriage in the Special Marriages Act, nor the personal laws can lead to unnecessary objections being raised by the family and other parties leading to delay in registration and harassment of parties to marriage.
2. The requirement to ‘send intimation to the parents expeditiously’ is a blatant discrimination against adults choosing their partners. Multiple judicial pronouncements have reaffirmed the right to marry as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. As the Supreme Court held in 2021[2]:-
   “We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking”.
3. It is submitted that this proposal violates the intrinsic right to privacy of individuals, In Puttaswamy, [3]the Supreme Court held that any state restriction on privacy must satisfy the tripartite test of legality, necessity and proportionality. The proposed rule-making power fails on all three counts: it lacks legality by infringing upon the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 without statutory authority; it fails to substantiate the necessity of piercing established matrimonial autonomy or settled questions of law; and it is not proportional to the alleged objective of preventing “forced conversions” which remains a speculative concern that has not been statistically substantiated by the State to justify such a sweeping and coercive intrusion.

5. Objection against insertion of Rule 4(8)

The proposed rule 4(8) provides for registration of marriage after thirty dates from receipt of memorandum; upon being satisfied’ of compliance with sub-rules (1) to (7).

• Firstly, the proposed rule fails to provide any determining principle or purpose for this moratorium period of 30 days. While the underlying requirement of parental intimation is itself unconstitutional as substantantiated above, the rules remain silent on the consequences of this notice mentioned in Rule 4(7), and in event of no prescribed procedure merely serves as a baseless procedural hurdle with no nexus with marriage registration.
• Secondly, the proposed insertion is not in conformity with the Section 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. It is important to remember that Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 is the parent act under which the rules are framed that are proposed to be Section 8 of the Act provides for the power to refuse the registration of marriage. The said section provides for only three specific circumstances in which the registration may be refused. Which is (a) marriage is not performed in accordance with the personal law of the parties, (b) the identity of the parties, or the witness or the priest is not established beyond reasonable doubt or (c) the documents tendered do not prove the marital status of the parties. When the scope of the refusal of the registration of the marriage is circumscribed by the parent legislation, the rules made thereunder cannot go beyond the same.

Additional suggestions/comments: 

Unclear Objectives

At the very outset, the prima facie un-tenability of the amendments lies in the absence of any clear and coherent objectives for their introduction. Any amendment to an existing law or rules should have nexus with a legitimate state goal in public interest. The stated intention at the time of the tabling the draft of new rules in the Vidhan Sabha are rather vague in nature and are also not substantiated by any empirical evidence either. The proposed amendments do not seem to fill any legal laps previously left in the light of Sections 4 and 5 of both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which lay out the conditions of a valid marriage per the respective legislations.

Threat to Personal Liberties

The new provision whereby both sets of parents of a couple shall be informed upon their attempt to register a marriage is antithetical to the principle of an individual’s right to choose. The very reason that we have a minimum age for marriage is the underlying belief that an adult has both the right and the capacity to choose their partner.

The practice of “honour killings” of inter-caste or interreligious couples has seen a sharp increase in India as per the data of the National Crime Records Bureau released in 2025, which is itself believed to underestimation. Necessitating the involvement of the parents in the process of marriage registration can directly put people’s lives at risk. The violence is often not only limited to the couple itself, but can engulf two communities in a bitter and long-term conflict that ends up destroying several lives.

Promotion of Casteism & Religious Divisions

Caste and religious lines continue to divide our country. While the marked increase in the beneficiaries of the ‘Dr. Savitaben Ambedkar Inter-Caste Marriage Assistance Scheme’ (being the most relevant indiactor of inter-caste marriage trends in Gujarat) is a positive sign, the overwhelming majority of marital relations in our society are endogamous in nature. The general trend in this regard suggests that the younger generation i.e. those who are going to marry in the foreseeable future are relatively more open to the idea of inter-caste and interreligious marriage. Informing the parents of the marrying parties effectively creates an obstruction only for those parties whose parents would not agree to the marriage on religious or caste lines.

A form of retaliation by the parents opposed to the registration of such marriages may be by filing a false case under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2001. Section 3A of the Act empowers a relative of the “aggrieved person” to file a complaint of attempt to convert into a religion, and Section 6A of the Act puts the burden of proof on the accused to disprove the presence of fraud, coercion or allurement, failing which the accused shall have to face criminal charges. The additional requirement of intimation to parents of individuals may lead to criminalization of bonafide marital relationships in case the parents disapprove their marriage by way of criminal complaint under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act – effecting inter-faith marriages between two consenting adults.

Women’s Autonomy

Empowering parents to have a say in the marital decisions of woman, or in many instances being the decision maker on the woman’s behalf has been the primary way through which the power structures of caste and religion are preserved, as has been elucidated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his seminal Castes in India. Provisions like the one being advanced by the government of Gujarat tend to control the lives and choices of women at a disproportionately higher rate than men. In the case of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018), also known as the Hadiya case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India strongly asserted the right of a person to marry someone of their choice, even if their parents are explicitly against the union. The then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra stated in his judgement:

“In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant.”

Further, while marriage registration has itself become necessary, the mere lack of registration itself does not annul the marriage. If a law like this which makes marriage registration difficult and potentially even life-threatening, many people may simply opt to not register their marriages, which can further lead to a rise in the many of the original problems that the new rules aim to solve.

Public Digital Record of Marriages

The proposal of digitizing publicly accessible marriage record being is another dangerous idea that can be used against bonafide couples/spouses. The name of a spouse is a kind of information that should not be available at the click of a button without the person’s knowledge or consent, as it can be easily used in myriad ways to target someone, from coercion to revenge. When, for example, a case is instituted in the family court, the names of the parties are redacted for the sake of privacy, recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution by the It is therefore the right to every citizen to marry the person of their choice in as much secrecy as they may choose. Therefore, this proposed change also violates the ‘proportionality test’ laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2021).

LGBTQIA+ Community

Indian society has made significant strides towards accepting and embracing relationships between same-sex and transgender persons. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) did not grant marriage equality to the LGBTQIA+ community, it affirmed their right to choose their partners and cohabitate without discrimination or threat of violence. The Court also validated the right of transgender individuals who have affirmed their binary gender upon transition to marry another binary-gendered person. However, the reality is such that many queer and transgender couples have no choice but to keep their union a secret even as they are subjected to routinized violence and manipulation by their families to enter into a heterosexual union. As a result, they are forced out of their homes and are rendered unhoused because of the discrimination and the threats their own families pose to their life and safety. In many such situations of estrangement, couples are tracked down with the aid of the police, and eventually coerced into heterosexual marriages.

The proposed Amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriage Rules makes life even more difficult for these LGBTQIA+ individuals and couples who wish to live together away from their families, and particularly those couples involving transgender persons who enter into a heterosexual marriage, as it mandates the consent of their families to register the solemnized union, and makes them vulnerable to public reprisal at best and social boycott at worst.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006, violate the fundamental rights of individuals and are manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional as it seeks to undermine individual choice and dignity. Contrary to the objectives, this may in fact lead to individuals avoiding legal registration of marriage itself therefore setting us back to the core issue. 

In light of the above, we the undersigned citizens, strongly and emphatically suggest that the proposed amendment be withdrawn. 

Submitted by:

National Alliance for People’s Movements (Gujarat)

National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights (Gujarat)

Below are the names of individuals from Gujarat, who have endorsed the above letter:

1. Smita Pandya, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
2. Meenakshi Joshi, Social- Political Activist, Ahmedabad
3. Deepak Solanki, Samarpan organization & PUCL, Ahmedabad
4. Raghavan Rangarajan, Professor, Ahmedabad
5. Jimmy C. Dabhi, Ph.d, Centre for Culture and Development, Vadodara
6. Ayesha Khan, Sanat Mehta Charitable Trust, Vadodara
7. Indira Hirway, Prof of economics, Ahmedabad
8. Neha Shah, Academic, Ahmedabad
9. Sheba George, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
10. Nirjhari Sinha, Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad
11. Nita Mahadev, Social worker, Ahmedabad
12. Cedric Prakash, Human Rights Activist, Ahmedabad
13. Bilal Kagzi, Advocate, Surat
14. Swati Goswami, Communications Consultant, Ahmedabad
15. Sejal Dand, Feminist Activist, Ahmedabad
16. Navdeep Mathur, Faculty, Ahmedabad
17. Priyam Vadaliya, Researcher and Designer, Ahmedabad
18. Rohit Prajapati, Environment Activist, Gujarat
19. Kamal Thakar, Social worker, Vadodara
20. Swati Desai, Activist, Gujarat
21. Anand Mazgaonkar, Activist, Gujarat
22. Rohit Chauhan, Saurashtra Dalit Sangathan, Junagadh
23. Dev Desai, Human Rights activist, Gujarat
24. Heman Oza, Researcher, Ahmedabad
25. Khairunnisha pathan, Social activist, Ahmedabad
26. Gova Rathod, Saurashtra Dalit Sangathan and NAPM, Gujarat
27. Satya Oza, PhD Candidate, Ahmedabad
28. Sejal Dand, Feminist Activist, Ahmedabad
29. Prasad Chacko, National Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Gujarat
30. Disha, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Surat
31. Harsh Kinger, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Vadodara
32. Harsh Raval, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
33. Hozefa Ujjaini, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
34. Subodh Kumud, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
35. Winona D’souza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
36. Rakesh Vaghela, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
37. Khush V., National Alliance for People’s Struggle (Urban Struggles Forum), Gujarat
38. Mirkhan Makrani, Peace and Justice, Himatnagar
39. Rafi Malek, Ahmedabad
40. Bhargav Oza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad

[1] Justice KS Puttuswamy v Union of India, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4161, Ganpat Dharma Mengal 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13720

[2] Laxmibai Chandaragi B vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 3 SCC 360

[3] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2021

Related

Parental consent for marriage? Gujarat’s curious political consensus

The post Proposed Amendments to Gujarat Marriage Registration Rules Unconstitutional: NAJAR, NAPM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The other day, a discussion broke out among ten friends on love marriages—a contentious issue in Gujarat following moves in the corridors of power to regulate them by making parental consent mandatory. One of us claimed that, unlike in the past, nearly 70 percent of weddings today are love marriages. Another person, who had eloped to get married years ago, remarked, “Problems exist everywhere, whether it is a love marriage or an arranged one.”

I asked my friends what they thought about the Gujarat government’s proposal to bring in such a law. The woman and her husband who had themselves run away to get married without parental consent (and are happily married ever since) insisted the proposal was meant only to curb what is described as “love jihad.” “They just want to protect Hindu girls who are lured away by Muslims,” they said.

When I suggested that if such an obligation—parental consent for marriage—were introduced, it would apply to all marriages and not just to the supposed victims of “love jihad,” the woman immediately objected. “That would be bad,” she said. “How can parental consent be made mandatory? It goes against personal freedom and the Constitution.” However, another woman insisted that the government would have to ensure that such a rule applied only to cases of “love jihad,” not to all marriages.

I could not help wondering how deeply anti-Muslim sentiment has seeped into sections of Gujarat’s middle class. Love marriages without parental consent seem acceptable as long as they are within the same religion, but not when a Muslim man seeks to marry a Hindu woman.

Be that as it may, looking at the overall socio-political atmosphere in Gujarat, there appears to be a broad consensus on parental consent. The only difference is that while the BJP rulers speak openly about “love jihad,” the two main opposition parties in the state—the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)—avoid using that phrase.

In a statement in the state legislature recently, Gujarat’s home minister, who is also deputy chief minister, Harsh Sanghavi declared that the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 might need to be amended to make parental consent compulsory for legalising any marriage. Raising the spectre of “love jihad,” he said, “There is no objection to love. But if some Salim posing as a Suresh traps a girl, we will not spare them.”

From all appearances, this seemed more for public consumption. It appeared designed to pacify recent all-male caste gatherings—especially among the numerically strong Patel and Thakor communities—which have expressed concern over a rising number of love marriages taking place without parental approval.

Not without reason. While Sanghavi claimed that in the Panchmahals district there were a very high number of “fake marriage certificates,” particularly in cases of inter-religious weddings—even in rural areas where he said there were “no Muslims or mosques”—the government itself appears reluctant to immediately amend the law.

In fact, it has shown little urgency. The government has announced a 30-day period for public suggestions and recommendations on the proposed changes, after which a review committee will be formed before any amendment is drafted. In effect, this means no immediate change to the law is likely in the coming months.

All indications suggest Sanghavi’s remarks were aimed at placating influential Patel and Thakor caste groups that provide an important electoral support to the ruling party. For quite some time, they have been approaching Gujarat authorities demanding that parental consent be made compulsory for the registration of marriages.

Early this year, a Thakor community meeting was held in Patan where a new “social constitution” was read out and oaths were administered to allegedly eliminate old customs and build a more disciplined society. The gathering announced that elopement marriages would not be accepted and introduced around sixteen new rules, including bans on DJs and sunroof cars at wedding ceremonies. The slogan “One Society, One Custom” was adopted to promote unity.

Notably, the convention was overwhelmingly male. Only one woman was present (photo): the Congress MP Geniben Thakor, who read out the so-called social constitution. A year later, she publicly supported Sanghavi’s declaration about banning marriages without parental consent, describing such a move as “meeting the demands of the current times.”

She argued that some criminal elements were “trapping” young girls into love marriages whose consequences “often prove tragic,” which is why, she said, “all communities have been demanding that the law related to love marriage be amended to make parental consent mandatory, and that villagers be included as witnesses.”

This was not a new position for her. In 2019, as a Congress MLA, she supported a decision by sections of the Thakor community to ban the use of mobile phones by unmarried girls. In 2023, she, along with BJP MLA Fatesinh Chauhan, demanded an amendment to the marriage registration law to make parental signatures mandatory when adult children chose their own partners.

Curious about whether the Congress as a party supported Sanghavi’s proposal, I called up a party spokesperson in Gujarat. Instead of offering a clear position, the spokesperson simply forwarded Geniben’s statement, which I have quoted above. “She is our esteemed MP—the only one from Gujarat,” he said. “There is little reason to believe this is not the Congress view.”

As for AAP, one of the first things its leader Gopal Italia (photo) did after winning the Visavadar assembly seat in a by-election last year was to write to the chief minister demanding a law to prevent young women from eloping with their boyfriends to get married.

Italia, a Patel and one of AAP’s most prominent leaders in Gujarat, argued that the large number of “incidents of girls running away or being made to run away at a legally adult but socially immature age” needed to be stopped. Among other things, he proposed that marriages should be registered only at the permanent residence of the bride.

Calling love marriages a “huge social problem,” he claimed that in many cases girls are “targeted and trapped in a web of love at an innocent age while still studying in school.” According to him, “a well-organised and systematic conspiracy is underway to arrange marriages for runaway couples.” He alleged that such couples are often taken to remote villages in distant districts where marriages are registered for money without proper documentation.

Italia cited what he called data from several villages: in Panchmahal district’s Bhadrala village, he claimed, 560 such marriages were registered; in Amreli district’s Dhampur, Jamka, Mujyasar and Tulindhya villages, the numbers were 1,341, 944, 380 and 258 respectively; and in Anand district’s Sandh, Rel and Vali villages, the figures were 365, 1,193 and 113.

He alleged that these registrations were frequently based on fake documents and involved various irregularities. According to him, “private agents, ‘love mafias’ and gangs”—some allegedly from outside the state—facilitated such “fake marriages,” often exploiting young couples financially and physically in the name of providing protection.

Italia’s letter, written in Gujarati, appeared primarily aimed at reassuring dominant sections of the community he belongs to—the Patels—where, particularly in rural areas, love marriages without parental approval are often viewed with deep disapproval. Notably, neither his letter nor Geniben Thakor’s statement touched upon another pressing social issue within these communities: the skewed sex ratio.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Parental consent for marriage? Gujarat’s curious political consensus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: Counter View

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

The ordeal began in October 2024, when Shahjahan Banu Khosro, Saniya’s mother, purchased a house in Gomtipur for Rs 15.5 lakh from Suman Sonavde, a Hindu neighbour. Payment was fully made by December, but before the formal handover, Sonavde’s husband passed away.

When the mourning period ended, instead of transferring the property, the Sonavde family allegedly refused to vacate the house. Suman’s son Dinesh Sonavde and other family members began harassing the Ansaris, citing Gujarat’s Disturbed Areas Act to threaten the nullification of the transaction.

The Wire reported that Sonavde’s son began threatening the family and said he would nullify the deal, citing the Disturbed Areas Act. What was supposed to be a legal transaction turned into a communal and legal quagmire.

Law as a weapon for communal discrimination: The Disturbed Areas Act

The Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, originally enacted in 1986 and strengthened in 1991 and 2019, was introduced to prevent distress sales of properties in riot-prone or communally sensitive areas. It mandates prior approval from the district collector for inter-religious property transactions.

But reality shows, in practice, serves as a tool to block Muslims from moving into Hindu-majority areas, thereby reinforcing ghettoisation and communal segregation.

Kaleem Siddiqui, a social activist monitoring the case, told The Wire, “Instead of protecting vulnerable families, the law is weaponised to deny them agency. It tells Muslims: you may have the money, but you cannot choose where to live.”

Background

On August 7, the conflict turned violent. Members of the Sonavde family allegedly barged into the Ansaris’ home and attacked them. Saniya was dragged by her hair and beaten. Her brother, Mohammad Hussain, sustained head injuries, and Saniya was left badly bruised.

Despite CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts, police initially filed a case against only one person—Manav Sonavde, who was granted bail the very next day.

“Saniya killed herself waiting for someone to save us, help us,” said her sister Rifat Jahan to The Wire

Two days later, Saniya left behind a suicide note naming four individuals, stating that they took her family’s money without giving them the house and had tormented them for months.

“Mere ghar mein inki wajah se 10 mahine se koi khushi nahi, sirf rona dhona aur ladaai (Because of them, there has been no joy in my house for the last 10 months, only tears and fighting)”, Saniya wrote.

Delayed justice and police apathy

The family alleged that local police refused to file an FIR despite the suicide note and video evidence. Officers initially termed the death “accidental” and insisted on forensic verification of the note. According to The Wire, it was only after intervention by Police Commissioner G.S. Malik that a case of abetment to suicide and other charges were filed against six individuals. However, many critical facts—including the months-long harassment and physical assaults—were left out.

Advocate Satyesha Leuva, the family’s lawyer, said, “Even getting the police to register an FIR was a struggle for us. The initial FIR mentioned the suicide, but not the months of harassment or the brutal beating.”

The aftermath: Silence and protest

Since the FIR, the Sonavde family has gone missing, reportedly absconding. Meanwhile, Saniya’s case has become a rallying point for civil rights activists and Muslim families across Gujarat.

Prasad Chacko, national secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, told The Wire, “The young girl who was forced into suicide is yet another victim of the Hindutva supremacist elements that terrorised a Muslim family that engaged in a legitimate transaction of buying a house.”

Systemic discrimination and ghettoisation

For civil society organisations like the Minority Coordination Committee (MCC), Saniya’s death is not an isolated tragedy—it is a symptom of structural marginalisation.

MCC convener Mujahid Nafees stated: “The Disturbed Areas Act has become a big weapon for them. They don’t care about society or the social fabric. The incident that happened in Ahmedabad is a dark picture of this Act.” He added, “This law deepens marginalisation and ghettoisation. It tells Muslims they are not welcome in certain neighbourhoods, regardless of their rights or resources.”

Today, the Ansari family still lives across from the house they paid for but never received. In the last 10 months, they have lost Rs 15.5 lakh, their trust in the law, and their daughter. “We kept going to the police, but they said the law is not on our side. We have been feeling helpless and hopeless,” Rifat said, as reported

Related:

Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state

Navratri: Communal demands mark pre-festival protest in Jabalpur

Fact Check: The RSS Had No Role in India’s Freedom Struggle

The post 15-year-old Muslim teen died by suicide in Gujrat, alleged communal harassment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

Traditional Indian spices

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Establishment

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

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

Board Committees

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

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

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

Aakar Patel

 

Mandal distribution related works

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

Mandals research related work

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

Mandal’s work in new sector

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: CounterView

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

This blog is a continuation of my story “English proficiency for empowerment: Modi’s SCOPE vision contrasts Amit Shah’s remark”. I personally found nothing unusual in the Union Home Minister’s “feel ashamed” remark directed at those who speak in English, as I have witnessed his dislike for the language on several occasions during my stint as the Times of India representative in Gandhinagar from 1997 to 2012.

In fact, Amit Shah never tried to hide his disdain for English. He would candidly tell me that he didn’t read the Times of India because it was an English daily. Once, ahead of a mass rally during an assembly election campaign in a tribal-dominated region of Gujarat that Modi was about to address, I spotted him. On seeing me, he objected to a particular news item I had written. I asked, “How do you know? You don’t read the Times of India.” He responded, “Yes, but others tell me what appears in your paper.”

On another occasion, as narrated to me later, Shah, accompanied by senior BJP leader Purshottam Rupala, reached my office to lodge a complaint about a report I had written. Bharat Desai, then my editor, heard them out patiently. Suddenly, Shah snapped, “Who reads your English paper?” To this, Desai calmly replied, “If nobody reads our paper, why have you come here? You can have tea and leave.”

Shah’s attitude wasn’t limited to just a contempt for English. Once, while discussing the poor state of education in Gujarat in his home minister’s chamber—an issue many would privately raise—I asked him what he thought should be done to improve the state’s educational standards, which I believed were among the poorest in India. His informal reply was startling: “Nothing needs to be done. It’s doing fine. No need to change things.”

Ironically, no one seemed to understand the importance of English for improving educational standards in Gujarat better than his boss, Narendra Modi. Unlike many earlier chief ministers, Modi went out of his way to promote English education in schools. His flagship initiative, SCOPE—Society for Creation of Opportunities through Proficiency in English—was launched with this very objective and continues to this day.

I don’t know the exact reason, but I believe he was convinced that English was a crucial business requirement for attracting investment to Gujarat. One of the major hurdles for those looking to set up enterprises in the state has been the poor educational standards of Gujarati job seekers, which he seemed to associate with their weak English communication skills. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his view after becoming the Prime Minister.

From what I gathered during my days at Sachivalaya, after Modi became chief minister, he consistently urged government officials to draft policies to make English a compulsory subject at the primary and secondary levels. In doing so, he even went against his trusted protégé Anandiben Patel—then education minister and now UP governor—who once told me, “We don’t need English, we need Sanskrit.” Modi’s push for English education became a sore point for many in the RSS.

Once, a pro-RSS group running a school in Gandhinagar, Vidya Bharati, invited journalists for a press-cum-lunch meet. Cloaking a swadeshi garb, their aim was to accuse Modi of “neglecting” Sanskrit in favour of English. They even announced an agitation against this perceived slight to Sanskrit—an agitation that never materialized. I reported the event for the Times of India.

Despite his ideological leanings, credit for reviving English in Gujarat must go to Modi—even though his command of the language was initially weak. During his first business summit, Resurgent Gujarat, held in early February 2002 in the presence of the British ambassador, Modi pronounced “delegates” as “dulgats,” causing amused chuckles in the audience. Yet, he took a surprisingly pragmatic approach to the language that Shah dismissed as “foreign.”

Within three years in office, Modi had improved his English considerably. Around 2003 or 2004, he inaugurated an IT event at InfoCity in Gandhinagar, supported by a global firm. He spoke in English, ex tempore, using short but grammatically correct sentences. During subsequent Vibrant Gujarat summits, Modi continued to speak off-the-cuff in English, without a teleprompter, fully aware that foreign dignitaries and entrepreneurs were key participants.

Even while denouncing “English culture,” Modi, by 2003, had begun instructing officials to draft education policies to overcome English language deficiencies. In fact, his was the first major reversal of a flawed language policy that had persisted since the 1960s. That policy, the result of a debate between two ministers both surnamed Thakore—one dubbed “Thakorebhai Panchava” for wanting English from Class 5, the other “Thakorebhai Athva” for preferring it from Class 8—had led to a compromise: schools could choose. The result? Children began English in Class 8, and dropped it by Class 10, producing a generation with little or no English proficiency.

Modi seemed to recognize this gap as a barrier to Gujarat’s global aspirations. He pushed for English in schools. A key obstacle, then and now, was the chronic shortage of English teachers—but the blame for that lay with his predecessors.

Looking back at my stories for Times of India, I found that in 2006, Modi urged the education department to launch a movement promoting spoken English among Gujarati youth. At the department’s Chintan Shibir, he stressed the importance of this skill: “Poor English among the Gujarati youth is telling adversely on their standing in the world. This stigma should be removed at the earliest. There is a need to develop an atmosphere in which the Gujarati youth, well-equipped with English, are able to show their best skills to the world.”

This was not Modi’s first push for English. A year earlier, in 2005, he proposed starting English education from Class 1. Although the idea gained traction in the bureaucracy, he had to backtrack due to resistance from the Sangh Parivar. The RSS’s education wing, Shiksha Bharati, labeled the move “anti-swadeshi.”

Even in the mid-1990s, when Gujarat decided to introduce English from Class 5, it had declared the subject non-examinable—so most students didn’t study it. Modi changed that in 2004, making English exams mandatory in Class 5 across the state.

“There is indeed a major change now. Even rural areas show a strong interest in English. With free textbooks, rural children are now scoring better in English than in other subjects,” Nalin Pandit, former director of Gujarat Council of Educational Research and Training (GCERT), once told me.

Thanks to Modi’s insistence, the Indian Institute of Teachers’ Education (IITE) was established in 2010 as a university with English as the medium of instruction. I had quoted him in a report saying, “World-class teachers to be produced at IITE must be taught in a language used internationally.” A brainchild of Modi, IITE today offers BA-BEd and BEd-MEd programs in English at its Centre of Education, while affiliated colleges offer B.Ed programs in both English and Gujarati.

IITE emphasizes the development of communication skills in both the mother tongue and English, showing a commitment to multilingualism in teacher training—a vision that stands in direct contrast to the anti-English rhetoric of Amit Shah.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Business requirement? Modi’s quiet push for English in Gujarat despite Sangh’s swadeshi garb appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report suggests that multidimensional poverty in Gujarat declined by around 7% over a period of five years, pointing out that in tribal-dominated districts, where poverty levels were particularly high, there has been a clear improvement: in Dahod from 54.93% to 38.27%, in Dangs from 57.33% to 26.61%, in Narmada from 37.11% to 22.62%, and in Panchmahal from 41.52% to 18.11%.

Basing its estimates on the National Family Health Surveys of 2015–16 and 2019–21, the report claims the “most rapid reduction” in multidimensional poverty occurred in districts located in four states: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

While not directly disputing what the Government of India report highlights regarding Gujarat, a new survey carried out by a civil rights group in two tribal districts — Dahod and Panchmahal — and two non-tribal districts — Bhavnagar and Morbi — suggests that things aren’t as rosy as they are made out to be.

A follow-up to a similar survey carried out in 2004, the new survey — conducted in 2025 by Anandi (Area Networking and Development Initiatives or ASAA) — reveals that, even after two decades, total food security continues to elude nearly 80% of the population in the surveyed areas. To quote Sejal A. Dand, a senior activist directly involved in both the 2004 and 2025 surveys, two decades ago, 10% of people were found to be “food secure,” and this percentage has gone up by just 2% over the years — to 12%.

Releasing details of the 2025 survey, which was conducted with the help of senior academic Prof. Dipa Sinha, currently with Azim Premji University, another Anandi activist, Neeta Hardikar, told the Ahmedabad media that there is certainly a change: unlike in 2004, there is “no full day hunger” as found then, “but our survey suggests that a large number of households often don’t have access to food, especially in the tribal areas.”

The survey results confirm this: in 2004, it was found that in the sample households of the tribal area of Panchmahal, a staggering 73.66% were food insecure for more than six months in a year. In contrast, the 2025 survey shows that 7.06% “live in hunger,” while a whopping 86.38% have “incomplete meal,” and only 6.56% have a “full meal.” Conditions are worse in Dahod district: here, 24.61% live in hunger, 58.78% have “incomplete meal,” and only 16.61% have a “full meal.”

The 2025 results indicate that the situation is not much better in the non-tribal areas of the Saurashtra region of Gujarat where the survey was also conducted. In Malia (Morbi district), 9.10% “lived in hunger,” 75.51% had “incomplete meal,” while only 15.38% had a “full meal.” Similarly, in Shihor and Umrala of Bhavnagar district, 15.98% “lived in hunger”, 54.84% had “incomplete meal,” and just 14.13% had a “full meal.”

The 2025 survey was undertaken specifically to assess how effectively the National Food Security Act, 2013 — which aims to provide subsidized food grains to approximately two-thirds of the country’s 1.4 billion people — has been implemented since it became operational in Gujarat about a decade ago. A total of 1,261 households were included in the survey, mostly belonging to marginalised communities, with a deliberate effort to include those facing social vulnerabilities such as single women, the disabled, and the elderly.

The post Two decades on, hunger still haunts Gujarat: Survey exposes stark gap behind poverty claims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the days leading up to the demolition, approximately 900 individuals—predominantly Muslims—were reportedly detained under similar suspicions of illegal residency. As footage of the operation began circulating on social media, images showed bulldozers advancing into the locality, razing makeshift structures and shanties identified as unauthorized dwellings.

This drive marks the city’s most extensive anti-encroachment effort since 2009, drawing both sharp criticism from civil rights groups and vocal support from local officials who framed the action as a step toward restoring law and order on public land. However, concerns have been raised over the timing, targeting, and potential communal implications of the operation, particularly given the absence of clear legal proceedings in many of the reported detentions.

#BREAKING

AMC demolishes illegal settlements near Chandola Lake #Ahmedabad

Joint CP (Crime) Sharad Singhal says majority of residents were Bangladeshis

Action comes amid ongoing drive against illegal encroachments#chandolalake pic.twitter.com/VvZaq86gXh

— Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) April 29, 2025

A persistent challenge around Chandola Lake

An Indian Express report provides context to the demolition drive, highlighting a long-standing pattern of encroachment in the Chandola Lake area. The last major clearance operation dates back to 2009, indicating that unauthorised construction and settlement have been an ongoing issue for over a decade. According to recent surveys conducted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), there has been a noticeable resurgence of informal settlements, especially around areas like Siyasatnagar and Bengali Vaas. Authorities allege these shanties were primarily inhabited by undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants—an assertion that now forms a cornerstone of the rationale for the demolition.

Indian Express reported that, “the last demolition drive at Chandola Lake was carried out in 2009. Recently, a survey conducted by the AMC revealed that government land had been encroached upon again, and shanties were constructed around the lake. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants lived in areas like Siyasatnagar and Bengali Vaas surrounding this lake.”

However, the sudden escalation and timing of the drive—just days after the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir’s Pahalgam—raise pointed questions. Is this a targeted security measure, or has the tragic event been used as a pretext to justify mass displacement without adequate legal safeguards?

Ministerial justification: called ongoing demolition as national security response

Gujarat’s State Home Minister and BJP MLA from Surat, Harsh Sanghavi, publicly endorsed the AMC’s operation. He presented it not merely as an alleged anti-encroachment effort but as a critical national security initiative. In a widely circulated statement on social media platform X, Sanghavi cited connections to terrorism, drug cartels, prostitution rackets, and forged document syndicates—all allegedly operating within the demolished settlements.

“Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!! The Government of Gujarat has taken historic steps to prevent anti-national activities by Bangladeshi nationals. Key Aspects of Demolition Drive: – Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cells: The location where 4 terrorists were detained by Gujarat ATS has been demolished. – Drug Cartels: Encroachments linked to numerous exposed drug cartels have been demolished. – Illegal Bangladeshi Residents: Encroachments of illegal Bangladeshi residents have been detained and demolished. – Prostitution Network: A major prostitution network operating from the area has been busted. – Forged Documents Nexus: A network creating false documents has been cracked down upon. Action Taken: – Over 2,000 policemen, 15 SRP companies, and municipal staff participated in the operation. – 74 JCBs, 200 trucks, and 20 electrician teams were deployed. – Approximately 2,000 hutments/encroachments, 3 illegal resorts, and parking units were razed. – The Chandola Lake area has been reclaimed” Singhvi wrote on X

Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!!

The Government of Gujarat has taken historic steps to prevent anti-national activities by Bangladeshi nationals.

Key Aspects of Demolition Drive:

– Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cells:The location where 4 terrorists were detained by Gujarat ATS has been… pic.twitter.com/GWGM1exWab

— Harsh Sanghavi (@sanghaviharsh) April 29, 2025

Arrest and investigation of Lala Mehmood Pathan

As per reports, the demolition campaign began with a focus on a farmhouse allegedly owned by Lala Mehmood Pathan, also known as Lallu Bihari. Authorities accuse him of facilitating illegal settlements by forging rental agreements and producing fraudulent identity documents, including Aadhaar cards. An FIR has been filed against Pathan, and police claim to have uncovered over 590 forged passports allegedly linked to undocumented migrants, as Times of India reported

While these allegations are serious and merit investigation, the broad demolition campaign that followed appears to conflate individual criminal activity with the legitimacy of an entire community’s residency. Moreover, the official narrative linking these findings to national security threats has yet to be backed by court convictions or an independent probe.

Gujarat High Court denies interim relief, cites illegality of construction

On April 29, as the demolition drive intensified, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant interim relief to the residents challenging their eviction.

Justice Mauna Bhatt refused to stay the demolition drive after observing the dwellings of the petitioners were on the periphery of the water body and as per section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, such structures can be razed by the government, petitioners’ lawyer Anand Yagnik said, reported the Indian express.

The court observed that since the petitioners are “illegal encroachers,” relief from demolition cannot be granted to them. The court further added that the petitioners had constructed their homes on notified lake land without obtaining the required permissions. As a result, the case fell outside the scope of the recent Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another vs. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. (SLP/36440/2024) dated December 17, 2024, which mandates prior notice before eviction in cases where occupants have established long-standing residence. Citing this precedent, the High Court reiterated that prolonged unauthorised occupation does not create legal entitlements for encroachers.

Accordingly, the court ruled that no interim protection against eviction or demolition could be provided. However, at the request of the petitioners’ advocate, the case has been kept pending to allow for the filing of a rejoinder. The matter is now scheduled to be heard after the court’s vacation, leaving room for further legal arguments.

State’s argument: national security as override to due process

During the hearing, the Gujarat government argued that the demolition drive was not a routine civic action but a necessary response to “specific inputs” following the Pahalgam attack. The state claimed that the presence of suspected illegal immigrants in a sensitive area warranted urgent intervention, even if it meant suspending the usual procedural norms associated with eviction and demolition.

The High Court appeared to accept this argument, allowing the operation to proceed. However, this legal positioning—where “national security” overrides principles of natural justice—has sparked significant debate. Legal scholars and rights advocates warn that such reasoning risks setting a dangerous precedent, where vague or unverified threats can be used to sidestep constitutional protections.

Petitioner advocate’s critique: questioning identification and due process

Following the court’s order, petitioners’ advocate Anand Yagnik addressed the media, raising serious concerns about procedural violations and wrongful detentions. Advocate Anand Yagnik, in his statement to the media regarding the demolition drive near Chandola Lake, conveyed the High Court’s stance. He stated, “The High Court of Gujarat, while dealing with petition of 18 citizens, majority of them are women, have refused to grant interim relief against demolition on the ground that these petitioners are apparently on the water body. Therefore, the judgment against demolition passed by the Supreme Court will not apply to them. They do not have any permission to put up construction on government land, which is otherwise a water body. Therefore, the court is not inclined to grant any interim protection against the demolition and permission to the petitioner to stay near the lake” as ANI reported

#WATCH | Ahmedabad, Gujarat | On the demolition drive near Chandola lake, Advocate Anand Yagnik says, “The High Court of Gujarat, while dealing with petition of 18 citizens, majority of them are women, have refused to grant interim relief against demolition on the ground that… pic.twitter.com/gsNrjbPKLA

— ANI (@ANI) April 29, 2025

He also acknowledged the court’s interpretation of construction on lake land but emphasised that even if undocumented migrants were present, repatriation must be handled through the legally mandated process—via the Foreigners’ Tribunal.

Yagnik said that, “There may be Bangladeshi nationals among the residents of the (Chandola Lake) area, one does not deny that. But, these immigrants should be sent back as per the process of law, with orders of the Foreigners’ Tribunal with dignity and respect… But by the way, in the last four days, the state government of Gujarat has picked up 1,200-1,500 people by tagging them as Bangladeshis, and also released 90% of them as they were found to be Indian nationals and not Bangladeshis… Now, in a demolition drive the authorities are also bulldozing the homes of those, who have not been found to be Bangladeshi nationals” as the Indian Express reported.

Yagnik revealed a deeply troubling detail that of the estimated 1,200 to 1,500 people detained by the Gujarat police in the days leading up to the demolition, nearly 90% were subsequently released after being identified as Indian citizens. If accurate, this implies a staggering failure in the initial identification process—suggesting that hundreds of individuals may have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, and had their homes demolished under erroneous assumptions of foreign origin.

“Sensitive Input” trumps natural justice in urgent hearing

In its affidavit to the High Court, the Gujarat government maintained that the principles of natural justice should not obstruct actions taken to protect national security in the Chandola Lake area. During an urgent hearing convened on Tuesday afternoon for the petition filed by approximately 23 residents of Siasat Nagar, the High Court ultimately sided with the state. The court accepted the argument that the demolition was not a “regular drive against encroachment” but a targeted operation driven by “specific input” concerning illegal immigrants, thus denying the residents any interim relief.

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

The post Gujarat HC refuses stay demolition, AMC launches massive demolition in Muslim-majority Chandola Lake area appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The GSRTC conducted an investigation following complaints that several highway hotels, which had Hindu names, were actually run by Muslim proprietors. The licenses were then cancelled, citing reasons such as “misrepresentation” and “unhygienic conditions.” These establishments, located in key districts like Vadodara, Rajkot, Ahmedabad, and Bharuch, were integral stops for GSRTC buses, ensuring a steady flow of customers.

Hotels such as “Hotel Shivshakti” and “Hotel Tulsi” were specifically targeted because their names suggested Hindu ownership, a tactic allegedly used to attract a broader Hindu clientele. Critics, however, argue that the cancellations go beyond mere regulatory enforcement, aiming to marginalize Muslim businesses under the guise of addressing “public misconceptions.”

BIG NEWS Gujarat BJP Govt cancels Bus halt license of 27 Muslim-owned hotels that were using Hindu names.

For example, All the owners and managers of Hotel Shivshakti on are Muslims.

Hotel Tulsi, located on the Surat-Ahmedabad route, is also owned by Muslims.

Permit of… pic.twitter.com/vrsOXV3ez2

— Times Algebra (@TimesAlgebraIND) January 24, 2025

Community backlash

The move has been perceived as part of a growing trend of policies aimed at alienating the Muslim community. Business owners argue that these measures undermine their rights to operate freely in a competitive market, with many pointing out the larger implications of such targeted actions. Muhammad Aslam, a hotel owner from Vadodara, stated, “This action isn’t just about our businesses; it’s an attack on our dignity and identity as Muslims.”

Local leaders and associations have also criticized the government’s approach, calling it a deliberate effort to widen communal divides. Zafar Alam, a community leader, expressed concerns about the divisive implications, emphasizing that such policies erode trust and harmony between communities.

Broader implications

The economic impact of this decision is substantial. By severing these businesses from GSRTC’s bus network, the government has significantly reduced their customer base. Hotel owners are now left grappling with potential financial ruin, particularly in a political climate already challenging for minority communities.

Moreover, the psychological toll on the Muslim community is palpable. Zahida Khan, a resident of Godhra, expressed the emotional strain of such actions: “It’s painful to see our community targeted like this. It’s as if we need to hide our identities to survive.”

A pattern of discrimination?

This incident is not an isolated case. Observers note parallels with similar actions in other states, such as Uttar Pradesh, where Muslim businesses were compelled to publicly display their religious identity. Critics argue that these measures reinforce harmful stereotypes and aim to exclude Muslims from public life under the pretense of regulation.

For instance, during the Kanwar Yatra in Uttar Pradesh, the state government issued directives requiring eateries along the route to display their owners’ names, sparking widespread backlash. Critics labeled the order “communal and divisive,” arguing that it targeted Muslim and Scheduled Caste businesses under the pretext of law and order. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi called the directive “exclusion by identity,” highlighting its economic and social ramifications. The Supreme Court later paused the implementation of this order, questioning its statutory backing and purpose. Observers noted that this directive forced business owners to reveal their identities, exacerbating existing societal divides and reinforcing systemic biases.

Adding to the growing Islamophobic narrative, certain social media posts further amplify divisive rhetoric. For example, a post by a user named Mr. Sinha on X (formerly Twitter) perpetuates stereotypes and spreads harmful misinformation about Muslims, contributing to the broader atmosphere of hostility. Such posts play a significant role in normalizing discriminatory policies and attitudes

What did you notice?? pic.twitter.com/a9Cxxkpzsd

— Mr Sinha (@MrSinha_) January 24, 2025

It is pertinent to highlight that such actions run contrary to the principles enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India, which unequivocally states: “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

The cancellation of licenses for Muslim-owned hotels in Gujarat reflects a concerning trend of discriminatory policies that undermine democratic principles of equality and fairness. By targeting businesses based on their owners’ religious identity, such actions deepen social divides and erode the pluralistic fabric of society. As the affected entrepreneurs face mounting challenges, the incident raises urgent questions about the future of minority rights and economic inclusion in India.

Related:

Gujarat: 108 shrines demolished in Gujarat

Report says 30 Muslim sports coaches and trainers fired without reason in Gujarat

The post Discrimination targets Gujarat’s Muslim businesses appeared first on SabrangIndia.