From “D-Voter” to Tribunal notice

Born on July 20, 1979 in village Kherbari Pt-IV, Dhubri district, Assam, Jarina Bibi is the daughter of late Jabed Ali and Janmati Bibi. Her family’s roots in Assam stretch back generations: her grandparents Meheddi Munshi (also known as Mohor Uddin Munshi) and Jamiran Bibi were recorded in the 1966 electoral rolls; her father Jabed Ali appeared in the 1970 rolls; and her mother remains a regular voter even today.

Yet, despite this, Jarina’s name was arbitrarily marked with the “D” (doubtful) voter tag. A Suspected Foreigner notice followed—turning her life upside down. For her husband, Mojammal Haque, a migrant worker, challenging the notice in court initially felt impossible due to lack of awareness and resources. Fear and despair gripped the family. 

CJP Assam Team with Jarina Bibi outside her home

CJP steps in

The turning point came when CJP’s Dhubri District Volunteer Motivator Habibul Bepari and Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh stepped in. With the guidance of Advocate Ishkendar Azad, CJP assisted the family in gathering and authenticating documents, many of which were beyond their immediate reach due to poverty and illiteracy.

CJP secured:

• Electoral rolls from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 proving the voting history of her grandparents, parents, and even Jarina herself.
• Land and revenue records confirming holdings of her father and grandfather.
• A Gaon Panchayat certificate (2015), later authenticated in court, linking Jarina to her father, Jabed Ali.
• Testimony of her mother, Janmati Bibi, who stood before the Tribunal and confirmed her daughter’s lineage.

These efforts were crucial in overcoming the structural hurdles of proving “linkage”—a recurring difficulty for women in Assam who often lack formal education, land in their names, or school records. As CJP’s work shows, legal aid often requires not just documents but also counselling, persuasion, and persistence to ensure families do not give up.

The Tribunal’s legal findings

The Final Order of March 10, 2025, delivered by FT Member Kirti Kamal Das, demonstrates how strong evidence, when properly marshalled, can withstand scrutiny:

• The Tribunal held that Jarina’s parental linkage with late Jabed Ali was “adequately established”, supported both by her mother’s oral testimony (DW-2) and documentary evidence.
• The Election Officer’s verification report (20 August 2024) confirmed the authenticity of electoral rolls dating back to 1966, validating the family’s continuous presence in Assam.
• Land documents and revenue receipts corroborated long-standing residence.
• The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof rests on the proceedee. Jarina successfully discharged this burden by producing reliable and trustworthy records.

The Tribunal thus concluded:

“From the above context, it appears that the pleadings of Proceedee and her exhibited documents are being substantiated each other which demonstrate that Proceedee’s ancestor were genuine Indian nationals and the Proceedee being a descendant of genuine Indian cannot be termed as illegal migrant as alleged.”

“Thus, in consideration of entirety of documents produced, it appears that the Proceedee or her ancestors had not illegally entered into the territory of India or the State of Assam, as suspected.”

“The documents have been found to be reliable, trustworthy and acceptable being in order and having been issued by the proper authorities and as such, proved. The documents have thus got evidentiary value. The Pròceedee from all possible aspects of the matter, cannot be termed or declared to be a foreigner of the stream Post 1971 or any other stream under the law. The Proceedee has been able to discharge the burden cast on her under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove the fact that she is not a foreigner under the law.”

Accordingly, the reference was dismissed, and Jarina was declared an Indian citizen.

The human cost of citizenship battles

Behind this legal triumph lies years of trauma. Jarina’s mother, Janmati Bibi, described the fear of losing her daughter: “I will be with you in jail,” she told her, resigned to the idea of wrongful detention. She wept at night, fearing deportation, and expressed relief only after the Tribunal’s judgment: “We were born here and we will die here.”

Jarina herself admitted to sleepless nights, haunted by news of detentions and deportations. Like many women in Assam, especially Muslim, she paid the price of a flawed system—enduring years of uncertainty, stigma, and humiliation before proving what should never have been in doubt. The mental toll, financial burden, and humiliation suffered by families like Jarina’s remain invisible in official records.

Jarina Bibi with her family, holding the order that declares her Indian

Why this case matters

The declaration of Jarina Bibi as Indian is not just a personal relief but a testament to the resilience of marginalized communities when supported with legal aid. It underscores:

1. The centrality of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946—which unfairly reverses the burden of proof onto the accused, making legal assistance indispensable.
2. The evidentiary value of electoral rolls, land records, and Panchayat certificates, when corroborated by oral testimony.
3. The indispensable role of organizations like CJP in bridging the gap between law and access to justice for poor, illiterate, and socially disadvantaged citizens.

On September 7, 2025, CJP handed over the Tribunal’s order to Jarina and her family. For the first time in years, smiles returned to their faces. As rain poured that day, Jarina stepped out into the street to bid farewell to the CJP team, her joy and gratitude visible—a small but profound symbol of justice reclaimed.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

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

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

Eviction tragedy in Assam: Two killed during eviction drive as police firing sparks allegations of government bias

Assam government introduces stricter Aadhaar rules amid concerns over population discrepancies, increases chances of bureaucracy in the process 

The post From Doubt to Dignity: Justice for Jarina Bibi in Assam’s citizenship battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The concern of the Court stems from the fact that CCTV surveillance in police stations is obligatory, not discretionary, a requirement repeatedly endorsed not only by the Supreme Court but also by various High Courts. To illustrate, in Akhilesh Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018), the Madhya Pradesh High Court instructed all police stations within the State to provide audio-visual CCTV installations. It further warned that:

“In future if it is found that in a Police Station an area was left outside the coverage area of CCTV camera, then such lapse shall be considered as Contempt of Court, and action shall be taken against the Superintendent of Police of the said District and also S.H.O. of concerning Police Station for Contempt of Court.”

At the national level, the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) reiterated the previous directions provided in the cases of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) and Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors. In 2020, the SC added more elaborate guidelines to the ones laid down earlier. Whereas Shafhi Mohammad and D.K. Basu laid the groundwork of the videography of crime sites and custodial procedures, Paramvir Singh Saini gave it a wider reach, ordering the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and central investigating agencies, with strong oversight committees for adherence.

Key findings in Paramvir Singh v. Baljit Singh, 2020

The Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) passed a historic order squarely targeting custodial torture and killings by directing the installation and proper functioning of CCTV cameras at all police stations in India. Writing for the Bench, Justice Rohinton F. Nariman laid stress on the fact that this was neither an administrative routine nor a formality but a constitutional requirement based on Article 21 (right to life and dignity) and Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention). Like other path breaking judgements of the apex court, this judgement too has been rendered ineffective by lacklustre follow up by state governments and implementation by the police bureaucracy.

The ruling ordered CCTV systems to be installed not just in every police station but also in every agency empowered with arrest and interrogation powers, such as the CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO. This broad range was meant so that each custodial interaction site would be under open scrutiny.

The Court explicitly grounded its directions in fundamental rights jurisprudence by stating:

“Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and since nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2½ years since our first Order dated 03.04.2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.”

In doing so, the Court directed that the installation of CCTV cameras was not an administrative recommendation, but rather a constitutional obligation falling under the ambit of Articles 21 and 22.

The Court devised an oversight framework at the State and District level to aid in the implementation of the installation programme. The Court refined the already existing order of the Central Oversight Body, and added two tiers to the system:

Apart from this, the Station House Officer (SHO) of each police station was personally held responsible for ensuring proper camera functioning. In the event of a breakdown, SHOs were asked to report all custodial activity during that period of inoperability to the DLOC, leaving an audit trail to eliminate misuse.

The Court did more than issue broad guidelines: it specified minimum technical standards. Cameras had to be equipped with night vision and audio-video capabilities, supported by a reliable power source (solar/wind, where applicable) and internet connectivity. The data from the cameras had to be stored for at least one year, with an eventual long-term target of 18 months.

Most importantly, the Court directed for clear signage in local languages at all stations, notifying detainees that they were being monitored under CCTV, that recorded footage would be retained, and that they could approach the NHRC, SHRC, or Human Rights Courts to pursue redressal. Despite such a detailed approach, the impact of this judgement has been stymied by both the executive (state governments under whom the subject ‘law and order’ falls) and the police bureaucracy. The Indian police are notorious for not acceding to any corrective measures to ensure transparency and accountability.

Judicial History: From D.K. Basu to Shafhi Mohammad

The Supreme Court’s directive in Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) did not come out of thin air. It is founded upon decades of jurisprudence that acknowledges custodial environments as a constitutional space within which human rights need to be safeguarded.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

In Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2015), the Supreme Court re-examined the question of custodial torture and deaths almost three decades following the initial D.K. Basu guidelines of 1997. In spite of the previous ruling, reports of custodial violence were disturbingly common, and the Court was compelled to tighten measures. The bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi noted that custodial torture is a “naked violation of human dignity” and constitutes a direct attack on the constitutional right to life under Article 21. The Court underscored that the State cannot claim sovereign immunity in custodial death cases; there is strict liability, and the victim’s families have to be compensated.

The Court gave binding directions for operationalising the protection of human rights. States and Union Territories like Delhi, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Nagaland were asked to set up State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) in six months’ time, and all vacant positions in SHRCs had to be filled within three months. Sessions Courts were to inform as Human Rights Courts under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Realising the contribution of technology in accountability, the Court ordered phased installation of CCTV cameras at police stations and demanded prisons to be equipped with cameras in one to two years. It also instructed the non-official guests to be assigned for surprise visits, prosecuting officials responsible for custodial deaths, and at least two women constables being deployed in every police station where women detainees are kept in routine detention.

This judgment was a significant development in India’s custodial jurisprudence, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s watchdog role in ensuring that the basic rights of detainees are safeguarded even in prison. Through the integration of Articles 21 and 22 with institutional mechanisms like SHRCs, Human Rights Courts, and CCTV surveillance, the Court attempted to establish a stronger framework against custodial abuse. This judgment paved the way for subsequent judgments like Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), in which CCTV coverage within police stations and investigation agencies was made compulsory.

 Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh

In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), the Supreme Court considered two important features: the use of videography in criminal investigations and the acceptability of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit placed special emphasis on the fact that videography of crime scenes and recovery operations would significantly enhance transparency, enhance public confidence, and strengthen evidentiary credibility. The Court had looked at international trends, such as body-worn cameras in the US and UK, and noted technology tools were unavoidable for modern criminal justice. To institutionalize this, it directed the Union Government to prepare a roadmap and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for videography usage in investigation through consultations with states and expert committees.

The case also explained the law regarding electronic evidence, particularly Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that the exclusion of otherwise pertinent and genuine evidence on technical grounds alone would be a denial of justice. Drawing support from the precedents of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh (1985), Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015), and Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Court laid emphasis on the fact that electronic evidence could be admitted if authenticity is proved despite the impossibility of adhering to procedural necessities at all times.

The Court designed a systematic five-step programme for the use of videography and CCTV monitoring in criminal investigations. This was to begin with pilot schemes in chosen districts of diverse States and Union Territories for testing infrastructure and an assessment of logistic issues. In the second phase, the accurate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) had to be developed which dealt with issues such as camera placement, chain of custody, data storage, and admissibility as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The third phase envisioned phased introduction of videography facilities in all the districts in every State to be supported by procurement, allocation of funds, and police training. The fourth stage was aimed at integrating videography into the evidentiary process, particularly ensuring compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make electronic records readily admissible in court proceedings. Last but not least, the fifth phase saw the Court instructing the nationwide standardisation and adoption of videography and CCTV practices with oversight arrangements in place at Central, State, and District levels as well as regular auditing and monitoring provisions. Through this measure, the Court aimed at converting technology from a temporary solution into a stable means of preventing custodial abuse and providing a means of improving investigation transparency.

Shafhi Mohammad was therefore a forward-looking development in two senses: it enhanced the role of technology in criminal investigations by mandatory videography, and it relaxed the evidentiary framework by making it possible that technicalities would not stand in the way of true electronic evidence.

Paramvir Singh Saini is the synthesis of these strands: the dignity-and-safeguards paradigm of D.K. Basu joined with the technology-and-evidence model of Shafhi Mohammad. Justice Nariman made this continuity self-explicit, saying that the Saini instructions “follow from previous judgments of this Court, and notably D.K. Basu and Shafhi Mohammad.”

By integrating CCTV surveillance into custodial jurisprudence, the Court aimed to codify constitutional rights into everyday real-time protections, accessible not merely in theory but as an everyday practice at every enforcement office and police station.

Compliance Gaps and the Human Cost of Non-Implementation

Lack of functional CCTV cameras at police stations is not a theoretical bureaucratic failure. It directly affects accountability in custodial fatalities, which continue to be uncomfortably common throughout India. Official statistics provided by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) portray a persisting trend: 155 instances of death in police custody were reported in 2021–22 (up to February 28, 2022). Earlier years had the same figures — 100 in 2020–21, 112 in 2019–20, 136 in 2018–19, 146 in 2017–18, and 145 in 2016–17. A total of 669 cases of death in police custody were registered across the country from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. These statistics reveal that even with successive judicial interventions, the magnitude of custodial deaths did not decrease during the last ten years.

The state-level scenario is equally alarming. Rajasthan has alone reported 20 custodial deaths in just two years, based on official revelations. The investigation by Dainik Bhaskar, which led to the Supreme Court’s present suo motu PIL, pointed out that 11 individuals passed away in police custody in Rajasthan for just seven to eight months of 2025 alone, a cohort that graphically captures the cost of defiance of judicial orders. There is no unified national narrative. Some States and UTs (or a few districts thereof) have been credible in their efforts, providing station-wise information, setting up contemporary DVR/NVRs, and forming oversight bodies. A few others failed to submit complete affidavits or filed generic reports without station-level information. The Court docket and subsequent audits yield extremely variable results: whereas a few States have claimed near-universal install rates, independent verification or subsequent press inquiries detect huge numbers of non-recording cameras or insufficient storage. Even the Saini docket itself noted only a handful of States submitting satisfactory action-taken affidavits in the first round.

The causes of the deficit are several and persistent:

1. fiscal inertia — states have not ring-fenced O&M and capital funds even as the Court instructed states to engage finance secretaries at SLOCs;
2. technical impediments — most remote lock-ups do not have power/internet and require custom solutions (solar, local storage);
3. vendor and procurement issues — low quality SLAs and vendors not meeting audio/storage requirements;
4. institutional resistance and low political priority — police leadership at times views CCTV as surveillance of its own ranks and not public accountability; and
5. weak monitoring — SLOCs/DLOCs tend to meet irregularly and do not release independent audits. These reasons account for why a ‘installed/not installed’ binary is deceptive. Where there are missing or low-quality recordings, investigations suffer two simultaneous injuries: victims and families lose an objective contemporaneous account; investigators/courts lose potentially determinative evidence.

This not merely impedes criminal responsibility for custodial brutality but also undermines deterrence: if wrongdoing is unlikely to be recorded on credible footage, the threat imposed by judicial directives is reduced. The Rajasthan cluster illustrates this danger: clusters of fatalities in a short time require taped proof for open-ended investigations; without that, public trust disintegrates.

These figures point to the price of treating Paramvir Singh Saini as a paper directive. Functional CCTV surveillance, with sound, infrared vision, and good data recording, might be able to offer impartial evidence of custodial treatment, deterring torture and providing courts with indispensable evidence. Without that, grieving families are left with little more than bureaucratic assertions of “natural causes” or “suicide,” excuses too frequently unsubstantiated by independent evidence. The continuation of custodial deaths, even in the face of the Court’s painstaking 2020 order, shows that failures in implementation are not simply bureaucratic errors but continuous violations of Article 21’s promise of life and dignity and Article 22’s protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.

Conclusion: Supervisory Jurisdiction and the Path Forward

The order of the Supreme Court to put on record a suo motu PIL regarding custodial deaths and non-functional CCTV cameras is a reaffirmation of its ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of fundamental rights. This jurisdiction, though not statutory, is well established in the Court’s constitutional obligation to safeguard life and liberty under Article 21, and the protection of procedures under Article 22. In Paramvir Singh Saini, the Court had already indicated that directives on CCTV emanate out of these constitutional protections. By reopening the case in 2025 through suo motu action, the Court is indicating that compliance is not voluntary — repeated non-implementation is a repeated constitutional wrong.

This form of judicial monitoring is not new. In D.K. Basu, the Court gave out extensive custodial directions and followed through on monitoring compliance for years. In Prakash Singh, it practiced “continuing mandamus” over police reform, calling States back repeatedly to order. The current suo motu action is an extension of this practice that addresses systemic violations of rights as continuous violations in need of judicial oversight, rather than single orders.

However, the repetition of failures also shows the boundaries of judicial instructions with no structural follow-through. For CCTV instructions to become valuable guarantees instead of paper commitments, there must be more robust institutional controls:

1. Independent Technical Audits: Periodic certification of camera operation, storage, and sound-picture quality by accredited independent third parties, with findings publicly disclosed.
2. Station-Wise Public Dashboards: Oversight Committees must release district-wise compliance dashboards — no. of stations, no. of cameras installed, operational status, date of last inspection — to bring in transparency and external accountability. These must be available physically and online.
3. Conditional Funding: Central and State police modernisation funds need to be released only after confirmed compliance, so budgetary inertia cannot be an alibi.
4. Automatic Access Protocols: Victims, families, lawyers, and human-rights groups ought to have rights to obtain and examine footage, within time limits, under a secure chain of custody.
5. Graduated Sanctions: Lack of compliance should invoke departmental penalties for SHOs and SPs, financial responsibility for States, and in cases of wilful disobedience, contempt proceedings against erring officials.

The Supreme Court suo motu PIL thus plays a twofold role: it addresses the immediate crisis of custodial death, and it reaffirms the principle that constitutional rights do not end at the police station door. But whether the long-term viability of this intervention remains dependent on the Court now shifting from generic directions to binding compliance protocols, subordinating technological vigilance into the routine functioning of the police. Will the court, this time, go a step further, in directing structural accountability like monitoring and reporting on the installation of CCTVs for example?

In so doing, the Court can bring Paramvir Singh Saini from a blueprint to a reality, making sure that protection from abuse under surveillance is not an ephemeral judicial experiment but an enduring component of India’s human rights based custodial apparatus.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related

SC order on CCTVs in Police Stations: Firm stand against Custodial Torture’

Custody, Camaraderie, and Cover-Up: Supreme Court transfers custodial death probe to CBI, slams MP police for “shielding their own”

Custodial Horror in Sivagangai: Ajith Kumar’s death raises chilling parallels with Sathankulam

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

The post Monitoring Torture: SC’s suo motu action on custodial deaths and CCTV camera non-compliance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar, 81, who is survived by his wife Kiran, began his career in the Indian Railways and was drawn into academia after pursuing an MBA degree from the Faculty of Management Studies Delhi University. He then went on to complete his PhD from the Louisiana State University following which he joined the Indian Institute of Ahmedabad as a Professor in the Organisational Behaviour Area in 1985.

He retired in November 2006.

But what brought and kept him in public life was his activism for improving democracy and governance in the country.

In 1999, with a few of his IIMA colleagues, which included Tirlochan Shastry, 14 years his junior, he founded the ADR, which has since played a critical role in enhancing transparency in Indian elections for over two and a half decades. The ADR has won several notable cases at the Supreme Court including the one which paved for the scrapping of the Electoral Bonds scheme. More recently, it is the lead petitioners in the challenge to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar.

A fellow petitioner in the Dr Manoj Kumar Jha, Rajya Sabha member with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) expressed his strong sentiments at the demise of Prof. Chhokhar on ‘X’ (formerly twitter. He said, “He believed that democracy is not sustained by the noise of elections, but by their fairness, transparency, and accountability. He reminded us, time and again, that clean politics cannot emerge from tainted processes. His departure leaves behind a void, but also a legacy—an unfinished task that belongs now to all who care about democracy. We must also renew our pledge to the cause he lived for: that elections in India be not just contests of power, but rituals of trust.”

Cannot believe this news!!!
The passing of @JagdeepChhokar is not just the loss of a man; it is the silencing of a conscience that spoke relentlessly for the integrity of India’s democracy. As founder of the Association for Democratic Reforms, he forced the nation to look into… pic.twitter.com/Nv8IoKaxua

— Manoj Kumar Jha (@manojkjhadu) September 12, 2025

His body was donated for medical research. Acknowledging this, the official account of LHMC & Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India, a premier Central Govt. Institute under Dte General Health Sevices & MoHFW stated, “Department of Anatomy humbly acknowledges the voluntary body donation of late Jagdeep Singh Chhokhar –founding member of the Association for Democratic Reforms & former Dean, IIMA. Our gratitude to Ms. Kiran Chhokhar and family for their invaluable contribution to advancing medical education.

Former Election Commissioner (EC), Election Commission of India, Ashok Lavasa, also expressed his sentiment on social media. “The loss of Prof Jagdeep Chhokhar is tragic. He spearheaded the Association of Democratic Reforms, which has rendered yeoman service in maintaining high standards of electoral democracy. People like him and ADR are vital for questioning authorities.”

Prof Chhokar was also a prolific writer and researcher. His research appeared in several international journals, such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Columbia Journal of World Business (now called the Journal of World Business), International Labour Review, Industrial Relations, Journal of Safety Research. He also contributed chapters to edited books and has written several teaching cases. His also wrote many columns and articles for leading media houses.

Chhokar has also taught in several countries including Australia, France, Japan, and the US. Since his retirement, he had also been associated with ‘Aajeevika’ Bureau for over a decade, working on internal migration related issues.

A little-known aspect was his love for birds. Prof Chhokar obtained a certificate in ornithology from the Bombay Natural History Society in 2001 and enjoyed the company of birds on the IIMA campus and wherever he travelled.

Related:

Election Commission seriously risks losing all credibility: senior advocate Sanjay Hegde

The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability

The Erased Record: A constitutional challenge to the election commission’s 45-day data destruction mandate

The post Jagdeep Chhokar: A relentless pursuer of electoral and democratic reforms passes away appeared first on SabrangIndia.

PUCL has announced that it will lobby with the Governor and the President to prevent the bill from receiving assent, arguing that its legality is questionable and that it infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of conscience, free speech, interfaith dialogue, equality, and individual choice. The organisation has warned that the bill’s punitive provisions are excessive and likely to be struck down by the courts if challenged.

Key concerns with the bill

PUCL pointed to several problematic provisions across the bill:

1. Overbroad definitions: The definitions under Section 2 are excessively wide, arbitrary, and untested for reasonableness. Concepts such as “allurement” and “coercion” are defined in ways far broader than similar state laws, and they introduce psychological pressure as a basis for criminal liability, which current police frameworks are ill-equipped to handle.
2. Prohibitory and punitive provisions: Section 3 declares conversions unlawful and, when read alongside Section 5, makes even voluntary adult conversions punishable. The bill also criminalises any form of abetment or “convincing,” which could include ordinary interfaith discussions, thereby stifling free expression.
3. Marriage and interfaith implications: The bill contains new restrictions affecting the right to marry, including potential implications for same-sex marriages.
4. ‘Ghar Wapsi’ and ambiguities: Section 3’s explanations, including provisions for “reconversion” to one’s previous faith, are vague and could be interpreted to support forced reconversions (“ghar wapsi”) targeting Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Ambedkarite communities. The law fails to clarify temporal limits for prior conversions, leaving room for discriminatory enforcement.
5. Draconian sentences: Punishments are extraordinarily severe: a minimum of seven years imprisonment (extendable to 14 years) and fines of ₹5 lakh for general violations; longer sentences and higher fines apply for women, minors, SC/ST individuals, and mass conversions. PUCL asserts that such mandatory sentencing is unconstitutional.
6. Invasive administrative oversight: The bill mandates intrusive District Magistrate inquiries into every conversion, potentially affecting interfaith marriages. Parties who “counsel, convince, or procure” conversions are criminalised, which constitutes a disproportionate restriction on free speech and interfaith dialogue.
7. Burden of proof on the accused: Section 12 places the burden of proof on individuals accused of facilitating conversions, violating the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

Conclusion

The PUCL asserts that the Rajasthan anti-conversion bill is an unconstitutional, overreaching law that undermines democratic principles and individual liberties. By attempting to regulate personal faith and interfaith interactions through coercive administrative and punitive measures, the bill threatens to marginalise minority communities and stifle free expression. The organisation is committed to lobbying at the highest levels of the state and central government to prevent the bill from becoming law.

Related:

Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

The post PUCL slams recently passed Rajasthan anti-conversion bill as “draconian and unconstitutional” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is ‘nine-eleven’ once again! A day pregnant with memories! Memories of violence and suffering; of hate and division. On the other hand, the day is also one of promise –of truth and non-violence; of justice and peace; of hope, for new beginnings, a new dawn! Our world today, is gripped with hate and violence; wars and conflicts; discrimination and division; prejudice and racism; corruption and communalism! One sees and witnesses this everywhere!

In neighbouring Nepal for one, it is a youth uprising against a corrupt regime; reminiscent of what happened in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh not too long ago! A warning for the corrupt and communal regime in India!

The plight of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, continues for almost a year now. Despite condemnation from most parts of the world, the Israeli regime has not stopped its brutal, violent, inhuman attacks on a beleaguered and starving people; the Israeli Government, even bombed Qatar yesterday.

Violence from Ukraine to Manipur continues unabated. The military-industrial complex is having a hay-day profiteering on the blood of innocent victims. All this and more, happening today, on ‘nine-eleven!’

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today!

On this day, in 1906, Mahatma Gandhi launched his non-violent resistance campaign at a historic mass meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was the birth of a new movement ‘Satyagraha’ – the relentless pursuit of truth and justice.  Gandhi believed that they were non-negotiables; two-sides of a coin. More than three thousand Indians (both Hindus and Muslims) and others, gathered to support the beginning of civil obedience. Later with ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence), ‘Satyagraha’ would ultimately become Gandhi’s twin-doctrine in belief and in practise. He used it effectively in his struggle against British colonial rule in India. Several world civil rights leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, later embraced this twin doctrine.

Sadly, we still do not learn from the past; racism, xenophobia, jingoism, exclusiveness, pseudo-nationalism, discrimination and divisiveness seem to have a stranglehold on nations and peoples across the globe. The emergence of the ‘extreme-right’ ideology wedded to fascism and fundamentalism is a growing cause of concern. Some want to ‘build walls and fences’ to keep people out. ‘Satyagraha’ was a movement to make people realise that all humans have dignity and are created equal in the image and likeness of God! Our responsibility is to help build bridges and not walls!

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! In 1893, on this day, at the very first World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda gave a powerful and passionate speech. He made a fervent plea to end every form of sectarianism, bigotry, fanaticism and violence from this earth, by fostering the values enshrined in every religion. He spoke emphatically, saying, “I fervently hope that the bell which tolled this morning in honour of this convention, may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons, wending their way to the same goal”. Ironically enough, his clarion call does not seem to evoke any positive response from ‘hindutva’ fundamentalists today. They continue with their fascist and fanatic agenda, demonizing and attacking the minorities (particularly Muslims, Christians and Sikhs) of the country, in a very meticulous manner. 

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! What happened in the United States on this day in 2001, will always be etched in human memory!  Any and every form of violence, is non-acceptable and needs to be strongly condemned. No violent act can be justified, whatever the provocation! That unprecedented violence in the US is remembered and defined today by a date “9/11.” The very utterance of it evokes all kinds of emotions: from undiluted hatred to a feeling of utter helplessness, in the face of rabid terror; from inconsolable grief at the loss of a loved one to heated debates on imponderables. A visit to ‘ground zero’ brings back painful memories of the almost three thousand lives, which were lost in just one place. One is also reminded of the millions of people who suffer every day in Palestine and Yemen, Syria and Iraq, DR Congo and Sudan, Myanmar and Afghanistan, Venezuela and El Salvador and so many other parts of the world. The world should also never forget the terror attacks that were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq and Iran and other parts of the world! We need to stop all war and violence just now; we must close down the military-industrial complex and all nations need to de-nuclearize immediately!  Do we, as citizens of the world who genuinely desire sustainable peace, have the courage to say ‘never again’ this 9/11?

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! The great Gandhian, Vinoba Bhave, was born on this day in 1895! He is widely regarded as the spiritual successor of Mahatma Gandhi; a strong advocate for nonviolence and human rights. He initiated the ‘Bhoodan Movement’, a nonviolent land gift campaign to redistribute land to the poor. He translated the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ into the Marathi language. He is regarded as the National Teacher of India. He died in November 1982 and was posthumously awarded the ‘Bharat Ratna’.

Swami Agnivesh, the well-known social reformer died on this day in 2020. He was known for his work against bonded labour through the ‘Bonded Labour Liberation Front’, which he founded in 1981.He was also a founder of the World Council of Arya Samaj. He championed freedom of religion and the rights of workers. He was an unwavering voice for the excluded and the exploited and for the victims of injustice! If he was alive today, he would have taken on the Rajasthan Government on their draconian anti-conversion law and also the Gujarat Government for increasing the working hours of factory workers to 12 hours a day. Both laws were passed yesterday.

Significantly, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, also died on this day in 1948. He was a barrister and politician. He served as the leader of the All-India Muslim League from 1913, until the inception of Pakistan on 14 August 1947.

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! So much happening all over. We are in the midst of the ‘Season of Creation’ – yet parts of Punjab and Pakistan have been devastated by floods. Recent earthquakes in Afghanistan and Greece taking a toll on lives and livelihood, mean nothing to many, the rich and the powerful continue to destroy mother earth.  A terrible reality grips the lives and destinies of many people because of incompetent, autocratic, biased, violent and insensitive leaders everywhere. Marketing and manipulations greatly contribute to the fact that they are in power. These people use every trick in the book to keep people divided. Today (9/11) is surely about commemorations: the sad, tragic ones: a day of mourning! Nevertheless, it is also about new beginnings: of healing, building bridges, hope and resilience. Becoming pilgrims of hope!

As if on cue, the Catholic Liturgy of today provides us with a direction. In his letter to the Colossians St. Paul writes, “put on, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection.”  In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus exhorts us, “to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” Are we listening? Will we act? Memories of ‘nine-eleven’ today, must help us to do so!

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer)

Related:

Sorry, Stan!

Fifty years later..another Emergency rules

The temporariness and unpredictability of life

The post Memories of ‘Nine Eleven’ today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Frankly—call it my inertia or whatever—I am not very familiar with Sainath’s recent writings, though from time to time I do read some of the very in-depth reports focusing on rural India on the excellent site he has been running for about a decade, People’s Archive of Rural India (PARI), which is, for all practical purposes, a virtual database for learning or understanding anything about how people live and work in rural India.

Not that I wasn’t familiar with Sainath earlier. As part of a Times of India project, I remember reading his in-depth reports in the paper in the 1990s, after I joined in Ahmedabad in 1993. However, at that time, from what I can remember, he concentrated more on doing stories on rural India. The latest lecture, which he gave in Ahmedabad on September 6, 2025, for the first time familiarised me with his worldview on the increasing concentration of wealth in India—especially in the media—and how it is adversely impacting Indian democracy.

According to Sainath, this concentration of wealth began soon after Independence, when the Nehru government, in its bid to give a helping hand, gave away land to top media houses for peanuts at prime spots—for instance, in Nariman Point in Bombay (now Mumbai) and Bahadurshah Zafar Marg in Delhi. This, he said, turned them into real estate barons: building multi-storey buildings on these prime plots, the media houses rented out all other floors—except for one, kept for publishing the newspaper—helping them amass huge wealth.

Today, said Sainath, these media houses are also powerful real estate developers. He quoted an interview Vineet Jain, one of the owners of the Times of India group, gave to the New Yorker. Jain, according to him, said, “We are not in the newspaper business; we are in the advertising business.”

I immediately wondered if this was a sharp change from the view held in the mid-1990s, when, while addressing a few of us “seniors” of the Times of India, Vineet Jain’s elder brother, Samir Jain, had said we should remember the paper was in the business of news, emphasising that the Times of India was a family business and had no social agenda. Then he turned to the whiteboard behind him and wrote “liberal social agenda”, crossing it out. He turned to me to ask if I agreed, and out of curiosity, I asked him, “Sir, what about a liberal political agenda?” Visibly embarrassed, he quietly said, “That of course is there…”
Stating how media has changed over time with the rise of television and digital media, Sainath said the corporate hold over media has further solidified, with top tycoon Mukesh Ambani controlling nearly 40 percent of all media in India today, buying up stakes in one outlet after another. Also referring in passing to Gautam Adani’s takeover of NDTV, he pointed out that politicians too are now deeply involved in the media business—owning several TV channels across India, especially in the South.

Stating how this has adversely impacted media coverage, Sainath said, there are several reporters covering Bollywood and business, but was for poverty and rural India, which makes up to nearly two thirds of India, there is no reporter.

Giving figures worth trillions of rupees related to corporate ownership of Indian media, Sainath then discussed how, with the rise of digital media, there has been further concentration of wealth. According to him, four major corporate houses across the globe now control the strings of digital media—they have access to all the data uploaded to digital platforms. With the Government of India seeking to further control digital media by proposing new laws, an attack on press freedom seems imminent, he added.

Giving examples, Sainath said there was an attempt during the Covid period to control media after Reporters Without Borders ranked India 161st out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index. A committee was formed, consisting mainly of government bureaucrats, to counter the index results. Only two journalists—including himself—were included. He said he joined on the condition that media freedom would be ensured. However, after finding his interventions too strong, the committee, which was headed by the Cabinet Secretary, eventually “disappeared”.

Now, said Sainath, there is a move to introduce a law that would impose a huge income tax on non-profit media houses. Pointing out that non-profit organisations like PARI, which he owns, and The Wire, are likely to suffer the most as a result of this move, he said the intention is to squeeze independent media outfits that have emerged over the last decade. This would take away ₹1 crore out of the approximately ₹2.5 crore that PARI raises annually to run its digital operations. He called upon the largely receptive audience—gathered at the invitation of top veteran Gujarat economist Prof. Indira Hirway—to financially support such independent media.

Later, talking informally, I asked Sainath a pointed question: would PARI, which is a digital media platform, have been possible 10 or 15 years ago, when internet penetration was low? He replied that he had started thinking of the PARI project 15 years ago. However, he admitted it was impossible for him to go into print or TV media, as it was too costly—one reason why he opted for the digital route.

I further asked him whether it was possible for ordinary journalists or people aspiring to share news to do so 15 years ago, as is now possible through blogging platforms and social media. To this, he replied that reaching out to readers is a huge issue. Algorithms control what gets propagated. If you’re willing to pay for services on platforms like X, for instance, you have a chance of reaching a wider audience—otherwise not.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post From news to real estate: P Sainath on how corporate power is undermining media freedom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 3, 2025 the Maharashtra Cabinet approved a series of labour law amendments to increase the length of the working day, working hours without rest intervals, working hours per week, and limit of the overtime period. These amendments are based on recommendations of a central task force on labour reforms in order to “attract investment, expand industries, and create more employment opportunities.” The Maharashtra decision aligns with states such as Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Tripura – which have already enacted similar “reforms.”

The PUCL statement states that it must not be forgotten that the State is the biggest employer both in industries and establishments and is therefore required to ensure that workers are not exploited and their fundamental rights to a decent, safe and healthy work environment are protected. Yet it fails to do precisely that.

The State Government has made many lofty claims in support of these “reforms,” that are presumably in the interests of both labour as well as capital. The amendments will facilitate “protection of labour rights” while “improving the ease of doing business.” They will help “attract investment” as well as “increase employment opportunities in the state.”¹ But it is obvious that extending working hours, and removing smaller establishments from the purview of the law is meant to reduce or remove protections for workers, not to expand them, says the PUCL.

Today, even in the industrial sector in India, contractual workers are already working 12-hour shifts (without overtime). In effect, the amendments aim to legalise what is already happening in fact – depriving workers of the legal safeguards against super-exploitation. They seem to be a way of coercing a shrinking permanent workforce into this inhuman work regime. Besides, far from increasing employment, as is claimed, this step will reduce the organised work force to two thirds of its size by replacing 8-hour shifts with 12-hour ones. It is no surprise that the Karnataka State IT/ITeS

1 See the post by the Chief Minster of Maharashtra on the social media platform X:

मंत्रिमंडळ निर्णय : कामगार विभाग@Dev_Fadnavis#Maharashtra #मंत्रिमंडळनिर्णय #CabinetDecision #DevendraFadnavis pic.twitter.com/oTZrwmsHOp

— CMO Maharashtra (@CMOMaharashtra) September 3, 2025

Employees Union (KITU) labelled similar amendments proposed in Karnataka as “inhuman attempt to impose modern-day slavery” upon them.²

In line with the state cabinet’s decision, the proposed amendments will be carried out in the Factories Act of 1948 and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. In the Factories Act, the amendments proposed are: (a) Under Section 65, the workday shall be extended from the present 9 hours up to 12 hours; (b) Under Section 55, the rest period which was half an hour after the first five hours shall be made half an hour after six hours; (c) Under Section 56, the maximum number of working hours (spread over) in a day from 10.5 hours to 12 hours; (d) Under Section 65, the maximum number of hours of overtime in a quarter shall be increased from the present 115 to 144 hours (the original limit had been laid down as 75 hours). Under the Shops and Establishments Act the government intends to (a) increase working hours from 9 to 10 hours; (b) exclude establishments having less than 20 workers (the current number of 85 lakh establishments covered by this Act will be reduced to about 56,000).

While the State Labour Secretary has claimed that overtime work will be paid at double the rate of basic wages and allowances for every such increase in working hours, and that such overtime shall be subject to worker’s consent, these assurances have to be tested upon the actual language of the proposed amendments, particularly the fine print. While the decisions have yet to take the shape of a bill/ordinance for amending the Factories Act in the state, it is very likely that the amending bill/ordinance shall be on the lines of similar amendments made in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

In the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2025, issued on July 1, 2025, for instance, at Section 6, it is stated that Section 59(1) of the Factories Act shall be substituted by:

“Where a worker works in any factory:-

• for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, working for six days in any week;
• for more than ten hours in any day or for more than forty eight hours in any week, working for five days in any week;
• for more than eleven and a half hours in any day working for four days in any week, or works on paid holidays; he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.”

In effect this means that overtime will not be calculated on a daily basis, but on a weekly basis, and a worker may work for eleven and a half hours each day for four days in a week without being eligible for overtime. This amounts to squeezing out the maximum from workers, and if they do not consent to overtime, subjecting them to artificial breaks in service jeopardising their permanent status.

The Rajasthan Bill contains another dangerous clause, namely 6(v):

“A worker may be required to work for overtime subject to the consent of such worker for such work except worker required to work for safety activities.”

 2 See the statement “12-hour work day in Karnataka’s IT Sector; Modern-Day Slavery in the Making: KITU Urges Employees to Unite and Resist” by the Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union
https://kituhq.org/recent/6836e0f7e83575020247d3d1

Thus, a maintenance worker may be forced to work overtime all the year round. Given the current situation in the country of a large informal sector, underemployment, low wages, and unpaid work – workers will give “consent” out of fear or desperation, not choice. The provision of “consent” will be little more than legal subterfuge to conceal a new form of servitude.

It is a serious concern that while average working hours in wealthy countries have reduced by roughly half over the last 150 years – moving from over 50 hours per week to around 25-35 hours per week in recent times – India is reverting to colonial era standards by increasing working hours. In France, for instance, the standard full-time work week is 35 hours, with a daily cap of 10 hours; hours beyond the 35 hour threshold are considered overtime.

Finally, the PUCL statement states that the working class all over the world has fought a long battle to establish its right to an 8- hour working day so that workers may also have 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of personal time in which to achieve their full potential as citizens and as human beings. It must be recalled that the International Workers Day originates from the demand for an eight hour working day. Labour Day commemorates the sacrifice of union organisers – who were framed after the Haymarket protest on false charges of causing a riot – during a strike and demonstrations of Chicago workers in 1886. It has origins in the American Federation of Labour’s call: “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886”. After the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was founded in 1919, the first instrument ratified by it was the one regulating working hours. The second article limited working hours to 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. India was one of the first signatories of the ILO’s “Hours of Work Convention” in 1921. India has itself witnessed valiant struggles of textile workers in the year 1911 to reduce working hours which finally under the pen of Dr B.R. Ambedkar were enshrined in the Factories Act, 1948 in the form of the 8-hour work day. The government’s decision in effect seeks to extinguish in one stroke the rights that working people have won with great sacrifice and struggle over more than a century.

It is widely acknowledged that long hours of work does not increase worker productivity, on the contrary, they drastically increase incidents of workplace accidents. Such long hours of work can only lead to sweat labour and hazardous work conditions. It will adversely impact health of workers by increasing exhaustion and stress, and increase their exposure to occupation-linked diseases and medical conditions. It is equally well known that workers in establishments with 12- hour shifts are rarely able to unionise. Longer working hours are discriminatory towards women workers because women bear a significant burden of care work in their homes. If the government was serious about increasing productivity, employment opportunities and welfare of workers, they would introduce progressive amendments to reduce working hours without any reduction in wages.

The PUCL Maharashtra has therefore demanded that the full texts of the proposed amendments be made available in the public domain in both in Marathi and English, and in all offices of the Labour Department so that trade unions and organisations can scrutinise the fine print of these so- called “reforms.” We demand that this decision to amend the Factories Act and the Shop and Establishments Act along the lines of other state governments be immediately revoked. Any proposed labour reforms in the state must only be considered after a series of consultations with trade unions and workers’ organisations, after which they ought to be opened to the broader public for suggestions and objections.

The PUCL, has also stated that the organization, in alliance with trade unions and informal sector workers organisations will campaign against the extension of work hours. It will also lobby with the Standing Committee in the Legislative Assembly and with opposition party MLAs to not accept these changes, and if required challenge these amendments in the courts. The statement was issued by Shiraz Bulsara Prabhu, President of PUCL, Maharashtra and   Sandhya Gokhale, General Secretary.

Related:

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court? 

The post Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Criminal Incidence: The Scale No One Can Ignore

Official figures from India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that 445,256 incidents of crimes against women were reported nationally in 2022, an alarming increase from the previous year. These crimes encompass domestic violence, sexual assault, dowry harassment, kidnapping, and murder. The most frequently documented offense: cruelty by husbands or relatives (over 140,000 cases). Rape is another grim category, with 31,516 reported incidents. Assault with intent to outrage modesty hovers at more than 83,000 cases nationally.^[1][2]

Nearly one-third of women aged 18–49 in India admit to having experienced domestic abuse in their lifetimes, a figure confirmed in both the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) and recent academic research. These findings, aided by improved reporting mechanisms, reveal not just the prevalence but the social normalization of violence against women.^[2][3][4][1]

Geography of Violence

The burden of violence falls more heavily on some states and cities than others. Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh consistently top the list for crime volume and intensity. Delhi remains infamous for per capita rates, underscoring that urbanization and economic advancement do not guarantee women’s safety.^[1][2]

In Uttar Pradesh—the state contributing nearly 15 percent of all GBV cases—the legislative and executive branches routinely fail women. Less than 4% of the vital Nirbhaya Fund, earmarked for women’s protection, has been utilized, even as politicians pay lip service to women’s safety while perpetuating regressive attitudes in public and policy.^[1]

Social Determinants and Discriminatory Layers

Gender-based violence in India is neither uniform nor isolated from broader social fractures. Caste and religion make Dalit and Adivasi women, along with religious minorities, particularly vulnerable—Dalit women face a conviction rate for rape at just 2% compared to the already-low national average of 25%. This points to entrenched impunity and profound system neglect. Their labor and suffering are chronically erased from narratives; almost 98% of manual scavengers are women from oppressed castes.^[1]

Violence rooted in patriarchy is so endemic that 49% of survey respondents in 2025 said men and women face violence equally, a dangerous misconception that undermines the severity and specificity of women’s experience. Instead, facts show the overwhelming majority of crimes against women are perpetrated by men in domestic and community contexts.^[2]

Reporting, Stigma, and New Threats

Despite growing awareness, much gender-based violence goes unreported. Stigma, fear of reprisal, lack of economic independence, and social ostracisation silence survivors. On the other side, digital advances—while aiding some survivors—introduce new problems. A recent Asia-Pacific report revealed that 76% of women parliamentarians have faced psychological violence online, while 60% have experienced direct threats through social media platforms.^[5]

Child marriage also persists at a rate of 23%, adding another layer to the matrix of control and violence imposed on women, especially in rural India.^[3]

Government and Institutional Responses

India has, in recent years, expanded the legislative toolkit against gender violence. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) increased sentences for sexual offenses and broadened definitions, while the government rolled out One-Stop Centres, Women Helplines (181), and Emergency Response Systems across the country. The Nirbhaya Fund and special Fast-Track Courts are designed to improve survivor access to justice and speed up trials.^[6][2][1]

Yet, the disconnect between policy and practice is glaring. States with the highest GBV rates remain reluctant or slow to utilize central funds for women’s protection. Trials for high-profile cases last for years; conviction rates stay stagnant; perpetrator impunity remains the norm, not the exception.^[1]

The Cost of Inaction: Personal and National

Economic advances and social mobility for women are hindered by violence. India’s youth female literacy rate is now 96% and labour force participation stands at 45%, milestones reached over decades. But every act of violence robs these gains of their value and meaning, forcing many to abandon work, education, or public life altogether.^[2]

Married women are expected to rely on husbands, and divorces or widowhood leave women financially dependent on family members who may themselves be abusers. In rural areas, widowhood can make women burdens to their families, further restricting their autonomy.^[2]

Fact-Driven Solutions Must Replace Rhetoric

The facts underscore an urgent need for more than symbolic reform. Real change requires:

• Mandatory gender sensitization in schools and workplaces. Education must break the cycle of normalized violence early, bolstered by evidence-based curriculum and teacher training.^[2][1]
• Universal, accessible support infrastructure. One-Stop Centres and Helplines should be boosted with more funding and staff to address the needs of survivors with trauma-informed care.^[6]
• Justice reforms to improve conviction rates and reduce trial length. Fast-track courts must operate at full capacity, with police and judicial actors held accountable for delays and failures.^[1][2]
• Economic empowerment for women. Policies should enable survivors to pursue education and find employment, reducing financial dependency.^[2]
• Technology for protection, not exploitation. Law enforcement must adapt rapidly to new digital threats, training officers in cybercrime and prioritizing online safety, especially for women in public life.^[5]

Responsibility of Leaders and Society

Elected officials and civil society have a unique responsibility. Leaders must reject platitudes and manifest real intent—by allocating resources quickly, measuring outcomes honestly, and enforcing laws without bias. Civil society should amplify survivor voices, ensuring stories do not disappear behind statistics.^[1]

Conclusion: Confronting the Crisis with Facts

India’s gender-based violence crisis is not a mystery lacking solutions: it is a test of national will and honesty. Facts alone lay bare the limitations of silence and lip service. Only when the country commits fully to fact-driven progress—spanning education, justice, economics, and social attitudes—can cycles of violence be broken.

In this task, editorializing is a call not merely for outrage but for remedy. Women’s safety, dignity, and freedom cannot wait. The facts demand it, and so must our laws, leaders, and communities.^[5][2][1]

(The author is an Indian writer and economist, author of three books)

1. https://cjp.org.in/mapping-gender-based-violence-in-india-trends-determinants-and-institutional-frameworks/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/india-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-women-fearing-gender-based-violence-india-august-2025-accessible
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11932463/
4. https://ijmr.org.in/violence-against-women-in-india-comprehensive-care-for-survivors/
5. https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2025-03/60-women-mps-asia-pacific-report-online-gender-based-violence
6. https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/mar/doc2025329529701.pdf
7. https://www.emro.who.int/emhj-volume-25-2019/volume-25-issue-4/gender-based-violence-in-new-delhi-india-forecast-based-on-secondary-data-analysis.html
8. https://www.mospi.gov.in/publication/women-men-india-2024-selected-indicators-and-data
9. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2116557
10. https://data.unwomen.org/global-database-on-violence-against-women
11. https://www.isdm.org.in/blog/its-womens-day-but-on-ground-little-has-changed

The post India’s Gender-Based Violence Crisis 2025: Facts must drive change appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since then, a debate has emerged in the public domain. Our self-styled “left liberal” intelligentsia, otherwise loud in denouncing Hindu majoritarianism, suddenly turned mute when confronted with Muslim right-wing pressure. If a program had been canceled under Hindu Right pressure, the outcry would have been deafening. Op-eds, reportage, and fiery essays warning of fascism’s arrival would have saturated every public platform. But when Muslim clerics strong-arm a cultural body into silencing a poet, silence reigns. Many intellectuals believe that calling out Muslim bigotry amounts to Islamophobia and would endanger an already threatened community. This view is simplistic and cowardly. If the true enemy is oppression, it must be opposed wherever it arises, across communities and within them. What the oppressed deserve is critical solidarity, a support that is constructive, accompanied by food for thought.

The Jamiat’s letter to the Academy, dated August 25, begins with praise but quickly hardens. It “forcefully” appeals that Akhtar not be invited, demanding a “man of integrity” take his place, “of any religion, but not a blasphemer of God.” It threatens “democratic means” if ignored, invoking the precedent of Taslima Nasreen who was hounded out of Kolkata. It expresses confidence the Academy will comply, which it did. The letter denounces Akhtar as a “blasphemer,” unfit for a literary stage.

What is striking is not just the intolerance of the demand, but the attempt to normalize religious authority in public life, where writers and poets must either submit to clerical approval or face ostracism. Mufti Shamail Nadvi, a leading voice of the protest, said he was “shocked” Akhtar was invited. But what is shocking about inviting Javed Akhtar to preside over a mushaira? He is first and foremost a poet, heir to four generations of Urdu literary contribution, the author of lyrics that define the golden era of Hindi cinema, and an uncontested literary figure. Nadvi’s “shock” reveals not moral concern but clerical disdain for a man who openly opposes them. Whom did he want instead? Someone with no claim to poetry but unquestioned theological orthodoxy?

Nadvi later claimed he did not demand cancellation, only that “true Muslims” boycott the event. But a boycott called by clerics is never benign. It lays the groundwork for ostracism and, in volatile contexts, mob violence. Imagine if a Hindu leader called for boycotting an event because the guest was Muslim. It would spark outrage. Yet when Muslim clerics do the same, many Muslims and their media representatives applaud it as a victory. This sets a dangerous precedent: must every intellectual first pass a theological litmus test before entering the muslim public sphere( public space where muslims form a sizable chunk ) ?

Nadvi also proposed a debate with Akhtar on the existence of God, accusing him of defaming religion and promoting atheism. But here the clerics stumble on their own contradictions. The Qur’an itself instructs believers not to insult others’ gods precisely because early Muslims did so and provoked offense. Offense is woven into Islam’s very beginnings. Why then is offense suddenly intolerable when directed at Islam? Will Muslims extend the same courtesy of not offending others’ beliefs? Within Islam itself, sects routinely accuse one another of blasphemy. In Pakistan, Nadvi’s counterparts have hurled the same charge at Engineer Mirza, a fellow Muslim preacher. Even Mufti Tariq Masood, from Nadvi’s own sect, has faced accusations of blasphemy. To brand someone a blasphemer is a political weapon, a tool to reclaim fading authority rather than a defense of truth.

If religion trembles before a single poet, then it is the clerics who insult the faith, not Akhtar. Nadvi insists Akhtar is famous for mocking Islam, when in fact his reputation rests on films, lyrics, and poetry. His atheistic remarks, when they appear, are marginal and occasional. Reducing his legacy to blasphemy is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation to score points. Worse, Nadvi’s rhetoric paints a target on Akhtar’s back. By invoking the precedent of Taslima Nasreen and repeating that Akhtar’s presence is an insult, he encourages hostility in an environment where blasphemy accusations can easily invite death  . Calling for a “debate” in such circumstances is a provocation for hardliners to do the job.

Akhtar was invited to preside over a mushaira, not to preach atheism. To object to his private unbelief is irrelevant. Does Nadvi mean to say a godless person has nothing valuable to contribute to literature, culture, or cinema? By that logic Muslims should shun modern intellectual life, where atheism and agnosticism are common, and confine themselves to insular ghettos of their own making. Such isolationism is disastrous. It strangles Muslims’ cultural life and reduces them to a community fearful of thought itself.

For so many years, he has attended thousands of mushairas and public programmes and no Muslim was ever offended by his supposed blasphemy. But suddenly when Nadwi comes out and declares that we should be offended and are offended everyone seems to fall in line. This politics of being offended must stop somewhere.

Meanwhile, Nadvi’s own 26-minute press conference did not cite a single Qur’anic verse or Hadith. It was a pure rant, a bid for relevance. His YouTube channel, once stagnant with 26,000 subscribers, surged to 32,000 after this controversy, with his video on Akhtar becoming the most viewed. The episode is less about defending faith and more about clerics chasing attention.

The Prophet of Islam urged believers to “seek knowledge even if it takes you to China,” meaning even from non-believers. Clerics like Nadvi are unable to come out of their archaic mindset of being offended. They demand isolation, echoing the Hindu Right’s charge that Muslims cannot coexist with others.

The cancellation of Javed Akhtar’s invitation may seem small, but it reflects a deeper malaise: the religionization of Muslim identity, where culture, literature, and art must bow to clerical approval. If unchecked, this mindset will strangle public life, silence intellectuals, and confine Muslims to an ever-shrinking ghetto of thought. The tragedy is not Akhtar’s disinvitation but that in 2025, clerics still dictate what ordinary Muslims are allowed to do, and ordinary Muslims can still be mobilized at the clerics’ whim.

(Osama Rawal is a political science graduate from Elphinstone College, Mumbai. He writes on identity, justice, and global affairs. Passionate about reading, travel, and critical thought. He tweets under @OsamaARRawal)

The post Urdu is not the monopoly of mullahs, nor even the Muslim community  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“An Election Commission bent on striking off names is bound to disenfranchise large sections of undocumented and vulnerable citizens,” he said, adding that this undermines trust in the fairness of elections.

Pointing out that the credibility of the Commission has historically been the backbone of India’s democratic resilience, he criticised the current system of appointing Election Commissioners, where the government retains decisive control, despite the Supreme Court recommending the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the process. “If the Commission is seen as partisan, the public will view elections as a fixed match,” Mr. Hegde warned.

The lecture traced the historical background to Citizenship and why the election commission’s doings first in Assam (over the exclusions in the National Register of Citizens –NRC and now the SIR) in Bihar are now spreading a fear and panic. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process since June 2025 has faced criticism politically and even in the Courts, where judicial orders have had to be resorted to, to ensure a measure of accountability and inclusion.

Journalist Dinesh Amin Mattu described the current controversies surrounding electoral processes as “symptoms” of a deeper malaise within India’s election system. Speaking on electoral accountability, he noted that while debates once centred on EVMs and now on voter rolls, the underlying problem was the lack of structural reform. “The real issue is not just in Bihar or elsewhere; it is the larger disease that has crept into the system,” Mr. Mattu said.

In the panel discussion that followed, activists and civil society representatives voiced concerns over large-scale exclusions from electoral rolls in Bihar and the continuing uncertainty around the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. Participants flagged the notification of a “special intensive revision” of voter lists in Bihar as deeply flawed, noting that it seeks to weed out “illegal immigrants” — a mandate that goes beyond the Election Commission’s role. Concerns were also raised about privileging certain groups such as bureaucrats and sportspersons while subjecting ordinary citizens, especially minorities, women, and migrant workers, to scrutiny. Teesta Setalvad, co-convenor of Vote for Democracy (VFD) led the panel discussion with participation from Tara Rao from Edelu Karnataka.

A lively discussion on what lay in store for Indian democracy followed. Opposition parties from Bihar like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Indian National Congress (INC) have over the past two and a half weeks been conducting a ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ in Bihar. Meanwhile independent journalists and Digital Platforms, including You Tubers have been reporting on the ground on gross anomalies and errors in the manner in which the SIR that has –initially excluded a staggering 65 lakh persons—been conducted. The Supreme Court is currently still hearing the matter. On claims of ‘weeding out 3 lakh illegal immigrants’ and those who are ‘dead’ or ‘permanently shifted’, or have ‘duplicate voter cards’ in fact, marginalised communities –Dalits, Muslims and women from across the spectrum face the serious threat of being denied their constitutional right to Universal Adult Franchise under Article 326 of the Constitution.

Journalist Gauri Lankesh’s immediate family, Kavitha Lankesh and her neice Esha Lankesh were present on the occasion.

Related:

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud

Election Commission of India says voters’ names not to be removed without prior notice

The post Election Commission seriously risks losing all credibility: senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared first on SabrangIndia.