Going further it reminds the public of how, in the recent past, Rahul Gandhi of the Congress provided evidence-based public exposures of deficiencies and manipulations of the electoral rolls in previous elections in Maharashtra, Karnataka and then in Haryana. This clearly required that the ECI make itself publicly accountable to explaining these discrepancies and otherwise investigate to identify the circumstances in which such frauds took place. As an independent body, it is the ECI’s responsibility to do so and certainly not that of the Central or state governments.

However, the ECI, currently headed by Gyanesh Kumar, has simply dismissed all these exposures, in effect refusing to make the ECI accountable, as it should and must be, to the Indian public. Even a former Election Commissioner, Ashok Lavasa, has criticised the current ECI on this count. No surprise then that there is the very widespread view that precisely such electoral manipulation has played a major role in determining the outcome of the Bihar assembly polls. Moreover, the ECI has failed at another level also. It has ignored a blatant violation by the Modi-led NDA of the Model Code of Conduct for parties during elections.

Towards the end of September, Modi launched a state government scheme to make bank transfers of Rs. 10,000 to women to start self-employment ventures with one instalment transferred on the date elections were announced and others made during the election process itself! More than a crore of women in different households benefitted from this. The total voter turnout, male and female, was a little over 5 crores. Previous such pre-poll cash handouts by governments have been halted by the ECI but not this time in Bihar.

This lure to women voters turned out to be particularly important for Nitish Kumar and the JD (U). The female voter turnout at around 72% was almost 10% higher than the male voter turnout and was a key factor in raising the JD (U) vote share by 4% from the last assembly elections in 2020 and enabling a seat tally increase of 42 seats to 85 in all. The BJP had roughly the same vote share at around 20% as in 2020 but increased its seat tally this time by 50 to 89 in all. Among the NDA’s other partners, the new Chirag Paswan led party the LJP, with its vote base among Dalits, got a vote share of around 4% and 19 seats. The Congress with double the LJP’s vote share dropped 13 seats from 2020 to achieve only 6 this time. The RJD got the same vote share as in the last assembly election of 23%, higher than any other party did. However, it’s seat tally dropped by 50 from 75 to 25 this time. The CPI(ML)-Liberation fell from 12 seats to 2.

Finally the statement asks, what then are the lessons to be drawn from all this? First, that in all likelihood there was significant manipulation of rolls favouring the NDA. Second, voters faced with promises of jobs and freebies of all kinds will prefer to have a bird in hand than two in the bush, i.e., a state party backed by the Central government that has already delivered a handout and is in a better position to give more, will definitely have the edge. Third, all parties share a consensus that SC Reservations must be preserved even as it may be extended to other sections. So why should Dalits prefer opposition parties to the BJP and its political allies. The material problems of lower castes remain but a small and rising Dalit elite that provides leadership is attracted to where power already lies. Moreover, in lieu of serious material improvement, the Sangh’s Hindutva ideology offers a form of cultural compensation to lower castes in recognising them and their religious deities and practices as part of a wider Hindu fold that is being seen as the natural heir of Indian-Hindu nationalism. Fourth, the Mahagathbandan (MGB) whether in Bihar or elsewhere pursues a soft Hindutva, does not directly challenge the BJP’s Islamophobia and itself reduces the number of Muslim candidates put up.

So, says the statement, it should not be surprising that in Seemanchal, where there is a higher concentration of Muslim voters, they would have preferred Owaisi’s AIMIM than to, say, the Congress. This is disturbing because it enhances religious polarisation. However, this can only change if supposedly secular parties are prepared to act in a genuinely secular manner. Fifth, apart from anti-BJPism, what does the MGB have in common? There is not and cannot be any genuine programmatic unity since apart from the Congress and the Left, the other regional parties do not have any Pan-India, let alone any international, vision or perspective.

Sixth, always a factor in the importance of cadre-based capacity of the RSS and its affiliates to entrench themselves within the pores of civil society as a matter of daily routine and not just for the purposes of periodic mass mobilisation which of course is also greatly facilitated by having this cadre base. The lesson here is for the Left and not for the other opposition parties that do not possess an ideologically committed and disciplined cadre base but have activists as part of more traditional patron-client linkages and networks that can also more easily shift their political loyalties. The Indian parliamentary left has a cadre base but one that is much smaller and more ideologically uncertain than in the past. Even for it to achieve electoral successes, the extra-electoral terrain is where the forces of the Sangh must be confronted through sustained struggles on various fronts.

Building a newer left that is internally more democratic and that sheds the shibboleths of Stalinism and Maoism for its cadres, is vital. Such a broader united front of the Left must not be sectarian within, and it must prioritise linkages with progressive movements of all kinds that continue to exist in our continental-sized country rather than with opposition bourgeois parliamentary parties. The latter are not capable of, and will never move in the direction of forging an anti-capitalist, truly democratic and deeply egalitarian society. This should be the goal of such a Left united front that is allied with a range of progressive movements. Forging a programme and practice of left populism as an intermediate stage in pursuit of that much longer-term goal is our shorter-term need.

The statement was released today.

Related:

Civil society warns, Election Commission is “Undermining Democracy”

From Welfare to Expulsion: Bihar’s MCC period rhetoric turns citizenship into a campaign weapon

Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire

The post Radical socialist statement on Bihar Election results appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The NACEJ has strongly condemned, what it terms as “the abject failure of the Government in systemically addressing the air pollution crisis and the brazen, arbitrary detention of peacefully protesting citizens, students, parents, environmentalists, workers and activists, who are courageously organizing against this public health catastrophe.” The Chief Minister (Rekha Gupta) owes a public apology to the protestors and the people of Delhi for the government’s failure, unjust detentions and use of police force against peaceful citizens. The NACEJ has called for withdrawal of cases registered, if any, against the protestors.

The indiscriminate action by authorities not only violates democratic rights, but also blatantly disregards the dire health emergency faced by millions in Delhi NCR, as air pollution soared to its highest levels in four years, especially following Diwali on October 21, 2025, as confirmed by official monitoring stations. In the backdrop of the severity of the issue, the short-sighted, politicised response of the government will only exacerbate the air pollution crisis further in Delhi NCR. 

The group has also demanded that the Delhi Government, the Union Government and all authorities must immediately, without delay or evasion, recognize the magnitude of this public health emergency and the legitimate outrage of the people of Delhi NCR, instead of treating it as a ‘law and order issue’ or a political blame game. This unchecked governance failure-fuelled has directly led to record-breaking pollution, with hazardous air choking the region and pushing public health to the brink.

Besides, the NACEJ has called all for urgent, transparent, and scientifically accountable actions; not repression and diversion, to protect the lives, rights, and dignity of every Delhi NCR resident. The Government needs to initiate year-round air pollution crisis management, built on long-term policy preparedness and a prioritization of public health and justice. It is high time for political and bureaucratic authorities to address the rightful angst of the people, setting aside political calculations and vested interests.

Despite years of crisis and public outcry, air pollution remains a severe and escalating public health hazard, with Delhi NCR and several other Indian cities suffering the world’s worst air quality. This crisis causes millions of preventable deaths and immense economic losses, while disproportionately impacting poor and marginalized communities, outdoor and informal workers, women, elders, children and those living in congested or industrial areas. Government actions have consistently excluded the most vulnerable, widening environmental injustice.

What is most alarming this year is that, despite clear evidence and expert warnings, the government prioritised appeasement-based political interests over scientific and public health advice, specifically legalizing the sale and use of so-called ‘green’ crackers for Diwali. This move led to rampant illicit use of fireworks, ignoring the Supreme Court’s limited hours order, leading to its weak implementation. The result was record-breaking PM2.5 levels and a dangerous spike in air pollution, with Delhi reporting levels as high as 675 µg/m³ (CPCB data) – the worst in four years.In parallel, non-compliance and apparent fudging of data such as the reported use of water sprinklers near AQI monitors to artificially lower recorded pollution further erode trust and delay meaningful action. The persistent blame games over stubble burning also do not address the reality, especially since, in 2025, its contribution to Delhi’s PM2.5 was notably lower than previous years. Year-round vehicle and industry emissions remain the primary drivers. Delhi’s pollution emergency demonstrates a deeper governance failure where populist politics has been allowed to overshadow public health and science-led environmental policy.

To genuinely address the roots of Delhi’s air pollution emergency, the following immediate and structural measures are essential:

• A time-bound, transparent policy and plan of action to reduce air toxicity and fixing answerability and accountability of all statutory authorities, as per law.

• Pro-active promotion and comprehensive upgrades to Delhi’s public transport as a clear alternative to odd-even private vehicle restrictions. Odd-even schemes are not novel and have demonstrated mixed results, while similar restrictions already exist as part of GRAP. What is urgently needed is a sharp pivot away from political optics and towards policies that truly discourage the daily use of private cars and SUVs by improving public transport and reducing road congestion through measures like congestion pricing.

• Differentiate between public transport modes: A renewed emphasis is needed on both bus and metro infrastructure, as well as the neglected surface rail network, which can provide cleaner, more inclusive mass transit, if upgraded and integrated into a unified transport system.

• Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes alongside metro enhancements, for high-frequency, accessible public bus services, rather than segregated bus lanes. Upgrading, expanding, and integrating these modes is essential for sharply reducing waiting times and increasing convenience for commuters.

• When calling for tackling vehicular pollution “at source,” new concrete measures are needed: leapfrogging to BS6 fuel and emission norms and promoting EVs are steps already taken. What is needed now is a rapid phase-out and strict control of all non-BS6 diesel vehicles in Delhi NCR, combined with the elimination of diesel fuel subsidies for non-commercial vehicles. Non-BS6 diesels remain a disproportionate source of PM2.5 and PM10 compared to petrol vehicles—despite diesel’s lower price, its use for private transport is now obsolete and counterproductive for clean air.

• Highlight the persistent neglect of Delhi’s extensive surface rail infrastructure. Investments and integration with bus and metro systems are urgently needed to maximize sustainable, mass transit and reduce the reliance on polluting road vehicles.

• Reference existing scientific source apportionment studies (IIT Kanpur 2023, etc.) that establish the root sources and their respective shares – vehicles, dust, construction, waste and industry, so that measures are not misdirected.

• A clearly statement that stubble burning is not a major year-round pollution source. Recent studies confirm its limited, seasonal contribution, while vehicle and industrial emissions remain chronic drivers of Delhi’s poor air quality. Victimising and vilifying farmers while subsidizing or ignoring much larger polluters like the automobile sector is unjust and must be stopped.

• A firmly implemented year-round ban on firecrackers and a credible transition plan for firework-industry workers. WTE incinerator plants, and all unchecked construction and waste burning, must be banned or relocated beyond residential and ecologically sensitive areas, given their toxic emissions. Scientific evidence fully rejects their ‘green’ branding while they continue to drive air toxicity and perpetuate health crises.

• Recognize innovations, but emphasize their futility when major pollution sources, notably ‘green’ WTEs and vehicular fleets, remain inadequately regulated and incentivized.

• Government must set up an effective and permanent mechanism for inputs from and dialogue with environmental, civil-society organizations and collectives.

• Government must release real-time, credible and accessible air-quality data and health advisories in different formats.

• Government must respond to peaceful protest calls with dialogue and not intimidation, threats, detentions and arrests of citizens and activists.

• People at large must reject any political or religious narrative that undermines or delays urgent public health actions in response to environmental emergencies.

In conclusion, the NACEJ has also called for a scientifically informed, health-centred, long-term air quality management framework for Delhi NCR and all Indian cities. This must feature enforceable bans on new WTE plants and place existing WTEs in the Red Category. Year-round prohibition on firecrackers, strict controls on construction and vehicular emissions (with a focus on outdated diesel vehicles), and a fundamental reorientation of urban, transport and industrial policy towards safeguarding public health are equally important. ‘Innovations’ and civil society efforts cannot succeed while major polluters remain unchecked and unaccountable, especially under the guise of ‘green’ solutions.

Addressing air pollution requires an integrated, inter-sectoral, institutional accountability approach rooted in public well-being and aligned with broader environmental, economic, and development goals. India’s future depends on putting public health, social and ecological justice and constitutional rights of all citizens at the very centre of all environmental and urban policymaking.

Signatories to the Statement: NACEJ Members: 

1. Alok Shukla, Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, Raipur
2. Apoorv Grover, People for Aravallis, New Delhi
3. Dr. Babu Rao, Scientists for People, Telangana
4. Chythenyen Devika Kulasekaran, Centre for Financial Accountability, Selam, Tamil Nadu
5. Disha A Ravi, Fridays for Future India
6. Dr. Gabriele Dietrich, Penn Urimay Iyakkam & NAPM, Madurai, Tamil Nadu
7. John Michael, NACEJ and NAPM Telangana
8. Krithika Dinesh, Legal researcher, NAJAR, Delhi
9. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan and NAPM, Madhya Pradesh
10. Meera Sanghamitra, NACEJ Telangana
11. Neelam Ahluwalia, Founder Member, People for Aravallis, Haryana
12. Nirmala Gowda, Mapping Malnad, Bengaluru
13. Prasad Chacko, Social Worker, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
14. Rajkumar Sinha, Bargi Bandh Visthapit Evam Prabhavit Sangh, Madhya Pradesh
15. Ramnarayan K, Natural History Educator and Independent Ecologist, Uttarakhand
16. Ravi S P, Chalakudypuzha Samrakshana Samithi, Kerala
17. Soumya Dutta, Movement for Advancing Understanding of Sustainability and Mutuality (MAUSAM) & NACEJ, New Delhi
18. Soutrik Goswami, Environmental Researcher and Activist, New Delhi
19. Stella James, Researcher and Independent consultant, Bengaluru, Karnataka
20. Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, NAPM & NACEJ (Pune, Maharashtra)
21. Sumit (For Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective, Himachal Pradesh)
22. Tarini, Independent Filmmaker, Delhi
23. Yash, Environmental Rights Activist, New Delhi

Related:

Catch people’s attention on pollution narrative: “Switching to public transport can lower your heart attack risk by 10%.”

Indian Coal Giants Pushed for Lax Pollution Rules While Ramping Up Operations

Air pollution: Is Delhi heading towards “pollution control” lockdown?

The post Say No to ‘Toxic Governance’: Arrest air pollution, not activists and protesters: NACEJ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is evidence that the Government is now going ahead full steam to pander to the advancement of these corridors, which have no demonstrated benefit to people at large, whether in Goa or in Karnataka. For a small state like Goa to have to lose its resources and become a ‘corridor’ towards the Corridor, spells complete disaster. Its air, waters, its rivers, its agriculture, its fishing and fish-drying spaces, its forests, its peoples’ health and livelihoods, are all under threat from coal dust and infrastructure being set up to make coal transportation through the port, roads, railways and waterways of Goa possible.   

The NAPM has also condemned the questionable legal architecture systematically introduced to facilitate these plans that enable corporate expansionism, even as existing laws and regulations around environmental protection, social impacts, land acquisition and rehabilitation are being violated.

In a statement issued yesterday, the NAPM has also joined the active people’s movements of Goa and Karnataka in resisting the reduction of the region to a coal transportation and corridors hub, and in their struggles to safeguard the ecology, livelihoods and people’s well-being, for current and future generations.

Goans have been demanding the de-notification of the rivers of Goa, which have been declared as National Waterways under the National Waterways Act, 2016. Similarly protesters have been demanding stoppage of the railway double-tracking project and return of lands acquired through draconian legislation.

NAPM further calls for an immediate halt to port expansion, by respecting the will of the people as even articulated in the public hearings in Mormugao taluka.

The people of Goa held a Chalo Lohia Maidan mass protest on Sunday November 9 in Goa.

Related:

NAPM condemns Delhi authorities for deserting over 700 Dhobi Ghat residents

NAPM condemns Delhi authorities for deserting over 700 Dhobi Ghat residents

The post Solidarity with protests of locals against projects facilitating coal transportation (Goa to Karnataka): NAPM 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 Court, speaking through Justice Augustine George Masih (for a Bench also comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai), extended the constitutional and procedural safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India—previously emphasized in the context of special statutes such as the UAPA and PMLA—to all offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) / Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Constitutional mandate reinforced

Reaffirming that Article 22(1) is not a mere procedural formality but a binding constitutional safeguard, the Court held that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, in a language and form he can understand, and such communication must be in writing.

“…mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 44)

The Court explained that the purpose of Article 22(1) is to place the arrestee “in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him,” and to enable him to “seek legal counsel, challenge custody, and apply for bail.” This purpose, it said, “would not be fulfilled by merely reading out the grounds.”

Written grounds in language understood by the arrestee

Drawing from Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, the Court held that written grounds must be furnished in the language understood by the person, not merely read out or translated orally.

“The mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must be such that it effectively serves the intended purpose as envisioned under the Constitution of India which is to enable the arrested person to get legal counsel, oppose the remand and effectively defend himself by exercising his rights and safeguards as provided in law. The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands. The mode of communication ought to be such that it must achieve the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard.” (Para 45)

Reiterating this, the Bench added:

“There is no harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in the language the arrestee understands, this approach would not only fulfil the true intent of the constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of arrest were informed to the arrestee when a challenge is made to the arrest on the plea of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.” (Para 45)

Extension beyond special statutes

Rejecting the argument that earlier rulings in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) were confined to PMLA or UAPA offences, the Court held that Article 22(1) applies equally to all arrests—without exception.

“Article 22(1)… casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22 (1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023).” (Para 39)

The Bench further clarified that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is fundamental, non-derogable, and absolute, and non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself:

“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.” (Para 40)

Limited exception for exigent circumstances

While declaring the arrest in the present case illegal, the Court carved out a narrow operational exception: where arresting officers are confronted with offences occurring in their presence (for instance, a murder or assault in progress), oral communication of the grounds may be permitted at the time of arrest, provided that written grounds are supplied within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours before the arrestee’s production before the magistrate for remand.

“However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the magistrate.” (Para 52)

This two-hour threshold, the Court noted, ensures a functional balance between safeguarding personal liberty and allowing police to perform their duties without procedural paralysis.

“The two-hour threshold before production for remand thus strikes a judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational continuity of criminal investigations.” (Para 53)

Consequences of non-compliance

In unequivocal terms, the Bench held that failure to provide written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee renders both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal, entitling the person to immediate release.

Summarising its conclusions, the Court laid down the following binding directions:

1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes, including IPC/BNS.
2. The grounds must be communicated in writing and in the language understood by the arrestee.
3. If it is not possible to supply written grounds immediately, they may be communicated orally, but must be furnished in writing within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand.
4. Non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, and the person “shall be entitled to be set at liberty.”

Significance and Broader Impact

This ruling is one of the most significant expansions of procedural due process under Article 21 and 22 in recent years. It builds on Pankaj Bansal (2023), Prabir Purkayastha (2024), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), which strengthened the constitutional guarantee of being informed of arrest grounds under special statutes.

By explicitly extending these safeguards to all offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and allied laws, the Court has now constitutionalized written notice of arrest grounds as a non-derogable fundamental right, comparable to the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

“The Court further held that a copy of such written grounds must be furnished to the arrested person at the earliest without any exception observing that the communication provided under Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) is not a mere procedural formality but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective to enable the arrested person to effectively consult legal aid and be prepared to raise objections in remand hearing and apply for his/her bail. The right to life and personal liberty, safeguarded under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, stands as the paramount fundamental right.” (Para 45)

The Court also directed that copies of this judgment be circulated to all High Courts and State Governments for immediate implementation and compliance.

Conclusion

The Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling marks a transformative moment in India’s criminal procedure jurisprudence, ensuring that constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are not reduced to hollow ritual. It affirms that an arrest made without written grounds—especially when not communicated in a language understood by the arrestee—is no arrest in the eyes of the Constitution.

“The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a person flows from the Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The expression ‘personal liberty’ has been given a wide meaning through various judicial pronouncements. One of which is that personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from the abuse of power by the State agencies and scrutiny of the actions of the State.” (Para 17)

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Allahabad HC grants bail in UAPA case over WhatsApp video; raises questions on overuse of stringent national security laws

SC intervenes for personal liberty after HC adjourns a bail application 27 times!

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

Examining Jurisprudential Shifts: The Evolution of Bail Provisions Under PMLA – Part II”

The post Due Process Strengthened: Supreme Court mandates written, language-specific grounds for arrest under special laws and general laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by PTI, the devotees were stopped after crossing into Pakistan through the Attari–Wagah border. Officials allegedly told them, “You are Hindu, you cannot go with a Sikh jatha.” Amar Chand, one of those turned back along with six family members, said that despite having valid travel documents and clearance from Indian immigration, they were refused entry once inside Pakistan.

As per the Hindustan Times report, the jatha of around 1,900 Sikh pilgrims had crossed into Pakistan on Tuesday to participate in the Parkash Purb festivities. Chand’s family, along with seven others from Lucknow, had joined the group intending to offer prayers at prominent gurdwaras, including Nankana Sahib. However, all 14 were sent back by Pakistani officials soon after entering.

As per the HT report, a Punjab intelligence officer posted at the border confirmed the incident, saying: “Those denied entry are Hindus by faith, originally from Pakistan but settled in India for many years. They held valid Indian passports and had obtained immigration clearance from our side. Once they entered Pakistan, officials there examined their documents and returned them to the BSF.”

Interestingly, other Hindu devotees in the same jatha faced no such problems. Palwinder Singh, head of the pilgrimage department of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which organises the largest pilgrim groups, clarified:

“Nearly 40 Hindus are part of our group this year, and almost all entered Pakistan without any issue. Many Hindu followers of Guru Nanak travel every year for these pilgrimages — they have never been barred on the basis of religion.”

The SGPC jatha will remain in Pakistan until November 13, visiting key Sikh shrines including Gurdwara Panja Sahib (Hasan Abdal), Gurdwara Darbar Sahib (Kartarpur, Narowal), Gurdwara Sacha Sauda (Farooqabad), Gurdwara Dehra Sahib (Lahore), and Gurdwara Rori Sahib (Gujranwala).

Amar Chand recounted that his family had even paid ₹95,000 (Pakistani rupees) for bus tickets after clearing all formalities. “Five officials came and told us to get down from the bus, saying Hindus can’t go with Sikh pilgrims. We were then sent back, and our money was not refunded,” he said. Chand, originally from Pakistan, moved to India in 1999 and obtained Indian citizenship in 2010.

Meanwhile, more than 200 other applicants were stopped at the Indian side of the border as they lacked final approval from the Union Home Ministry.

Earlier, the Indian government had initially decided against sending any jatha to Pakistan this year citing security concerns after Operation Sindoor. However, it later allowed a limited group to proceed under strict conditions.

Under the 1950 Nehru–Liaquat Pact, Sikh pilgrims are permitted to visit Pakistan’s revered shrines on four key occasions each year — Baisakhi, Guru Arjan Dev’s martyrdom day, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s death anniversary, and Guru Nanak Dev’s birth anniversary.

Related:

Shah Bano Begum (1916-1992): A Socio-Political Historical Timeline

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

How Muslims treated non-Muslims in early Islam

The post Pakistan denies entry to 14 Hindu devotees in Sikh ‘jatha’ visiting for Guru Nanak Jayanti appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As is well known, Kushinagar is one of the most important holy places for Buddhists worldwide, as the Buddha delivered his last sermon here and attained Mahaparinirvana here. Bhadant Gyaneshwar was the most senior Buddhist monk in Kushinagar and had served as President of the Kushinagar Monks’ Association since 2005. He assumed this role after the passing of Bhadant Aniruddha Mahathera of Lumbini. The Kushinagar Monks’ Association was established on December 18, 1952, with Bhadant Chandramani Mahathera as its first President, serving until May 8, 1972. Bhadant Uttikhendariya Mahathera and Achyutananda Mahathera subsequently became Presidents. Bhadant Gyaneshwar Mahathera was thus the sixth President of the Kushinagar Bhikshu Association.

Bhadant Gyaneshwar was born on November 10, 1936, in the village of Jibenji, in the Akyab district of Arakan province, Burma. Arakan is now part of Rakhine State. His childhood name was Aung Ja Wae, and his father was a farmer. Today, Burma is known as Myanmar. Rakhine State remains the most indigenous and largest Buddhist region, though in recent years the treatment of Rohingya Muslims and their plight have drawn considerable international attention.

Bhadant Gyaneshwar had publicly noted that this issue was not so polarised during his time. He recalled that Bengali Muslims had migrated to his region and exploited local people. He vividly remembered events from World War II. In conversations with me, he discussed Myanmar’s diverse ethnicities but emphasised that there was no caste system or untouchability, unlike what he encountered extensively in India. His village, a coastal area with a significant Buddhist population, shaped his early life. Bhadant Gyaneshwar’s mother died during his childhood, causing him great suffering. At a young age, he was drawn to the teachings of Dhamma. On April 12, 1949, he entered a university in Rangoon (now Yangon) to study Pali. On June 3, 1956, after six years of studying Buddhism, he became a shramana and received the name that became known in Hindi as Dnyaneshwar or Gyaneshwar.

Burma was a flourishing centre of Buddhism, and India maintained strong relations with it. In 1954, Burma hosted the Sixth Buddhist Council, attended by Bhante Dharmarakshita. Babasaheb Ambedkar and E.V.R. Periyar also participated in this historic conference in Rangoon. Though only 18 years old, Bhadant Gyaneshwar attended and met Babasaheb Ambedkar. He remembered little of the encounter, being too young to grasp Dr. Ambedkar’s socio-political significance; like other locals, he was there to listen to distinguished guests and serve. The large-scale event held special meaning for him nonetheless.

Buddhist monks from Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Myanmar have long visited India’s historical and religious sites, often saddened by their neglect and dedicating their lives to restoration. Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka played a pivotal role in reviving Buddhism in India. For context, he fought to restore Buddhist control over the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya; his efforts helped revive Buddhism and its heritage across South Asia. He is renowned globally for advancing Buddhist ideas and practices.

Bhadant Gyaneshwar’s parents knew Bhadant Chandramani, as his father followed Buddhism. In 1962, when Bhikkhu Dharmarakshita and Bhikkhu Kittima Mahasthavir learned about Bhadant Chandramani’s declining health—one of India’s most respected monks—their concern deepened. They recognised his efforts to preserve Buddhist Dhamma in Kushinagar and sought someone to care for him while ensuring deep Dhamma knowledge and devotion for the future. By 1962, Bhadant Chandramani’s health had become a worry for the Buddhist community. Accordingly, the two bhikkhus invited 27-year-old Gyaneshwar from Burma to India, directing him to Kushinagar to live with Bhadant Chandramani. Bhadant Gyaneshwar arrived on August 5, 1963, to serve his guru and strengthen Buddhist heritage. From then on, he immersed himself in Indian Buddhist traditions, mastering the local language. He worked for the upliftment of marginalised people and counselled Dhamma practitioners from India and abroad, contributing significantly to Kushinagar’s development.

Bhadant Gyaneshwar possessed a sharp memory and an extraordinary ability to share his vast experiences. He regularly met disciples and people from all walks of life, discussing socio-religious issues. Language was initially a barrier, but he soon became fluent in Hindi and Bhojpuri, travelling worldwide. He continued charitable and social activities initiated by Bhadant Chandramani Mahasthavir. Though unable to return to Myanmar, he maintained ties; the Bhadant Chandramani VIP Guest House in Kushinagar was built with Myanmar Buddhists’ support.

His life exemplified struggle. In conversations with me, he shared key experiences, including efforts to remove unauthorised occupation from land around the Mahaparinirvana site in Kushinagar. These battles—reconstructing sites and reclaiming land—form a long and inspiring story. To adapt to India, he enrolled in local schools, completing high school in 1968, intermediate in 1970, BA in 1973, and MA in 1975 from Buddha Degree College, Kushinagar. He later earned Pali Sahitya Ratna and an LLB degree, reflecting his passion for knowledge.

The Myanmar government honoured him with its highest religious award. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, he could not travel, so the Myanmar Ambassador conferred the title *Abhidhaja Maharatthaguru* in Kushinagar in June 2021. Earlier honours included *Abhidhaja Aggamaha Thaddamma Jotika* (2016), *Aggamaha Pandita* (1993), and *Aggamaha Thaddamma Jotika Daza* (2005) for his service to Buddhism. Bhadant Gyaneshwar became a legal Indian citizen in 1978 and remained President of the Kushinagar Main Temple Bhikshu Sangha until his death.

He was associated with numerous Buddhist religious and charitable organisations and served on the Bodhgaya Mahavihara Administrative Body (appointed by the Bihar government) from 1990 to 2018. 

When I had asked him if Bodh Gaya should remain a Buddhist pilgrimage site, he replied, “Shouldn’t it be handed over to Buddhists as it is the most sacred site for Buddhists.” He advocated transferring all Buddhist sites to Buddhist control. While accepting Archaeological Survey of India oversight for preservation, he noted that global visitors seek not just archaeology but Buddhist teachings. India, as the Buddha’s land, should facilitate this.

Many disciples have become prominent monks strengthening India’s Buddhist movement. Dr. Nanda Ratan Bhante Thero, head of the Sri Lanka Buddha Vihara, met him in 1995 while in Shravasti. He pursued higher education under “Guruji” (as disciples called Bhadant Gyaneshwar). In 1998, Guruji sent him to Myanmar’s International Theravada Buddhist University; he returned to Kushinagar in 1999.

Dr. Nanda Ratan Bhante says Guruji cared deeply for the poorest and most marginalised, prioritising education—especially for girls—and fought caste discrimination and untouchability. Thousands of followers in India and abroad attended his lectures and invitations. At Guruji’s request, Japan’s Maitri Association supported education for hundreds of children within a 10-kilometre radius of Kushinagar. He remained active in Kushinagar’s development.

Bhante Nand Ratan ji cared for Guruji devotedly. Days ago, at a Buddhist prayer meeting at our Prerna Kendra, he asked everyone to wish Guruji health and long life. Today, meeting him where Bhadant Gyaneshwar’s body lay for devotees’ darshan, Guruji was pensive: “We tried our best but could not save him. We wanted him for many more years. This will be my greatest regret.” I have seen Bhante Nand Ratan ji always caring for Bhadant Gyaneshwar. He did everything possible, but some things are beyond human control. Bhadant Gyaneshwar’s presence will be missed, yet his network of followers will carry his legacy forward.

Bhadant Gyaneshwar dedicated his life to Dhamma and gave Kushinagar a renewed identity. Children study in his schools; his temple attracts domestic and foreign visitors. Experiencing caste in India, he told me he had never known it in Myanmar, where ethnic differences existed without hierarchy.

Interviewing him nearly five years ago was a privilege and honour. As the Guru of Gurus, I was hesitant, unsure how to proceed. He called for a chair so I could sit beside him and converse comfortably. He answered with profound depth. Today, paying respects at the same venue, memories of that interview flooded back. At its end, he recited a Buddhist hymn for our well-being.

Throughout his long public life, he followed the Buddha’s path—the hope Babasaheb Ambedkar saw for the Bahujan Samaj, our true freedom for over 85% of the population. Bhadant Gyaneshwar’s efforts to spread Buddha’s wisdom in India and beyond will inspire generations. He loved Kushinagar, building its Buddhist identity. The Burmese Buddha Vihara and its later stupa were major contributions. Frankly, the stupa at the Burmese Buddha Vihara has become Kushinagar’s landmark.

A fitting tribute to Bhadant Gyaneshwar.

**Bhavatu Sabba Mangalam!**

Related:

Periyar: Caste, Nation and Socialism

Periyar: Caste, Nation and Socialism

The ‘Harijans’ of Bangladesh: Victims of constitutional neglect and social isolation

The post Obituary: Bhadant Gyaneshwar and his invaluable contribution to the buddhist world appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For Indian audiences, Mamdani’s victory carries significance that extends far beyond New York’s five boroughs. His win represents a complex convergence of identity, ideology and generational change that challenges established political narratives on both sides of the Atlantic.

Seven dimensions of his triumph deserve particular attention, particularly in India.​

1) A modern Muslim identity

Mamdani embodies a form of Muslim political identity that defies the stereotypes that the Bharatiya Janata Party and similar forces rely upon to paint Muslims as fundamentalist or separatist.

He is a practicing Muslim who openly discusses his faith while simultaneously championing secular democratic socialism, feminist causes and LGBTQ rights. This combination directly contradicts the caricature of Muslims as backwards looking Islamists.

His emotional speech outside a Bronx mosque about the humiliations Muslims have endured in New York since 9/11 demonstrated vulnerability and civic commitment rather than religious extremism. He married a Syrian American artist in a relationship that bridges cultural divides, and campaigns in multiple languages including Urdu and Spanish while maintaining his Muslim identity as central rather than hidden.

This presents a progressive Muslim political figure who is comfortable in his faith without being defined solely by it, a model that undermines narratives equating Muslim identity with Taliban style Islamist fundamentalism, as seen from the welcome given to the Taliban leader by the Modi government in Delhi last month.​

2) Mixed heritage and transnational roots

Mamdani’s parentage tells a story of cosmopolitan belonging that resonates across the global South.

Born in Kampala to Mira Nair, the acclaimed Hindu filmmaker from Delhi, and Mahmood Mamdani, a Gujarati Muslim scholar raised in Uganda, Mamdani carries Indian, African and American identities simultaneously. His family was part of the Asian diaspora expelled by Idi Amin in 1972, experienced apartheid-era South Africa, and eventually settled in New York when he was seven.

This background gives him an intuitive understanding of colonialism, displacement and minority experience that informs his politics. For Indians familiar with the complexities of diasporic identity and the lingering effects of British colonial divide and rule strategies, Mamdani’s mixed heritage represents a repudiation of narrow ethnic nationalism. His father’s scholarship explicitly critiques the tribalisation of politics, a pattern visible in both Uganda under Museveni and India under Modi. The son can be considered to have absorbed these lessons.​

3) Youth and generational change

At 34, Mamdani is the youngest New York mayor in 112 years, younger even than the legendary “Boy Mayor” John Purroy Mitchel elected in 1913. His age matters not merely as biography but as political force. He galvanised young voters, winning those under 50 by a two to one margin, precisely the demographic that feels locked out of home ownership, burdened by debt and alienated from establishment politics. His rapid rise from unknown state assemblyman polling at one percent just months before the primary to decisive victor reflects how quickly generational change can upend entrenched power structures.

For India, where Modi’s BJP has dominated national politics for over a decade, Mamdani’s trajectory offers evidence that insurgent campaigns built on youth energy and grassroots organising can overcome entrenched political figures like the Cuomos.

His campaign demonstrates that age and inexperience, typically framed as liabilities, can become assets when voters hunger for change.​

4) Socialist economic policies

Mamdani’s democratic socialism, often dismissed as radical or unworkable, formed the core of his appeal. He proposed rent freezes on stabilised apartments, free bus service, universal childcare, city run grocery stores and raising the minimum wage to 30 dollars, all funded by taxing corporations and the wealthy. These policies directly address the affordability crisis strangling working people in expensive cities. His message resonated because it named the problem clearly and offered concrete solutions rather than technocratic adjustments.

For Indian audiences familiar with the welfare state legacies of pre-liberalisation era, now being dismantled through privatisation, Mamdani’s unapologetic embrace of state intervention in markets to secure basic needs recalls an older social democratic tradition. His success suggests that economic populism focused on redistribution still wins elections when articulated with clarity and passion, a lesson relevant for opposition parties in India struggling to counter Modi’s Hindu nationalism with an economic alternative.​

5) Stance on Gaza and moral consistency

His vocal support for Palestinian rights, unusual for a major American mayoral candidate, cost him support among some Jewish voters but energised others, particularly younger Jews and the broader progressive coalition. He condemned Hamas’s October 7 attack as a war crime while also accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, pledging to arrest Netanyahu if given the chance and maintaining his criticism despite intense pressure.

This moral consistency, refusing to moderate his position for political convenience, functioned as proof of authenticity for voters exhausted by politicians who say different things to different audiences.

The likes of Modi and his cohort of RSS leaders have mastered this to an art form. Mamdani’s willingness to alienate powerful constituencies rather than compromise on principles he formed during his college activism with Students for Justice in Palestine shows a robust political calculus, one that prizes moral clarity over coalition management.​

6) Criticism of Modi’s Hindutva politics

Mamdani has repeatedly criticised Modi, calling him a war criminal and accusing the BJP of pursuing a vision of India that only has room for certain kinds of Indians. During his Diwali outreach to Hindu voters, he explained that he grew up with a pluralistic vision of India where everyone belonged regardless of religion, contrasting this with what he sees as Modi’s exclusionary Hindutva ideology.

He also attacked New York Mayor Eric Adams for backing Modi’s violent approach.

These statements, unusual for an American politician seeking office, reflect his family background. His father’s scholarship analyses how political leaders use ethnic and religious divisions to maintain power, a dynamic visible in both Uganda and India.

For Indian audiences, particularly those troubled by the erosion of secular pluralism under Modi, Mamdani’s willingness as a Muslim politician to defend a pluralistic vision of India while simultaneously claiming his Muslim identity offers a model. He refuses the choice between assimilation and separatism, instead asserting that diversity itself should be celebrated and protected.​

7) Implications beyond New York

Mamdani’s victory will reverberate beyond the United States. National Democrats will study his combination of social media savvy, grassroots organising and economic populism for lessons applicable to their own campaigns. Republicans will use his democratic socialism as a wedge issue in swing districts.

But for observers in India, the significance lies elsewhere. His win demonstrates that that an authentic progressive position has political rewards even in a city identified with capitalism, that youth can overcome entrenched political leaders, that economic redistribution still motivates voters, and that moral consistency on difficult issues can be rewarded rather than punished.

He will judged on his record at governance when he comes for re-election, but his election itself challenges assumptions about what kinds of politicians can win and what kinds of coalitions are possible in increasingly diverse democracies.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Seven Dimensions of Zohran Mamdani’s Win Hold Significance For Indians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, while hearing Noor Jahan v. State of Uttarakhand, on October 29, 2025, instructed the Investigating Officer (IO) to file an action taken report by November 6, and to remove any inflammatory social media posts related to the incident.

The court’s direction came in response to a protection petition filed by Noor Jahan, the wife of Nasir, a local driver who was brutally assaulted on October 23 after rumours spread that he was transporting beef in his vehicle. The petition alleges that Madan Joshi, a local BJP leader and former president of the party’s Ramnagar City Unit, went live on Facebook, falsely claiming that cow meat was being transported — an act that allegedly incited a mob to attack Nasir.

“Lawlessness in Full Display”: Petitioner seeks CBI probe and police protection

According to the petition, reported by LiveLaw, Nasir’s vehicle was stopped by a crowd incited through Joshi’s Facebook Live. The mob allegedly dragged Nasir out, beat him with stones and kicks, and livestreamed the assault. Instead of rushing him to a hospital, the police are accused of taking the severely injured man to the police station first.

Noor Jahan described the episode as “a glaring example of complete lawlessness,” adding that it represented “cow vigilantism in utter disregard of the Supreme Court’s directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018).” She also claimed that since the incident, her family had been receiving threats of dire consequences from unidentified persons.

The plea sought a CBI investigation, police protection, and strict enforcement of the Supreme Court’s mob-lynching guidelines, along with compensation for her husband, who continues to receive treatment for severe injuries.

High Court’s order

The High Court’s order, though brief, is a sharp indictment of selective law enforcement and impunity in cases involving political actors. While the Deputy Advocate General informed the Bench that two of the assailants had been arrested, the Court pressed for a full update on the investigation and warned that compliance on removal of inflammatory posts must be shown at the next hearing.

The case will now be taken up on November 6, 2025, when the police are required to submit their action taken report. The Bench’s insistence on immediate removal of hate content marks an important judicial intervention in the digital dimension of communal violence — where misinformation and Facebook Live broadcasts often act as catalysts for mob action.

Selective accountability

The Ramnagar attack adds to a growing pattern of cow-vigilante violence in Uttarakhand’s Kumaon region, where rumours and Facebook Live videos frequently precede communal flare-ups. As Citizens for Justice and Peace has documented, local vigilante groups often operate under tacit political patronage, with little deterrence from police.

The petition cites the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), which mandated states to curb mob lynching, appoint nodal officers, and ensure prompt FIRs and victim protection. Yet, as Noor Jahan’s case reveals, implementation remains largely on paper.

The High Court’s intervention also reignites a broader question — why politicians accused of hate or incitement rarely face swift prosecution, even when evidence is public. While citizens, journalists, and activists are often booked for online speech, leaders accused of fanning communal hatred enjoy impunity. As legal commentators note, this “selective policing of speech” corrodes faith in the rule of law.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Madhya Pradesh Muslim man lynched in Rajasthan’s Bhilwara: Family alleges religious targeting masked as cow vigilantism

Rising Cow Vigilante Violence: Muslim truck drivers targeted across states amid police inaction

2024: July and August see surge in cow vigilantism with brutal assaults, raids based on rumours and targeting of Muslims while legal consequences for perpetrators missing

November 2024 Surge in Cow Vigilantism: Rising Violence and Legal Apathy in North India

The post Uttarakhand HC pulls up police over mob attack in Ramnagar, seeks action against BJP leader for inciting communal violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The idea of IFWD emerged from the India Fisher Women Assembly 2024, a historic gathering that declared November 5 as the day to honour the invisible hands that feed nations and protect the oceans. The call was later taken to the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) General Assembly in Brazil, where it was unanimously adopted. It now stands as a global symbol of recognition — and rebellion.

As fisherwomen say, this day is not about being seen, but about reclaiming what was always theirs.

Anchored in a long tide of struggles

In the long history of people’s struggles, women have always been the conscience of resistance. From the factory floors of early Europe to the beaches of the Indian coast, women have stitched together the labour of survival and the ethics of care. Rosa Luxemburg’s words — “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains” — echo in the voices of fisherwomen today, who refuse to stay still while their waters are fenced, their lives erased, and their rights sold in the name of development.

International Women’s Day, born of the labour and socialist movements of Clara Zetkin and Luxemburg, demanded political equality and an end to exploitation. November 5 extends that lineage from the land to the sea. It reminds us that liberation cannot be confined to borders or industries — that the politics of the ocean, too, must carry the red thread of equality, community, and justice.

As Zetkin had said, “The working women’s question is not an isolated question, but part of the great social question.” The fisherwomen of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have kept that question alive — turning it into a sea of solidarity that stretches from Kanyakumari to Dakar.

Why November 5 matters — and why it began in India

Fisherwomen have always held the coastline together. They wake before dawn to carry fish to market, manage homes through storms and loss, and are the first to rebuild after every cyclone. Yet, their names do not appear in government records. They are still called ‘helpers’ or ‘dependents’, while laws, schemes, and cooperatives continue to be written in the masculine lens.

This erasure, the women declared in Kerala, must end. They demanded recognition not as “wives of fishers,” but as fishers themselves — rightful claimants of the seas, keepers of knowledge, and protectors of coasts.

In doing so, they carried forward the dreams of pioneers such as Thomas Kocherry and Harekrishna Debnath, who had long insisted that the future of fisheries lies not in mechanisation or export figures, but in justice, community control, and the dignity of work. Both leaders believed that the rights of fisherwomen were the moral compass of the movement. Kocherry often said, “When the poor stand up, even the sea must make way.”

The declaration of November 5 thus became a collective act of remembering — of drawing strength from those who built India’s post-colonial fishworker movement and from the women who sustained it quietly all along. This was endorsed by the largest social movement of fishers across the globe, the Word Forum of Fisher Peoples at the General Assembly held in Brazil in the same month of November 2025.

The women of waters and their demands

The call for an International Fisher Women’s Day is inseparable from its politics. Across India’s recently declared more than 11,000-kilometre coastline and its countless rivers and lakes, women are demanding what should never have been denied:

• Recognition as fishers in law and policy, not as dependents.
• Equal rights to access and govern coastal and inland waters, free from corporate intrusion.
• Inclusion in welfare, insurance, and disaster-compensation schemes.
• First-sale and market rights to secure fair prices and independence from exploitative middlemen.
• Representation in fisheries boards and cooperatives.
• Protection of ecosystems from destructive aquaculture, deep-sea mining, and coastal militarisation.
• Legal safeguards from caste and gender-based violence — both within the community and from the state.

These are not demands for special treatment; they are demands for survival, carved from decades of unpaid and unacknowledged work that sustains both the fishing economy and the national food basket.

The ocean remembers

In the last decade, government programmes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) and new policies under the banner of Blue Economy 2.0 have promised prosperity. But for most coastal and inland fishing communities, these schemes have delivered displacement instead.

Behind the numbers and glossy reports lie harbours privatised, commons enclosed, and women’s livelihoods erased. As industrial trawlers deplete fish stocks and aquaculture pollutes backwaters, fisherwomen are left struggling for survival in a development model that excludes them.

The state’s vision of ‘modernisation’ has turned the sea into a commodity. But fisherwomen, who live by its moods and rhythms, remind us that the ocean is not a market to be managed — it is a living commons that sustains cultures, livelihoods, and spiritual traditions.

Ocean feminism and the new tide

From the lagoons of Chilika to the estuaries of Karaikal and the islands of the Sundarbans, women’s collectives are practising what they call ocean feminism — rooted in care, community, and resistance. They see themselves not as victims but as custodians of ‘aqua territories’ — spaces of relationship, knowledge, and survival.

As Harekrishna Debnath, one of India’s earliest fisher leaders, often said, “We don’t fight the sea; we live with it. But we must fight those who sell it.” Today, that fight is global. It connects fisherwomen in India to their sisters in Senegal, Thailand, and Brazil — all confronting the false climate solutions packaged as Blue Transformation, 30×30, and Marine Spatial Planning, which in practice privatise the oceans and displace small-scale fishers.

Through the five-week campaign initiated by WFFP — from November 5 to December 10 — women and men of the fishing world are asserting their right to live with dignity, protect their territories, and resist enclosure in every form.

From recognition to transformation

This International Fisher Women’s Day is not a commemoration; it is a beginning. It reminds us that the ocean too has a memory — of those who built communities along its edge, who fed others before themselves, and who continue to hold the fragile balance between humanity and water.

As Rosa Luxemburg warned, “Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently.” Across India’s coasts and rivers, fisherwomen are thinking — and acting — differently: against caste, patriarchy, and neoliberal enclosures; for rights, justice, and community life.

Their struggle is our collective future. When the tide rises, may it rise with their names on its waves.

Jesu Rethinam is the Global Women Coordinator of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP).

Vijayan MJ is Director, Participatory Action Research Coalition, India (PARCI).

Courtesy: CounterCurrents

The post Every Wave Has a Memory: Women, Waters and the Promise of November 5 appeared first on SabrangIndia.