According to court proceedings before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete expressed severe displeasure with the police’s conduct and questioned the very legality of Ajith Kumar’s detention. The police allegedly took Ajith Kumar to the temple cattle shed and other secluded areas — avoiding CCTV surveillance — and beat him black and blue with plastic pipes and iron rods. He was later brought to the police station and eventually declared dead. This case of custodial torture has sparked outrage in Tamil Nadu and beyond.

Human rights lawyer Henri Tiphagne submitted video evidence allegedly showing Ajith being beaten by police officers inside Thiruppuvanam police station. The footage, captured by a temple employee named Sakthiswaran, was described by the court as shocking. In a revelation that shocked the bench, it was stated that the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Sivagangai district was present at the station during the torture.

Madras High Court: “Not even an FIR?”

The State informed the court that a CSR entry was made based on a complaint filed on June 28, 2025, regarding missing jewellery, but no FIR was registered. The court was aghast: “If this was merely a theft investigation, why was the suspect beaten to death?” questioned the bench. Judges demanded to know who authorised the special team that interrogated Ajith and whether such teams were formed on the basis of social media posts.

Adding to the irregularities, the court highlighted that the SP had merely been transferred and not suspended. The judges further criticised the government’s claim that action was being taken, calling it wholly insufficient.

Autopsy reveals 18 injuries, video confirms beating

India Today accessed an exclusive video showing Ajith being thrashed with a lathi by policemen. The autopsy confirmed 18 distinct injuries on his body. As outrage grew, the Tamil Nadu government handed over the case to the CB-CID. However, the court observed that police cannot investigate cases against their own ranks and called for independent accountability.

Tamil Nadu Custodial Death Case || ‘Clincher’ Video Emerges

On Cam: Temple security guard thrashed.

Guard Ajith Kumar was picked up by the police in connection with a gold theft case. In the video, police personnel can be seen beating him with sticks: @dharannniii shares more… pic.twitter.com/vBYL0jpRJE

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) July 1, 2025

Echoes of Sathankulam: Will Tamil Nadu ever learn?

The events chillingly mirror the Sathankulam case of 2020, where Jeyaraj and his son Bennix were brutally tortured and killed in custody for allegedly violating lockdown timings. In that case, the intervention of the judiciary and public outrage led to the arrest and prosecution of several police officials. The Madras High Court in that case had relied on the testimony of an independent judicial officer to uncover the truth.

Just like in Sathankulam, the initial attempt in Ajith Kumar’s case also seems to involve a cover-up, delayed documentation, and failure to follow legal procedure — from absence of FIR to delayed autopsy to vague accountability. The question haunting observers remains the same: Has anything changed in Tamil Nadu’s policing culture?

India’s international obligations: UNCAT still unratified

Ajith Kumar’s death also reopens the debate on India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Despite signing it in 1997, India has not enacted an anti-torture law. UNCAT mandates prohibition, criminalization, independent investigation, and compensation for custodial torture — all glaringly absent in this case.

In cases like DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that third-degree methods have no place in a democratic setup. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty. Yet, as in Ajith Kumar’s case, these rights are repeatedly violated in police custody with impunity.

Widespread custodial deaths: A nationwide pattern of impunity

According to data shared by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Lok Sabha, there were 2,152 deaths in judicial custody and 155 in police custody in 2021–22 alone. Despite these alarming figures, disciplinary action was taken in only 21 cases in five years, with zero prosecutions.

The National Human Rights Commission had announced a total compensation of ₹4.53 crore in 137 custodial death cases in 2021–22 — a drop from ₹4.88 crore in the previous year. The data underscores a systemic failure to hold perpetrators accountable. Tamil Nadu, despite its history of custodial violence cases like Sathankulam and now Ajith Kumar, continues to exhibit a culture of impunity reinforced by the lack of anti-torture legislation.

The road ahead

The Madras High Court has ordered the Thirupuvanam Judicial Magistrate and the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital to file preliminary and post-mortem reports. Witnesses including temple officials and video documenter Shakthiswaran have been summoned. Petitions are pending seeking CBI/SIT probe and compensation to the victim’s family.

Whether the judiciary’s timely intervention will lead to accountability in this case — or fade into routine impunity — remains to be seen. But what is already clear is this: Ajith Kumar’s death is not an isolated tragedy. It is a systemic collapse.

(The author is a law student and a former intern at cjp.org.in.)

Related:

TN custodial death report establishes complicity of police, hospital staff and jail authorities

CBI chargesheet confirms brutal torture on Jeyaraj and Bennicks

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

The post Ajith Kumar’s custodial death exposes Tamil Nadu’s unbroken chain of police impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

Traditional Indian spices

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Establishment

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

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

Board Committees

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

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

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

Aakar Patel

 

Mandal distribution related works

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

Mandals research related work

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

Mandal’s work in new sector

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: CounterView

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

The people had indeed spoken—and they had rejected everything Cuomo represented. The former New York governor, married into the Kennedy dynasty through his union with Kerry Kennedy, had tried to buy his way back to relevance with billionaire money and the weight of two of America’s most storied political families. The political titan who had resigned in disgrace had just been crushed by a nobody. A housing counsellor from Queens. A 33-year-old democratic socialist whom most New Yorkers couldn’t have picked out of a police lineup six months earlier.

Across the city in Astoria, that nobody—Zohran Kwame Mamdani, son of Indo-Ugandan exiles, former rapper, sometime housing advocate – stood before a crowd of volunteers who had just rewritten the rules of American politics. They had not merely defeated a former governor; they had obliterated him, turning Cuomo’s 30-point lead into a seven-point rout that would make their candidate the Democratic nominee for mayor of America’s largest city.

This was not supposed to happen. Not in New York, where money and connections have long determined who gets to compete for City Hall. Not to Andrew Cuomo, scion of political royalty, armed with $33 million and the backing of Wall Street’s finest. And certainly not at the hands of an obscure Assemblyman whose campaign headquarters doubled as a community organizing centre in Queens, whose previous claim to fame was battling foreclosure notices in immigrant neighbourhoods nobody else bothered to visit.

Yet here was Mamdani, with 93 per cent of ballots counted, claiming 43.5 per cent of first-choice votes against Cuomo’s 36.4 per cent. His primary victory, powered by 50,000 volunteers and $8 million in small-dollar donations, represented something unprecedented in American politics: the emergence of a candidate who successfully translated policy prescriptions into cultural resonance, whose “exuberant economic populism” became, in the words of campaign observers, “a love song to a city yearning for change.” His victory positions him as the Democratic nominee who could become New York’s first Muslim, Indian-American, and millennial mayor—a symbolic breakthrough that extends far beyond representation to embody resistance against the nationalist currents of Donald Trump’s second presidential term.

Roots of Rebellion

To understand how Mamdani reached this moment, one must look to the inheritance that shaped him. Born on October 18, 1991, in Kampala, Uganda, to Indian parents, Mamdani grew up carrying the legacies of dislocation and resistance. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a renowned Gujarati Shia Muslim scholar at Columbia University, whose work on decolonisation reshaped how generations understood power and citizenship. His mother, Mira Nair, an acclaimed Punjabi Hindu filmmaker, gave voice to diaspora stories through her cinema.

The middle name Kwame, a tribute to Ghanaian revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, was entirely intentional. It was a signal. Mahmood Mamdani’s own life had been a study in resistance: expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin for being Indian and outspoken, he passed through London refugee camps before returning to a post Amin Kampala. His resignation from the University of Cape Town, after white faculty resisted efforts to decolonise the curriculum, led to his landmark book Citizen and Subject, which reframed Africa’s colonial inheritance as one that divided urban citizens from rural subjects.

That defiant, searching spirit filtered down. Zohran’s undergraduate thesis at Bowdoin, on Uganda’s expulsion of Indians, reflected far more than an academic interest but a personal reckoning. It brought him closer to immigrant communities whose lives echoed his family’s. The narrative of loss and return, of exile and belonging, lived in him.

After arriving in New York at age seven, Mamdani came of age in the city’s multitudes. At Bowdoin, he studied Africana Studies and co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine—his politics expanding beyond borders, his compass set to global justice.

From the Streets to the Statehouse

The path from Bowdoin College to City Hall was anything but conventional for Mamdani. After graduating with a degree in Africana Studies, where he co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine, he spent time pursuing an unlikely passion: hip-hop music. Under a stage name he now prefers to keep private, Mamdani briefly tried his hand as a rapper, before concluding that community organizing offered more direct routes to social change.

His transition to housing advocacy proved formative. Working as a foreclosure prevention counsellor in Queens, Mamdani spent his days in cramped apartments with families facing eviction, navigating bureaucratic mazes to keep people housed. The work provided intimate knowledge of the housing crisis that would later inform his policy prescriptions, but more importantly, it connected him to the human cost of policy failures that most politicians encounter only in statistics.

By 2019, Mamdani was organizing tenant unions in Astoria. Renters, once isolated, began to act collectively. They fought back. And in those tight hallways and cramped living rooms, he learned what real power looked like. The power of platforms paled next to the power of listening, of showing up, of helping people see themselves as part of something larger.

His 2020 election to the New York State Assembly at age 29, defeating a four-term incumbent in Astoria’s diverse district, marked his formal entry into electoral politics. The victory, followed by unopposed re-election, established him as a rising star in progressive circles. His legislative record, including securing $100 million for subway service improvements and piloting fare-free bus programmes, demonstrated his ability to navigate Albany’s complex coalition politics while maintaining his progressive credentials.

The 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes offered another proving ground. Mamdani stood with the unions. His face became familiar on picket lines. His solidarity went beyond symbolism and built the trust that would carry him through a citywide campaign.

A City Crying Out for Bold Answers

When Mamdani unveiled his mayoral platform, critics immediately branded it “radical.” The label didn’t seem to bother him. “These policies reflect what working people demand,” he argued in response, “not what billionaire donors or real estate speculators prefer.” It was classic Mamdani—turning a potential weakness into a populist rallying cry.

His comprehensive agenda reads like a progressive wish list: freeze rents on over one million stabilised apartments, eliminate fares on city buses, fund universal childcare, raise the minimum wage to $30 by 2030, and establish city-run grocery stores to combat food inflation. The financing mechanism—a $10 billion tax on corporations and the ultra-wealthy—represents perhaps the most controversial aspect of his platform, prompting business elites to threaten a capital strike.

Mamdani’s housing strategy represents a particular departure from conventional wisdom, shifting emphasis from developer incentives to tenant-owned buildings—a approach he describes as informed by his years of tenant organising experience. “We’re not going to build our way out of this crisis by making developers richer,” he said during a campaign debate, a line that became a signature applause generator at his rallies.

His public safety vision, prioritising what he calls a “Department of Community Safety” over militarised policing, reflects progressive thinking on criminal justice reform but has drawn scepticism from centrists like Mayor Eric Adams, whose 2024 corruption indictment was ultimately dismissed. When pressed on specifics during a contentious radio interview, Mamdani argued that “public safety means people feeling safe in their homes from eviction, safe in their neighbourhoods from violence, and safe in their workplaces from exploitation.”

David Slays Goliath: How the Upset Happened

The mechanics of Mamdani’s campaign victory represent a masterclass in modern political organising. Defying 31 of 32 polls that favoured Cuomo, the campaign leveraged New York’s ranked-choice voting system with surgical precision. A strategic cross-endorsement with City Comptroller Brad Lander, who secured 11.4 per cent of first-choice votes, provided the crucial margin in reallocations that secured Mamdani’s seven-point victory margin.

The ground game was unprecedented in its scope and intensity. Fifty thousand volunteers conducted 1.2 million door-knocks, reaching diverse communities across the city’s five boroughs. The campaign’s ability to mobilise South Asians in Richmond Hill, Latinos in Jackson Heights, Chinese voters in Flushing, and even make inroads among Brooklyn gentrifiers demonstrated sophisticated targeting and messaging. Even in conservative Staten Island, traditionally hostile territory for progressive candidates, Mamdani narrowed the gap to just nine points.

The financial contrast between the campaigns tells its own story. Mamdani’s $8 million, raised from 21,000 small-dollar donors—75 per cent contributing under $100—stood against Cuomo’s $33 million war chest, including a $25 million super PAC, Fix the City, backed by billionaire Bill Ackman, a Trump supporter and Israel advocate. This David-versus-Goliath dynamic resonated with voters increasingly cynical about money’s role in politics.

Cuomo’s campaign, by contrast, seemed to embody everything voters found objectionable about contemporary politics. Heir to a political dynasty through his father Mario Cuomo, who served as governor from 1983 to 1994, Andrew Cuomo relied heavily on name recognition but failed to qualify for public matching funds. His record—hiding nursing home deaths during COVID-19, discrediting over a dozen women who accused him of sexual harassment, and cutting a 2022 gerrymandering deal that aided Republican House gains—made him a symbol of status-quo failure, unable to withstand Mamdani’s populist surge.

When Identity Meets Authenticity

Mamdani’s relationship with New York’s 600,000-strong South Asian community exemplifies his sophisticated approach to identity politics. Drawing on his mother Mira Nair’s Sikh heritage, he engaged authentically with community institutions, speaking Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi at gurdwaras and community events. His support for India’s 2020-21 farmer protests and praise for Kerala’s Communist leadership demonstrated his ability to navigate complex subcontinental politics while maintaining progressive credentials.

His critique of Hindu nationalism, including calling Narendra Modi “the butcher of Gujarat” for the 2002 riots and condemning the Ram Temple consecration as majoritarian oppression tied to the Babri Masjid’s demolition, drew predictable criticism from BJP MP Kangana Ranaut but solidified his standing among progressive South Asian groups like DRUM. This willingness to take controversial positions on international issues distinguished him from conventional politicians who avoid diaspora controversies.

Perhaps no issue tested Mamdani’s political courage more than Palestine. His characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” and his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement became a litmus test for progressive authenticity. His pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an indicted war criminal—if elected mayor and Netanyahu visited New York represented a direct challenge to the Democratic establishment’s unwavering support for Israel. During a heated March 2025 confrontation with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, Mamdani demanded the release of detained activist Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American organizer arrested while protesting weapons shipments to Israel. The moment, widely shared on social media, further galvanized his support among pro-Palestinian groups and cemented his stance as a rare voice of solidarity within mainstream American politics.

This stance contrasted sharply with Cuomo’s offer to join Netanyahu’s defence team before the International Criminal Court, aligning him with establishment Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Mamdani’s position, amplified through 135 mosque visits during the campaign, mobilised Muslim voters despite drawing antisemitism accusations from Representative Laura Gillen. The defence mounted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, citing his clear condemnation of antisemitism as a “disgusting and dangerous ideology,” helped neutralise these attacks.

The Hard Part: From Nominee to City Hall

The transition from primary winner to governing will test Mamdani’s political skills in new ways. With the November general election looming, he must first survive what promises to be a bruising campaign against the Republican nominee while managing New York’s complex electoral dynamics. Should he win in November, governing the city’s $115 billion budget and 300,000 employees will require executive experience that his critics, led by Cuomo, have questioned. The New York Post and business elites, alarmed by his tax proposals, may support Cuomo’s rumoured independent run, creating additional political complications.

Federal budget cuts under Trump’s second term, combined with potential state resistance to progressive policies, will create fiscal constraints that may limit Mamdani’s ability to implement his agenda. However, some of his key proposals, particularly the rent freeze, appear feasible through existing mechanisms like the Rent Guidelines Board.

His electoral coalition—South Asians, Latinos, progressive young voters—provides a strong foundation for governance, but maintaining unity while making the inevitable compromises required for effective administration will require careful political management. His consultations with technocrats like Maria Torres-Springer suggest preparation for the practical challenges of potential governance, though media scrutiny and a Republican opponent in the general election will test his campaign from now until November. Should he prevail in November, potential opposition from figures like Eric Adams would test his administration from the outset.

If Mamdani reaches City Hall, he may join the lineage of American progressives who governed boldly: Milwaukee’s “sewer socialists,” Bernie Sanders in Burlington.

“It always seems impossible until it is done,” he said, quoting Mandela. Mamdani has done what many thought impossible. What remains is to prove it was entirely intentional.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post New York’s New Equation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brahmdev Maharaj temple, was also where the Muslim caretaker w lived alone after separating from his family. For more than 35 years, Mohammad has quietly tended to the temple, a place he also called his home. On most days, he has fed animals, cleaned the temple grounds, assisted during aarti, and found quiet moments to pray, yes offer namaz.

However, something he has done for years, the namaz, discreetly offered near a tree on the premises, became a matter of public controversy when someone filmed it — reportedly around two months ago — and uploaded the video online on June 28.Within hours, Ali found himself behind bars for “defiling a place of worship with intent to insult religion”. This act is symptomatic of the street vigilantism encouraged by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) be it in Uttar Pradesh where the incident happened, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat or Maharashtra. Local police also immediately tend to bend to the will of these mobs on the prowl, influenced by the fact that they enjoy political patronage.

In this case, Ali Mohammad had reportedly earlier apologised to some local villagers when questioned about the prayer, and the matter had initially subsided until the clip resurfaced. Paramanand Das told TOI he was taken aback by the arrest of the man who had served the temple faithfully since the days of his late mentor, Radheshyam, in 2002 and promised to personally arrange help for Ali’s bail if his family were unable to do so. “What happened to Ali Mohammad was wrong and unexpected,” Das said, adding that the village panchayat would “punish” the individual responsible for circulating the video. “The unidentified man who slyly shot and posted the video has committed a greater offence than Ali. If the police take our statement, we will support Ali. Humanity is above religion,” he added. However, Das also said, “Whatever he did here was wrong. “Das added that the temple is a place of devotion for people from all faiths. “On Diwali, people of different religions come to offer prayers at the feet of Brahmdev Maharaj. Ali respected every religion, committed no crime, and never harboured any religious hatred. He worked with dignity and respect, maintaining the temple’s sanctity.”Dataganj circle officer K K Tiwari said, “An FIR has been registered against Ali. He has been arrested. Investigation has so far revealed that Ali was living for decades near the Brahmdev Maharaj temple complex. Someone recorded a video of him offering a prayer supposedly near a tree inside the premises and shared it online. Police force was deployed at the temple premises as soon as we received information in this regard.” Ali himself, in a video released by police, seemed utterly bewildered by the stringent charges slapped on him. He said, “The temple is my sanctuary, the place I found peace. I left my family to serve here. I received meals three times a day from the temple, sometimes even clothes. I did not commit any crime – I would not even think of defiling a place that is home for me.”

Related:

Mumbai Walks for Peace | Citizens Unite Against Hate

Pahalgam Attack: Kashmir unites in heroic resilience amid terror attack, proving humanity’s strength against hate narrative

Faith Knows No Religion: Banke Bihari Temple again rejects boycott call against Muslim artisans and businesses

The post ‘What happened to Ali Mohammad was wrong’: UP temple’s Muslim caretaker held for offering namaz; Hindu priest to arrange bail, says he served with dignity for 35 years reports TOI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident reportedly occurredd in the BMC office premises when the official, Additional Commissioner Ratnakar Sahoo, was in the midst of conducting a grievance redressal meeting at his chamber. According to a subsequent police complaint that Sahoo filed, six-seven unknown individuals entered his chambers and aggressively asked whether he had spoken to Jagannath Pradhan, a BJP leader from Bhubaneswar. Sahoo said he responded that he had a telephonic conversation with Pradhan earlier in the day. The group then allegedly started assaulting him without any provocation and demanded that he apologise to Pradhan. Why they wanted him to apologise was not made clear.

“They beat me brutally in full public view with an attempt to murder, in the presence of public representatives, i.e. corporators of the BMC, BMC officers, staff, and citizens. While I was trying to shield myself and plead for mercy, they threatened me and attempted to forcibly drag me into a vehicle, saying that I must come to Jagannath Pradhan and apologise,” Sahoo said in the complaint.

The assailants also allegedly snatched his mobile phone and uploaded scandalous content as his WhatsApp status, he said.

The incident has sparked state-wide outrage, with BMC officials staging a cease-work protest blocking a major road outside the BMC office. They demanded the immediate arrest of the miscreants. There was heavy police deployment within the BMC premises following the incident.

Police sources said they have registered a case and arrested three persons, including BMC corporator Jeevan Rout, in connection with the attack. Police said they were investigating the involvement of other persons.

Pradhan the BJP leader thereafter described the incident as unfortunate and said that he knew two people allegedly involved in the attack. He also said the BJP government would not shield anyone and would take action against all those involved in the assault.

The issue has also triggered a political row, with the Leader of Opposition and former chief minister Naveen Patnaik calling the attack “appalling”. He demanded “immediate and exemplary” action in the matter.

His post on “X” states:

I am utterly shocked seeing this video. “If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the government?” Patnaik asked in a post on X.

Demanding immediate action to restore faith in his government, Patnaik said the government shouldn’t allow heinous acts to go unpunished. “The people of #Odisha will not forgive this,” he said.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated BJP MLA Candidate.

What is more appalling is that this happened in broad daylight, in the heart of the capital city-#Bhubaneswar to a senior officer while he was in his office, hearing grievances of people.

I ask @MohanMOdisha

Ji to take immediate and exemplary action against not only those who perpetrated but more importantly the political leaders who orchestrated and conspired this shameful attack. The people named by the officer in his FIR have behaved like criminals. If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the Government

I only hope that Shri Majhi directs immediate action to be taken to restore faith in his government and not allow this heinous act to go unpunished like the assault on an officer by the ex-Governor’s son. The people of #Odisha will not forgive this.

I am utterly shocked seeing this video.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated… pic.twitter.com/yf7M3dLt9C

— Naveen Patnaik (@Naveen_Odisha) June 30, 2025

The post Odisha: senior Bhubaneswar municipal official assaulted on duty, told to “apologise” to BJP leader appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The opinion of independent experts should be also be taken into consideration by the apex court before it assesses the actual impact of this law on our forest cover, the letter states.

The text of the open letter may be read here:

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India on the Conflict of Interest of the Central  Empowered Committee

Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We have expressed our anguish several times in the past regarding the steady reduction of India’s forest cover, due to changes in certain laws and policies of the government, as well as their actions. What is causing us great concern now is a matter of conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India’s forests even further down the road.

A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted in the year 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was set up for the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on matters of forests and wildlife and to provide technical advice on the subject to the Supreme Court. It consisted of three former officers of the MOEF, and two non-government persons, the first an expert on forests and wildlife and the other an advocate of the Supreme Court who was also an environmentalist. In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest.

In 2023, since Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) seemingly had complete autonomy in choosing the members of the CEC, it nominated in all the four posts of members, four former government officers, three of whom are retired Indian Forest Service officers and one, a retired scientist, who had also worked for many years until his retirement in the MoEFCC. There are no independent experts on the Committee.

Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently.

A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government.

In 2023 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023, as, according to them, the Act would hasten the decline of forests in India, already greatly reduced since a decade or two earlier. In hearings in this case, so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and geo- referenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case). The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court.

However, we fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter.

We would like to point out that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 was prepared and defended before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) by a CEC member then at the helm in the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) 2023 which is being challenged in the Supreme Court, was also notified at that time, as were the rules under the Act and the consolidated guidelines (notified on November 29, 2023 and December 12, 2023.

Similarly, several memoranda that permitted using degraded, notified forests and unclassed/ revenue forests for compensatory afforestation in exchange for diversion of forest land were issued during the tenure of some of the CEC members while they held top positions in the MoEFCC. Such orders are against the Godavarman judgement of 1996, but they were issued nevertheless. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, cannot but be in line with the previous positions held by these officials in the government. The advice of the CEC in any case which challenges the FCAA 2023 (with which they were closely associated while in the government), will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed, and will thus be a clear conflict of interest.

An indication of this is already evident in the recent SC order on ‘zudpi’ forests (scrub forests) of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court’s order of May 5, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC’s advice which recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for ‘compensatory afforestation’ considering ’zudpi’ forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees. Actually, ‘zudpi

forests are scrub forests/grasslands rich in wildlife specifically adapted to such vegetation. ‘Zudpi’ forests support important, endemic and endangered species such as the Indian grey wolf, Great Indian bustard, lesser Florican, Blackbuck, Indian fox etc., besides serving as corridors for tigers, leopards, bears and other wildlife, and helping mitigate human-wildlife conflict in an area severely affected by the same. Diverting of ‘zudpi’ forests for non -forestry purposes is also violative of the Supreme Court’s Godavarman order of 1996 as well as the more recent orders of the Court dated February 3, 2025 and March 3, 2025 in the case against the FCAA 2023, which is still under litigation. It is gratifying to note that the Honourable Supreme Court did not accept the CEC recommendations in toto.

We would like to recommend to the Honourable Court that in order to give fair and unbiased advice, a CEC needs to be composed not just of experts who are retired officials of the government but of renowned experts from outside as well, of which there are many in the country. As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest.

We request the CJI to ensure that such a CEC is not allowed to advise the Honourable Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country’s forests, wildlife and ecological security.

Signatories:

The post Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It has now been more than five years. She has not been convicted of any crime. And yet, her incarceration endures – not as a sentence handed down by a court, but as an unending wait, sustained by a trial that never arrives.

§

Gulfisha Fatima has now been imprisoned for over 1,900 days.

This year, on the fifth anniversary of her incarceration, a solidarity week was organised for her. Artists created posters. Writers wrote essays. We shared her story again, in public and private spaces, hoping that her name does not disappear under the weight of silence.

I mailed her a letter with the printed posters created in solidarity with her by a few artists – drawings that said ‘Free Gulfisha’. Not as a campaign or a legal demand, but a gesture of care. The kind of solidarity that says: you are not forgotten, and they haven’t succeeded in making us forget.

But the prison did not deliver the letter. The posters, it seems, were “unacceptable.” Too political, or perhaps too hopeful.

What is the state afraid of? Posters, apparently.

Between censorship and care

This wasn’t the first time something in my letters had been censored. I remember the first one I received from Gul – whole phrases had been erased with a white marker. I couldn’t make sense of what she was trying to say, or who she was referring to. Later, a friend explained that whenever the jail authorities find something objectionable, they simply blot it out with correction fluid.

What were the words being erased with whitener? Underneath those erased spaces were stories from Gul’s PadhoPadhao program – narratives about how, despite describing herself as impatient, she had become the teacher her mother always said she would be. These were letters tracing how incarceration had begun to reshape her: how she was being pushed into roles she had never imagined or wanted for herself – teaching, learning to make jewellery, sitting still for hours, enduring solitary confinement for days on end.

After that, every letter I wrote became an exercise in evading censorship. I tried to fill the pages with stories and sentences that wouldn’t be silenced. I told her about my vegetable patch, my cat, my father and my city. Each letter began to feel like those school assignments: Write a letter to your friend describing your day.

Except here, the state was assigning the prompt.

How do you write about what matters, without inviting erasure?

So I asked her questions instead, like where would you like to go on a holiday once you are out? Have you seen a beach?

She wrote back to say she’d never seen a beach. That she couldn’t imagine what it felt like to think of a ‘vacation’ much less stand at the edge of the sea, feet buried in the sand.

I started searching for photos that might convey the quiet joy of that moment – that stillness, that release. I thought of the beach photos by my friend Varun, a Chennai-based photographer who describes his work as an exploration of spaces – streets, beaches, rooftops etc. His work doesn’t draw attention to itself, and yet it stays with you – the quiet texture of everyday life, without turning people’s lives into a spectacle.

It reminded me of something Annie Ernaux gestures toward in her writing – that the everyday is never neutral (Jacobin, 2022). That to record it is not indulgent, but defiant. A way of refusing the erasure that time, power or distraction so often imposes. To linger on the mundane is also to affirm that it mattered.

And perhaps that’s why I thought of those photographs, of Gul’s life in prison, and of Annie Ernaux – because all three are preoccupied, in their own ways, with the dignity and weight of the ordinary.

I requested a copy of the photos and sent it to her; and they got delivered. After the posters didn’t make it through the jail bars, I was curious (and grateful) how the previous photos had made the cut. I realised that Varun’s photo, in its quiet ordinariness, slipped past the censors likely because it did not look political. The state missed how tenderness, too, can be a radical refusal to forget or abandon. It helped Gul escape from her immediate surroundings for a minute.

She loved the photos and wrote back saying: “I crave normal moments like these. To me, even ‘normal’ now feels like a gift.”

And in the midst of all this, somehow, our friendship grew.

We don’t come from the same city. We weren’t born into the same caste, religion or class. We didn’t go to the same universities or share any obvious markers of a shared world. We are not the same. One of us is in prison. The other is writing this from outside. And yet, in a time when it is often claimed that people from different backgrounds cannot truly understand each other, our friendship has become something rare and deeply cherished.

I remember a time, about a year and a half ago, when I was going through a rough patch. My letters to her grew infrequent, scattered, weighed down by everything I couldn’t bring myself to say. In response, Gul wrote back – gently, with concern. “Are you okay? she asked. It’s unlike you to be so quiet.”

Tucked inside her letter was a small keychain she had bought for me with her prison wages. It was her way of reaching across the bars, of being there for me in the only way she could. That letter marked a quiet turning – an unexpected tenderness. Despite everything she was enduring, it was Gul who took on the larger share of care.

And no matter how many words are blotted out, how many letters are intercepted – this is something the state cannot erase.

Silence as strategy: Censorship and carceral control in India

Writing from prison is never just a personal exercise – it is political. And it is subjected to opaque, unchecked censorship. Prison authorities are granted sweeping discretion over what detainees can send or receive, with little public accountability. While the Prisoners Act of 1894 and the Model Prison Manual of 2016 formally permit letters and reading material, these rights are routinely curtailed by vague provisions allowing officials to withhold anything deemed “objectionable” or “a threat to discipline or security”.

Rule 43.17 empowers superintendents to intercept letters “likely to endanger prison security.” But what qualifies as a threat remains undefined. There is no obligation to document decisions, no route for appeal. Letters disappear. No explanation is given. No one is notified. This is censorship by silence – absence masquerading as order.

For those charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), this regime of erasure becomes more insidious. Since its enactment in 1967 – and especially after amendments in 2008 and 2019 – the law has enabled prolonged detention without trial, often on speculative evidence. The 2019 amendment allows individuals – not just organisations – to be labelled “terrorists,” vastly expanding the scope of pre-emptive criminalisation.

Under Section 43D(5), bail is nearly impossible. Judges must accept prosecution claims at face value, reversing the burden of proof. Accusation becomes punishment. Professor Ujjwal Kumar Singh (2007) calls this a “detention democracy” – where the rule of law coexists with a parallel regime of suspension. Rights exist on paper but remain materially inaccessible.

This is not just the condition of those charged under UAPA – it is the logic of the prison itself. Surveillance, solitary confinement and disrupted communication are not exceptions but embedded features of carceral life. For some, especially political prisoners, these controls may be intensified. But often, the inverse is also true: ordinary undertrials, those without public attention or legal support, may experience even deeper abandonment.

What results is more than legal incarceration – it is an emotional severance. Books may get denied. Clothes for Eid from friends get denied. Letters are redacted or withheld. Care is filtered through bureaucracy.

The prison becomes a space of quiet erasure – where silence is institutionalised, and the threads of memory and connection are gradually worn thin.

What it means to remember

The refusal to deliver the letter with posters was not a surprise. Many of us who write to political prisoners have faced similar outcomes. We write, we send, we wait. Often the message arrives months later. Sometimes never. Sometimes the prisoner is told. Sometimes not. But this refusal still matters. Because it shows how deeply the state fears memory. To make a poster or to write a letter or to read her poems is to assert that solidarity is still possible – despite the fences and the years that pass.

Even when the message doesn’t arrive, it has already done its work.

When we speak of repression, we often speak of grand spectacles – raids, arrests, bans, surveillance. But power also works in small, daily gestures. The unmailed letter. The returned book. The silence from the prison gate. These small gestures are how repression is normalised.

They create a slow withdrawal not just from the prisoner, but from the political itself. Families and friends, unsure of what is safe, stop sending things that can be returned, stop writing certain words or phrases so that the letter does not go undelivered. Artists, afraid of being watched, stop drawing faces.

The prisoner does not just disappear from view – the effort is to gradually erase their side of the narrative in the public’s moral and imaginative landscape. Over time, the very idea of dissent becomes fragile, unspoken. The blank space is no longer just a person. It is a society trained to look away.

​​Perhaps, this is the quiet labour of solidarity: to resist forgetting. To write, to remember, to insist on presence even when presence is policed. Communication is controlled because it keeps the political identity alive.

A woman who writes, who remembers, or who is remembered – becomes dangerous. She unsettles the state’s narrative of isolation. Because the solitary prisoner is a myth; these women resist through community. Their letters become pamphlets. Their poems cross the boundaries of identity and confinement. Their art – sent or received – becomes a slogan, becomes memory. They remain in the movement even behind bars.

It is this continuity – of thought, of political belonging, of being claimed and held by others – that the state truly fears.

Anuradha Banerji is an activist and an independent researcher.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post How Prisons Become Spaces of Quiet Erasure appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: CounterView

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

The directive was passed by Shafeeq Ahmed, Sub-Judge and Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, in response to an application filed by local advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem. As per the report in Bar&Bench, the complainant alleged that the media outlets, in a series of live broadcasts aired in May, wrongly identified Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a religious teacher at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom, one of the most prominent Islamic seminaries in Poonch, as a “notorious Lashkar-e-Tayyeba commander” allegedly involved in the 2019 Pulwama terror attack.

Iqbal, who was killed on May 7 while out purchasing food supplies for his students, was among civilians who died during intense Pakistani shelling along the Line of Control. Despite his clear identity as a local religious figure and civilian casualty, the news channels broadcast his name, photograph, and a fabricated terrorist profile, falsely claiming that he was eliminated by Indian forces in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

The court strongly rebuked the claim made by the Poonch police during the hearing that territorial jurisdiction did not lie with the local court since the broadcast originated from New Delhi. Citing Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Court held that when defamatory consequences occur at a location different from where the act originated, jurisdiction vests in both places. The Court emphasised that the reputational and emotional damage caused by the broadcast was suffered in Poonch, where the deceased lived, worked, and ultimately lost his life.

A case of journalistic irresponsibility and public harm

In scathing observations on the role of the media, the Court declared that the conduct of the news outlets amounted not only to defamation but also to a deliberate and dangerous act of public mischief and incitement. It held that the telecast violated multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including:

• Section 353(2) – Public mischief
• Section 356 – Defamation
• Section 196(1) – Promoting enmity between religious groups

In addition, the Court invoked Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for the dishonest and misleading use of digital media.

While some channels issued public apologies after widespread outrage—including local protests and a J&K police advisory warning of legal action—the Court observed that “An apology may have mitigating value at the stage of sentencing but does not preclude the statutory duty of police to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed,” as per the report of The Wire. It further stressed that the press, while enjoying freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is bound by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), particularly in matters concerning defamation, public order, decency, and communal harmony.

“In the present act, the act of branding a deceased civilian teacher of a local religious seminary as a ‘Pakistani terrorist’ without any verification, particularly during a period of Indo-Pak hostilities cannot be dismissed as a mere journalistic lapse,” the court said, according to The Wire report.

Media conduct under scrutiny

The court emphasised that press freedom is not a license to defame, mislead, or cause harm. Media organisations, especially those with national reach, are constitutionally and ethically bound to ensure accuracy, fairness, and verification in their reporting—particularly in conflict zones like Jammu and Kashmir. The order noted that the coverage caused immense distress to the bereaved family, tarnished the reputation of the seminary, and inflamed religious sentiments within the local Muslim community.

The Station House Officer (SHO), Poonch Police Station, has been directed to register an FIR against the accused news networks and their editorial staff within seven days, and to submit a compliance and progress report to the court. The SHO has also been instructed to conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation, with a copy of the order being forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Poonch for supervisory monitoring.

Public outrage and CJP complaint

The misleading reportage drew widespread condemnation from the local community in Poonch, many of whom personally knew Qari Iqbal and described him as a humble and well-regarded religious educator. Protests erupted after the false broadcast, prompting a rare advisory from the J&K police warning news channels against “unverified and inflammatory” reporting that disrespects the dead and incites communal tension.

In a related development, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had also filed a detailed complaint with the broadcasting channels, on May 14, 2025, for broadcasting false and defamatory content during its coverage of Operation Sindoor. The complaint focused on News18’s segment aired on May 7, which falsely claimed that Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a religious scholar from Poonch, was a “top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander” killed in an Indian airstrike.

The broadcast, titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal | India-Pak War”, referred to Iqbal—who had no criminal record or militant ties—as a “most-wanted terrorist” allegedly neutralised during military operations. CJP called the segment a gross act of defamation and dangerous communal profiling, especially given that the deceased was in fact a civilian teacher who had died in cross-border shelling.

In its complaint, CJP submitted verifiable evidence contradicting the false narrative, including public clarifications by the Poonch police, testimony from Iqbal’s family, and fact-checks from independent media outlets. The organisation pointed out that Iqbal was a teacher at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom, a respected religious seminary in Jammu & Kashmir, and had no links to terrorism. His image, originally shared in a condolence message by the seminary’s administration, was misused by the channel in its coverage.

CJP cited the May 10, 2025 Alt News fact-check titled “His name was Qari Mohammad Iqbal. He was not a terrorist”, which established that the claims made by News18 were factually incorrect and defamatory. The fact-check also traced the image to social media tributes shared by family members, including Iqbal’s brother Qari Mohammad Farookh and brother-in-law Ishaq Khayan, who condemned the false reporting as a traumatic assault on the dignity of the deceased and his grieving family.

Calling the coverage an egregious example of Islamophobic misreporting, CJP demanded a formal on-air correction, public apology, and removal of the defamatory content from all digital platforms. The group noted that such broadcasts, made during a period of heightened Indo-Pak tensions, were not only unethical but posed serious risks to communal harmony, public order, and social trust.

CJP has also filed related complaints against five other national broadcasters—Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV—for airing outdated foreign footage, falsely depicting it as real-time coverage of Indian military action under Operation Sindoor, thereby spreading misinformation and manufacturing a war narrative. Detailed report of the same may be read here.

Related:

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Poonch Court orders FIR against Zee News, News18 for falsely labelling deceased teacher as “Pakistani terrorist” during Operation Sindoor coverage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since May 23, 2025 individuals declared to be Foreigners (Bangladeshi) (DFN) by the Foreigners Tribunals (FT), which are quasi-judicial bodies tasked with citizenship determination in Assam, have been arrested without any stated cause or any prior intimation and some of these individuals were pushed back into Bangladesh. This push back can more appropriately be defined as push out, as, none of the standard operating procedures related to deportation, like nationality status verification, had been carried out before these individuals were pushed out to Bangladeshi territory. Under these circumstances there was no obligation on part of Bangladesh to accept these people and resultantly these individuals were confined to the no man’s land between the two nations. This resulted in an absurd situation where individuals who had been arrested and pushed out have been, latter, found in Indian Territory. In one such case, Bakkar Ali vs. Union of India (UOI),  the Guwahati High Court (GHC) clearly stated that if the individual is again apprehended and sought to be deported, the proper procedure (is to) be followed in the process.

Few of the individuals who were pushed out had cases pending in the GHC and the Supreme Court (SC). Few of these individuals, according to the Chief Minister of Assam, were brought back through diplomatic dialogues with Bangladesh. Even more alarmingly, most of the individuals arrested and pushed out under this operation, had already been granted conditional bail by the Supreme Court orders dated May, 10, 2019 in WP(C) 1045/2018 -Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Vs. The Union of India and Ors and on April 15, 2020 passed in WP(C) (Suo Motu) 1/ 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. These orders granted conditional bail to DFNs who had spent more than either three or two years in detention centres. The government had not made any application or prayer, either in the GHC or the SC, relating to the cancellation of the bail granted. This was flagged by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, speaking for the division bench comprising Justice Malsari Nandi during the hearing in the Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI case, who stated:

‘You have not prayed before the court to recall all those orders granting bail. Once they are on bail, you will have to follow due process in order to take them into custody again. So somebody must have been overlooking this. Nobody thought that the order of a court needed to be cancelled or recalled before arresting them’.              

This observation by the division bench of Guwahati High Court clearly exposes the arbitrary and illegal nature of these arrests/detentions. At this point it is abundantly clear that the government can neither justify the arbitrary arrest of these individuals, as seen in Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI, nor can they justify the practice of push back, as seen in Bakkar Ali vs. UOI. Hence the actions of the Assam government in since May 23, clearly appear to be entirely unjustified and were carried out in disregard to the due process. Detailed coverage of recent proceedings in the Gauhati High Court may be read here.

2) Deportation not ‘Push-Back’

Despite these visible procedural lapses in the arrest, detention and push back of DFNs, the   Chief Minister, Himanta Biswas Sarma has strongly defended the actions of his government in his speech during the special session of the Assam legislative assembly held on June 9, 2025. These justifications were based on his interpretation of judgements/orders given by the Supreme Court. The first court directive, cited by the Chief Minister, was made through a (misreading) of the orders passed in the Rajubal Das vs. UOI case. Sarma stated: ‘There is pressure on the state government from the Supreme Court also to act on expulsion of foreigners.”

While this statement is technically true, it also important that look into the orders passed by the court in the Rajubala Das case.  In this case, the apex court criticised the central and Assam government’s inability to deport individuals declared to be foreigners. The court especially criticised the government for not deporting four individuals who had been held in detention centres for more than three years. This not only violated the Supreme Court orders referred to earlier, but also violated article 21 of the Indian constitution which protects the live and liberty of an individual from arbitrary state action. Similarly the court was also unhappy with delay in Nationality Status Verification of the detainees, as this is an essential step in the process of deportation. Hence, the court directed both the Assam and the central governments to speed up the process of nationality status verification so that these individuals could be deported. The court did not, in any way, ask the Assam government to push individuals into Bangladesh without nationality status verification, as any action like this would itself be a violation of article 21 as it would endanger the lives of the individuals being pushed back. Hence the Chief Minister’s justification of his government’s actions is based on a very narrow reading of the court’s orders. A detailed analysis of the orders in the Rajubala case undertaken by Citizens for Justice and Peace, may be read here.

3) Misreading the 6a Judgement

The Chief Minister also cited the judgement given by the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on the constitutional validity of section 6a of the Citizenship Act (1955). He stated:

The section 6a verdict affirms that the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950) (IEAA) remains valid and operative. This means that to expel foreigners the government need not go to the tribunals. The 1950 act says that if the DC (Deputy Commissioner) prima facie thinks someone is a foreigner, they can be evicted from the state of Assam’

Based on this, he surmised: ‘Now that the state is empowered to evict people under the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950), hence push back is normal’

While it is true that the IEAA allows the government to order the expulsion of certain immigrants from Assam and it is similarly true that the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the IEAA, the claims made by the Chief Minister are, fortunately, unjustified. To better understand the role of IEAA within the broader field of citizenship determination in Assam one needs to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the constitutional bench’s majority judgement, i.e. 368- 382. Within these paragraphs it becomes apparent that the petitioners had contended that IEAA, being an enactment specific to the immigrants in Assam, should apply to the exclusion of the Foreigners Act (1946). In essence, the contention of the petitioners was that only the provisions of the IEAA should apply to Assam, overriding the Foreigners Act and its subsequent orders.

This contention was rejected by the constitutional bench as it saw no conflict between the two statutes and held that both of them supplement and complement each other under the framework of section 6a. In simpler terms, according to the 6a judgement, even if an individual is charged under the provisions of IEAA they will still have to be presented in front of the Foreigners Tribunals where due process will be followed. Hence the Chief Minister’s claims that the state is empowered to evict people, without referring the cases to the Foreigners tribunals is entirely unfounded and also directly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s judgement.

Lastly, even if we accept the Assam government’s interpretation of the 6a judgement, it still would not justify the expulsion of individuals as they were already out on bail, as mentioned earlier. The actions of the Assam government since May 23, 2025 are full of procedural lapses and seem to be based on flawed interpretations of Supreme Court judgements/ orders. These oversights seem to be a result of the regime’s eagerness to expel DNFs, which may be admirable to many, but; the government should be wary of the fact that any negation of due process, irrespective of the cause, drains the public’s trust on institutions.

(The authors: Samik Roy Chowdhury is a PhD Scholar at the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, Nargis Choudhury, a PhD Scholar, The Assam Royal Global University and Gorky Chakraborty, an Associate Professor, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata)

Related:

SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order

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

Pushed Back, Let Down: How the state has let down the marginalised in Assam

The post Disregarding Due Process: Debunking the justification of push-outs in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.