What followed has only deepened that concern. Across campuses, students protesting the Supreme Court stay on UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 have faced intimidation, surveillance, violence, and criminal process. Instead of debate, there has been policing. Instead of institutional introspection, securitisation. And instead of engagement with the substance of caste discrimination, there has been an aggressive narrowing of what may even be spoken.

Together, these developments mark a dangerous convergence: the criminalisation of speech, the judicial suspension of equity safeguards, and the shrinking of democratic space within institutions meant to nurture critical thought.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

A judicial stay that did not calm campuses—but exposed a fault line

The immediate trigger for nationwide student mobilisation was the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the UGC Equity Regulations 2026, observing that the framework appeared “too sweeping” and required closer scrutiny. The stay was framed as a neutral act of caution. On campuses, it was experienced as something else entirely: a sudden withdrawal of long-awaited recognition.

As reported by India Today, students argued that the regulations were halted before they could even be tested. No implementation, no data, no demonstrated misuse—only a speculative fear that accountability mechanisms might be abused. The contrast was striking. In a legal system where far-reaching executive actions are often allowed to operate while constitutional challenges remain pending for years, a framework designed to protect marginalised students was frozen at inception.

The context matters. The 2026 regulations did not emerge in a vacuum. They were the product of years of litigation, including the long-pending petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom died by suicide after alleged caste-based harassment. Over time, the Supreme Court itself sought reports, monitored compliance, and pressed for reform. A Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewed the draft regulations in late 2025, recommending substantive changes—many of which were incorporated.

Yet, at the very first hearing after notification, the framework was stayed.

For students already navigating hostile campuses, the implication was stark: caste discrimination may be acknowledged rhetorically, but meaningful institutional safeguards remain deeply contested.

Campuses Respond: Different languages, the same demand for justice

The response to the stay has varied across universities, shaped by institutional histories and student politics. But taken together, protests at JNU, BHU, and Delhi University reveal a shared insistence that equity cannot remain a matter of administrative goodwill.

JNU: The defence of ideological space

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, students organised torchlight processions demanding immediate implementation of the regulations and renewed calls for a statutory Rohith Act—a central anti-discrimination law for higher education.

Placards and slogans opposing Brahmanism and Manusmriti dominated the march. Defending the language used, JNUSU representatives told PTI that the slogans were ideological critiques, not attacks on any caste group—an important distinction grounded in established free-speech jurisprudence. Political critique, even when sharp or unsettling, lies at the heart of constitutional democracy.

Student leaders also raised a pointed question: why was extraordinary urgency shown in staying these regulations when countless cases involving civil liberties remain pending for years? The warning from the campus was clear—if justice is indefinitely deferred within universities, it will not remain confined there.

UGC गाइडलाइन के समर्थन में जेएनयू स्टूडेंट्स का मार्च#JNU #UGCRegulations2026 pic.twitter.com/S9tlsULus0

— Dalit Dastak | दलित दस्तक (@DalitDastak) February 4, 2026

BHU: Evidence, reports, and institutional failure

At Banaras Hindu University, the protest took a different form. Hundreds of SC, ST, and OBC students marched carrying letters, official reports, and citations, demanding Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, transparency in grievance redressal, and public disclosure of compliance.

As reported by India Today, students cited the Thorat Committee Report (2007) and the IIT Delhi study (2019), both of which document systemic discrimination and its links to mental health crises, dropouts, and suicides. The emphasis here was not symbolic resistance but institutional accountability.

A heavy police presence and alert proctorial boards accompanied the march—an unsettling reminder of how quickly claims of discrimination are met with securitisation rather than reform.

Delhi University: From regulation to law

At Delhi University, Left-backed student groups led an “Equity March” through North Campus, framing the issue as a legislative and constitutional question. According to The Times of India, speakers argued that without statutory backing, grievance mechanisms remain fragile, easily diluted, and subject to withdrawal.

The demand for the Rohith Act surfaced repeatedly—reflecting a growing consensus that enforceable rights, not discretionary guidelines, are essential to address structural caste discrimination.

Violence, policing, and the price of naming caste

Even as students mobilised, reports of violence and intimidation surfaced from multiple campuses. As per reports, a BHU student allegedly being beaten by upper-caste peers for sharing a poster supporting the UGC protests in a WhatsApp group. At Allahabad University, students discussing equity regulations were reportedly attacked, with allegations pointing to ABVP-linked groups.

Most chilling was the Allahabad University episode itself: students allegedly assaulted, and one student arrested or warned for speech alone. If the use of the word “Brahminism”—a staple of academic critique—can invite police action, the boundary between maintaining order and enforcing ideological conformity has all but vanished.

For many protesters, these incidents crystallised the argument for equity regulations: without enforceable safeguards, marginalised students are left vulnerable not just to bureaucratic neglect, but to physical and legal harm.

चप्पा चप्पा गूंज उठेगा , जय भीम के नारों से pic.twitter.com/5eb3H59nXr

— Dr. Om Sudha (@dromsudhaa) February 4, 2026

This is shocking and absolutely unacceptable in university campuses. Students who were peacefully discussing equity regulations in University of Allahabad were reportedly beaten up by Brahmanical forces of ABVP. This is exactly why we need equity regulations. The safety of… pic.twitter.com/beFHX0xoSh

— Rehna Raveendran (@Rehna_AntiCaste) February 4, 2026

A BHU student was brutally beaten by upper-caste students simply for sharing a poster about the UGC protest in a WhatsApp group.

To stop this kind of hooliganism and violence on campuses, strong and enforceable UGC regulations are absolutely necessary.
pic.twitter.com/vUKPXjAjm1

— Harshita Narayani (@DearAspirant) February 4, 2026

Faculty Unease and the Limits of the Framework

Faculty responses have complicated the picture rather than resolved it. The JNUTA noted that the regulations fail to address the deep-rooted and systemic nature of discrimination. At protest gatherings, faculty speakers acknowledged these limitations—pointing to the absence of punitive provisions, excessive power vested in principals, and the exclusion of elite institutions like IITs and IIMs.

Yet the consensus among many educators was striking: even an imperfect framework represented a rare institutional acknowledgment that caste discrimination exists on campuses. To halt it before implementation was not correction—it was erasure.

Media silence, political quiet, and democratic erosion

A recurring concern across protests has been the muted response of large sections of the mainstream media and the conspicuous absence of sustained parliamentary debate. Students questioned how a nationwide mobilisation demanding discrimination-free campuses could unfold without political engagement at the highest levels.

When speech is criminalised, safeguards are stayed, and violence is normalised or ignored, trust in democratic institutions begins to fracture—not through apathy, but through lived experience.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

More Than a Regulation: A test of university democracy

As highlighted by the incidents above, the battle over the UGC Equity Regulations has outgrown the regulations themselves. It has become a test of whether universities will remain spaces of critique or instruments of control; whether caste can be named without punishment; and whether equality will be treated as a constitutional obligation or an administrative inconvenience.

When students are arrested for words, protections are suspended before they are tried, and dissent is met with force rather than reason, the crisis is no longer confined to campuses. It speaks to the health of the republic itself.

The question now confronting India’s universities is no longer about guidelines or committees. It is about whether democracy—messy, uncomfortable, and argumentative—still has a place in the classroom.

.Related:

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

Another Campus, Another Death: Student suicides continue unabated across India

My birth is my fatal accident, remembering Rohith Vemula’s last letter

‘Diluted Existing Rules’: Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi’s Mothers Slam UGC’s Draft Equity Regulations

The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised

The post Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Mumbai Police have registered an accidental death report (ADR) and initiated an inquiry, stating that it is too early to draw conclusions. As reported by Deccan Herald, Agarwal was officially residing in Hostel No. 3, but fell from the terrace of Hostel No. 4, raising questions about his movements in the hours leading up to his death. Police officials told the newspaper that his roommate and other students are being questioned, a panchnama of his room has been conducted, and the body has been sent for post-mortem examination. His family in Pilani, Rajasthan, has been informed.

A police officer quoted by The Indian Express said authorities were “conducting inquiries from all possible angles” and would not rule out any possibility at this stage. If evidence of abetment or coercion emerges, officials said further legal action would follow.

Student organisation APPSC (Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle) described Agarwal’s death as the second suicide at IIT Bombay in the last six months. The group explicitly linked the incident to a pattern of institutional failure, recalling earlier student deaths on the campus.

Naman Aggarwal died of suicide last night after jumping from Hostel-4. He was a second year Civil Engineering student and convenor of Style Up club in IIT-B. This is second death by suicide in IIT-B in six months. #IITkills pic.twitter.com/lqZp8fvVwu

— APPSC IIT Bombay (@AppscIITb) February 4, 2026

A spate of campus deaths in a matter of days

What makes Agarwal’s death especially alarming is that it occurred amid a cluster of student suicides reported across India within days, cutting across states, disciplines, and institutional hierarchies.

On January 31, Ronak Raj, a 19-year-old first-year engineering student at SVKM NMIMS Hyderabad’s Jadcherla campus, died by suicide in his hostel room. According to reports carried by India Today, the student had allegedly been accused by college authorities of cheating during semester examinations. Multiple reports stated that he appeared deeply distressed and humiliated following the accusation. The incident sparked student protests on campus, with student unions demanding accountability and transparency in disciplinary processes.

On February 4, a 19-year-old second-year nursing student, Bheeshmanjali, was found dead in her hostel room at a private college in Tirupati, according to information released by the Tirupati East Police and reported by DT Next. Police stated that she had remained alone in the hostel while her roommates attended classes. A case has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by her parents, and an investigation is underway.

Only days earlier, a 20-year-old third-year engineering student, Vishnavi Jitesh, was found hanging in her hostel room at the BITS Pilani Goa campus, as reported by The Indian Express. Police confirmed that this was the sixth suicide reported on the campus in the past two years. The growing number of deaths at the Goa campus was raised in the Goa Legislative Assembly during the winter session, where Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, as reported by The Indian Express, stated that academic pressure had emerged as a common factor in several cases. The Goa government subsequently constituted a district-level monitoring committee to examine the deaths. The committee’s preliminary findings referred to the possibility of “copy-cat suicides”, where one suicide triggers imitative behaviour within a closed institutional environment—a phenomenon well documented in suicide-prevention research.

National data confirms a worsening crisis

The recurrence of such deaths is supported by national data. As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2023, student suicides in India rose by 64% between 2013 and 2022, with 103,961 student suicides recorded over that decade. 

A report by the IC3 Institute, titled Student Suicides: An Epidemic Sweeping India, estimates that over 13,000 students die by suicide every year. The report warns that the actual numbers are likely underreported, due to stigma, institutional reluctance to report deaths accurately, and misclassification of suicides as accidental deaths.

State-wise NCRB data shows that Maharashtra reported the highest number of student suicides. In 2023, India reported 13,044 student suicides, or about 36 a day, with Maharashtra (2,578) and Tamil Nadu (1,982) having the highest number, followed by Madhya Pradesh (1,668). These states have the largest educational ecosystems, or competition for schools, outside of state-controlled educational ecosystems.  

Gender-disaggregated data presents another troubling trend. While male student suicides declined by 6% between 2021 and 2022, female student suicides increased by 7% in the same period, with women accounting for nearly 47% of all student suicides in 2022, according to NCRB figures.

Detailed report may be read here.

Policies on paper, protection absent on campus

India is not short of policy frameworks. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 decriminalised suicide. The National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 explicitly recognises suicide as a product of intersecting personal, academic, and social pressures, including humiliation, academic competition, transitions, and insensitive institutional cultures.

Yet the central problem lies in implementation. Many institutions may formally appoint counsellors, but the quality, accessibility, confidentiality, and suicide-prevention expertise of such services remain deeply uneven. Poorly trained or inadequately resourced counselling mechanisms, experts warn, can aggravate distress rather than mitigate it.

Supreme Court intervention—and institutional resistance

In a recent judgment of January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India had held higher educational institutions directly accountable for student mental well-being. Acting on the recommendations of a National Task Force chaired by former Justice Ravindra S. Bhat, the Court mandated:

• Mandatory reporting of all student suicides and unnatural deaths, irrespective of where they occur
• 24×7 access to medical care on or near residential campuses
• Protection of students from punitive measures due to scholarship delays
• Time-bound filling of vacant faculty positions, especially reserved posts
• Strengthening of Equal Opportunity Centres and Internal Complaints Committees

The Court was unequivocal in its assessment, observing that existing UGC and institutional guidelines remain “largely prescriptive and on paper”, with little enforcement or accountability.

Where is UMMEED when students die?

Despite the existence of a dedicated national framework on suicide prevention in educational spaces, the spate of recent student deaths raises serious questions about whether such measures exist anywhere beyond official documents. The UMMEED Guidelines— issued by the Union Government in 2023 as a comprehensive framework for mental health promotion and suicide prevention in educational institutions—were meant to institutionalise early identification, peer support, emergency response, and accountability mechanisms within campuses. Yet, the deaths at IIT Bombay, NMIMS Hyderabad, BITS Pilani Goa, Tirupati, and elsewhere demonstrate a stark disconnect between the guidelines’ stated objectives and campus realities.

UMMEED mandates the constitution of School or Institutional Wellness Teams, headed by the principal or head of the institution, tasked with identifying students at risk, coordinating responses, ensuring counselling access, and conducting periodic reviews. It also stresses the importance of safe campus design, supervision of vulnerable spaces, sensitivity training for staff, and the creation of non-punitive, non-stigmatising environments. However, in case after case, students continue to die in hostel rooms, terraces, and unsupervised spaces, suggesting that even the most basic preventive measures envisaged under UMMEED—such as surveillance of high-risk areas and timely intervention—are either absent or treated as mere formalities.

Crucially, UMMEED emphasises early identification of distress and immediate response, distinguishing between students showing warning signs and those actively at risk. Yet, recent incidents indicate that distress is often noticed only in hindsight—after allegations of cheating, academic humiliation, isolation, or prolonged silence have already taken a severe toll. The deaths of students who were reportedly distressed following disciplinary action or academic pressure directly undermine the claim that institutions are effectively identifying or responding to warning signs, as UMMEED requires.

The guidelines also stress sensitivity, confidentiality, and non-judgemental engagement, cautioning against actions that could shame or alienate students. This stands in sharp contrast to incidents where students were allegedly humiliated following accusations or subjected to rigid, unsympathetic administrative processes. The persistence of such practices highlights how disciplinary regimes often operate in direct contradiction to suicide-prevention frameworks, exposing students to precisely the kinds of stressors UMMEED warns against.

Perhaps most telling is UMMEED’s insistence on shared responsibility—placing obligations not just on counsellors, but on administrators, teachers, staff, and even peers. Yet, when deaths occur, responsibility is routinely diffused: police inquiries are initiated, institutions express regret, and investigations are framed as premature to conclude. What is conspicuously missing is any public accounting of whether UMMEED-mandated structures existed, whether they functioned, and if they failed, who is answerable.

In this sense, UMMEED mirrors a broader pattern in India’s mental-health governance: robust language without enforceability, ambition without accountability. Like UGC advisories and NEP mandates, it lacks clear statutory backing, monitoring mechanisms, or penalties for non-compliance. The result is a framework that allows institutions to claim compliance on paper while students continue to fall through the cracks—sometimes, quite literally.

Beyond condolences

Despite judicial directions, national policies, and repeated institutional assurances, students continue to die—often following episodes of humiliation, isolation, academic pressure, or silent distress.

The deaths of Naman Agarwal, Ronak Raj, Vishnavi Jitesh, Bheeshmanjali, and thousands of unnamed students across the country are not failures of individual resilience. They are failures of institutions that continue to privilege discipline over dignity, reputation over responsibility, and procedure over care.

As police inquiries continue and administrations issue carefully worded statements of regret, the most pressing question remains unanswered: how many more deaths will it take before existing safeguards are enforced—not merely cited—after another student is gone?

Related:

Lives in the Margins: Reading India’s suicide data beyond the numbers

KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide

Raman Garase’s suicide on May Day, 2024 is a sombre reminder of how badly IITs treat their labour

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

Another Dalit student dies by suicide after being attacked in Tamil Nadu, activists demand urgent action

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

The post Another Campus, Another Death: Student suicides continue unabated across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Is this euphoria justified when we look at the interests of Indian farmers and workers? Seen together with a much criticised 2026 Union Budget by Farmers Unions and organisations. India is likely to witness more rounds of nationwide protests.

One,details of the agreement are not yet available. It is only when the full scope and details of the trade deal are available, one can make a proper assessment.

However, the announcement made by the US President Donald Trump on his
social media accounts indicate that Indian goods imports will face a 18 per cent tariff, while India reduces tariffs and non-tariff barriers on US goods to zero.

What does this one-sided deal mean? Eliminating tariffs will or may result in the flooding the country with US goods which will adversely affect industries and workers’ livelihoods. Removal of non-tariff barriers would mean eliminating subsidies and other measures, which protect and support Indian farmers.

Moreover. Trump has claimed that India has agreed to stop buying Russian oil and committed to buy $500 billion worth of US energy, technology and farm products. This, if true, shows up the highly unequal nature of the trade deal with India in a subordinate position, circumscribing its sovereignty.

Farmers unions, analysts and experts are now demanding that the government place the full trade agreement in the Parliament and in the public domain, so that there is a thorough discussion. Any harmful provisions must be rescinded to protect the interests of Indian industry, agriculture and working people.

Sharp Criticism of 2026 Union Budget, Agriculture Finds No Presence in the Union Budget by the All India Kisan Sanghatana (AIKS). Questioning the absence of any proposals for loan waivers and sharply criticising the reduction in fertilizer subsidy by Rs.15679 crores, the AIKS has called upon farmers to burn copies of the anti-farmer, anti-federal budget on February 3 across the country*

In a press note issued, AIKS states that, the Union Budget 2026-27 fails yet again to present any commitment towards the strategic regeneration of agriculture- the most crucial livelihood sector for the Indian people. Agriculture was largely ignored by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, small and marginal farmers were mentioned just once, while there was a conspicuous absence of any mention of rural labour. The budgetary figures echo this neglect.

According to the Economic Survey presented this week by the Union government, the average growth rate of agriculture in 2025 saw a fall. The growth rate registered in the previous quarter was 3.5 per cent, against the decadal average growth rate of 4.45 per cent.

Crop production witnessed the most drastic fall. Given this context of stagnation in the agriculture sector, it was expected that the Union Budget 2026-27 will deliver some relief and momentum. However, the Budget disappoints once again.

The total budget allocated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare at about 1.40 Lakh Cr., is just a 5.3 per cent increase in nominal terms from the Revised Estimate 2025-26. Accounting for inflation, this implies that the real allocation to agriculture has not seen any substantial growth.

The Economic Survey also recognised that the yield rates of various crops including cereals, maize, soybean, and pulses continue to trail behind the global averages, making Indian production uneconomic.

However, according to the AIKS. The Budget fails in terms of providing any additional support to boost agriculture research and development.

Despite the Finance Minister mentioning enhancing agriculture productivity as a kartavya, the budgetary allocation to the Department of Agricultural Research and Education has been reduced from 10281 crores Revised Estimate (RE) 2025-26 to 9967 crores (BE 2026-27).

The rhetoric on investing in cash crops continued even in this year’s budget. The speech underlined a focus on coconut, cocoa, cashew, nuts, and sandalwood. However, in reality, missions such as Cotton Technology Mission, Mission on Pulses, Hybrid Seeds, and Makhana Board, introduced in the past, find no mention in the budgetary figures.

Talking of relief to farmers, the budget presents no remarkable proposal. The subsidy on fertilizers has seen a reduction from 186460 crores (RE 2025-26) to 170781 crores (BE 2025-26). Food subsidy has also seen a reduction from the revised estimates of previous year.

There was no mention of the MGNREGS scheme or even the newly passed VB-GRamG scheme in the budget speech, which indicates the total dismissal of the significance of rural employment.

VB-GRamG scheme has been allocated 95692 crores; however, this allocation is subject to the clause of 40 per cent mandatory state funding. 60 percent of the allocated budget under VBGRamG is 57,415 crores, which is drastically less than the 88000 crores allocated to MGNREGS under RE 2025-26. This means for the new scheme to function at the previous level, State governments have to bear the burden of 38,277 crores!

As per the economic review 2025-26, the number of states with surplus has been reduced from 19 in 2018-19 to 11 in 2023-24. The states are demanding 50% share of the divisible pool but the 16th Finance Commission has proposed 41% only. The state governments without financial autonomy will not be able to find adequate funds to support the employment guarantee scheme and even the average 47 days of employment under MGNREGS will not be available for the rural people this year under VB GRAMG Act. It is a gross assault on the rural workers and peasants as well as violation of the federal rights. This is not acceptable to the peasantry.

AIKS: The only major announcement concerning rural employment was the Mahatma Gandhi Gram Swaraj Yojana, promoting village industries; however, no significant financial allocations were made.

Among the Agriculture and Allied sectors, the only significant budgetary allocation has been made under Animal Husbandry and Dairying, from 5303 crores (RE 2025-26) to 6135 crores (BE 2026-27). However, here again the thrust has been on expansion of credit-infused veterinary hospitals, breeding in the private sector and garnering foreign investments.

The AIKS has called upon the farmers, rural workers and the people at large to strongly protest against the anti-farmer, anti-worker, anti-federal budget by burning copies in villages and tehsils on February 3, 2026 or any subsequent day. AIKS also appeals to all to ensure the General Strike on February 12 will be a great success and will reflect the anger against the anti-people Union Budget 2026-27.

Related:

As heat waves intensify in India, some inspiring examples of how small budget efforts conserve water, big time

ASHA Union Demands Hike in NHM Funds in Union Budget 2025, Social Security Benefits

Thousands of NREGA workers urge Modi to resume work in West Bengal, contribute to State Budget

The post Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Struggles such as these deserve wider attention also because of the highly inspirational leaders who led some of these struggles but whose stories have not been adequately told. Apart from Govind Guru from Rajasthan, one of the most inspiring and courageous such leaders was Sridev Suman. A follower of Mahatma Gandhi, in normal times Suman attracted many people with his pleasing personality and soft manners. He was also a poet and a writer. However, when cruel repression was unleashed, he revealed the amazing strength of his commitments by refusing to compromise despite facing brutal torture and sacrificing his life in jail at a very young age (29 years).

Suman attained martyrdom in the very courageous struggles against exploitation and for freedom in the distant Himalayan kingdom of Tehri. There are several other highly courageous chapters of the freedom struggle of Tehri.

Soon after independence, Sunderlal Bahuguna had edited a small book on these various struggles of Tehri, which was published by Satya Prasad Raturi who as a teacher had played a role in mobilizing students during the freedom movement days. Most people know Sunderlal mainly for chipko and environment activism, but he was also a freedom fighter and follower (perhaps it is better to say worshipper) of Suman. After independence he was in a leadership role and with his strong inclination for writing about movements and struggles, planned this book titled Baagi Tehri (Rebel Tehri) on the struggles of the freedom movement in Tehri (including various struggles against exploitation). The essays and memoirs included in this book can be trusted for their authenticity as these were written soon after the events by those who were leading participants in these struggles or who were well informed on these issues.

This book was first published in 1948 but had not been available in recent years. After the passing away of Sunderlal Bahuguna, his daughter Madhu Pathak started searching for this book and finally found this with the help of two members of the family of the original publisher—Urmila and Prerna. Encouraged by her mother Vimla, Madhu started making efforts for the re-publication of this book with some additions. Thus in its new form, this book has been published by a leading publisher of Dehradun Samaya Sakshaya very recently in 2026 under the same title but by adding significant portions from the diary of Sunderlal Bahuguna written during those times. This has added further to the value of this book, as Sunderlal was a direct participant in some of the events of these struggles. For those interested in his early life also, these pages of his diary will be useful and interesting. Not many people know that following his participation in early struggles of Tehri and an early jail sentence at a very young age, to escape a second imprisonment he escaped to Lahore where he tried to study further by concealing his real identity. However, the police caught up with him and he had to flee again, finding safety in a village for some time. Some of these episodes I have also related in my biographies of Vimla and Sunderlal Bahuguna.

This book tells us about several important struggles such as Saklana’s struggle against exploitation and the farmers’ movement of Dang Chaura. These reports have tales of the greatest courage in very difficult and adverse circumstances. These should be more widely known and this book in its new form makes an important contribution to taking these stories to many more readers including young readers of a new generation.

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine, A Day in 2071 and Guardians of the Himalayas—Vimla and Sunderlal Bahuguna.

Related:

Light a lamp of hope in 2026

Strengthening indigenous communities means protection of the environment 

The post Hidden Histories: A rare memory of the struggle for freedom in a Himalayan kingdom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The chief minister had held a meeting with the CEC today in Delhi over the issue of deleted names from draft electoral rolls during ongoing special intensive revision (SIR). She was accompanied by Trinamool Congress MPs and 12 voters from West Bengal – five of whom were declared dead and had their names deleted from the rolls. The delegation, including Banerjee, wore black shawls on as a mark of protest.

In November, she had asked the CEC to halt the SIR in the poll-bound state, claiming that the BLOs had not been provided adequate training, support or time.

“I have been involved in Delhi’s politics for a long period of time…But I have never seen such an Election Commissioner. He is extremely arrogant. He is a great liar. I said that I respect your chair. I said that no chair is permanent for anyone. One day, you too will have to go. Don’t create this precedent,” she said, addressing the media after the meeting.

She claimed that the EC was using artificial intelligence (AI) to remove names from the list and that was the reason behind the discrepancies. She also claimed that “only Bengalis” were being targeted.

Here are five things she said while speaking to the media:

1. ‘Why Bengalis?’

“Why are only Bengalis being targeted? In a democracy, elections are a festival,” Banerjee asked, claiming that 58 lakh voters had been removed from the rolls without being given a chance to defend themselves.

She further questioned why the SIR exercise was not being conducted in BJP-ruled states and was limited to opposition-ruled West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. She said her party did not oppose SIR in principle, but it should not have been carried out in the hurried manner as it is being conducted.

“SIR didn’t happen in Assam since there is a BJP government. You didn’t carry out SIR in the north-eastern states. SIR happened in Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. In BJP-ruled states, you will get the time to put everyone’s name on the voter list,” she said, alleging more mismatches and mismapping in the opposition states.

2. ‘Using AI’

The chief minister alleged that it was not the EC handling the revision but BJP IT cell, who were “using AI” to delete names from the rolls.

“Who is doing this using AI? It is nobody from the EC. It is being done by the BJP IT cell. Even when a murderer doesn’t get a lawyer and pleads to the judiciary to defend himself, he is allowed to do so. But, you removed 58 lakh voters in the very beginning through Seema Khanna (EC’s IT expert) and the use of AI,” she said.

She highlighted that in several cases of deleted names, the issue was that the English surname did not match with the Bengali surname.

“I write Mamata Banerjee in English. However, in Bengali, I write Mamata Bandhopadhyay. Chatterjee in English is Chattopadhyay in Bengali. In this way, it [the ECI] has removed all the names that it could not understand [as being the same],” she said.

“It is fine that duplicate voters have been removed. We also highlighted duplicate cases last year. That should have been rectified, and the names of genuine voters should have stayed,” she said.

3. Minorities affected, elderly hassled; BLOs died

She added that this was affecting women who have changed their surname after marriage, the young generation and minorities, including Muslims, SCs and STs.

Banerjee questioned why the documents listed for verification were not being allowed for SIR in Bengal. “In every state, domicile certificates, land certificates, Aadhaar cards, land records, and matriculation certificates are allowed. None of these documents are recognised in Bengal for the SIR process. People in Bengal are carrying trunks full of documents, yet they are put into the ‘not found’ category in terms of evidence,” she said.

She also raised the issue of elderly harassment, pointing out that the elderly people were “being taken to the hearing venue in ambulances”, “made to wait futilely for 8-10 hours before they are sent back”.

She also pointed out that institutional delivery was rare earlier that many people are unable to retrieve their parent’s birth certificates, etc.

“Ask your PM if he has his parents’ birth certificates. Could Atal ji have been able to provide his birth certificate had he been alive today? Ask Advani ji if he can provide the dates of birth of his parents,” she said, calling the SIR process “totally undemocratic and unparliamentary”

Raising the issue of BLO suicides, the chief minister claimed that the BLOs died as they were “threatened and terrified” by the officers.

Banerjee has previously also criticised the situation in which BLOs across West Bengal were reportedly working. Many have alleged they are being forced to distribute hundreds of forms daily, then digitally upload them despite repeated server failures and poor technical infrastructure.

4. ‘Will face consequences like Dhankhar’

Banerjee told the media that she told CEC Kumar that he will “also face consequences like Dhankhar”, for “working at the behest of the BJP”.

Notably, before becoming the vice president, Jagdeep Dhankhar, as West Bengal’s governor, was often embroiled in public spats with Banerjee and the TMC.

“You are not doing inclusion; you are doing deletion. After removing 58 lakh voters, you have planned to remove another 1.4 crore voters. That means you have put 2 crore voters under the mismatch and mismap category,” she alleged.

5.’Boycotting CEC, not elections’

The chief minister said that the party has “boycotted” Kumar because he “insulted and humiliated” them. She also alleged that the CEC did not respond to her letters, and also went against the Supreme Court judgement.

However, she said she will not “commit the mistake” of boycotting the elections.

“We will not boycott the elections. We will not commit this mistake. We will fight and win. They have captured our administration for the last six months. They are not letting us do any work. It’s just like President’s Rule. Bengal is being targeted. Till he [the CEC] is sitting on that chair, he is going to be a threat to the country.”

“My allegation is against only one person. I respect the chair. I said that I have faith in him, and that is why we came. But he is not ready to listen. He does whatever the BJP instructs him to do.”

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Five Things Mamata Banerjee Said After Meeting CEC Over SIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Page 6 of the Delhi edition of the Express, a blink-and-miss single column had the headline: “MEA dismisses Epstein email with PM reference as ‘trashy rumination’”.

The report below said: “The Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday rejected any suggestion of impropriety after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name surfaced in a reference contained in newly-released US Justice Department files linked to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.”

Although I described the Express as an “early bird” in uploading its E-paper, I was a Late Latif as I was on a train the previous day and I could not access any news because of the patchy data link. When I woke up on Sunday, I had only a vague idea that Prime Minister Modi had been allegedly named.

I was expecting The Indian Express to share with me — a paid subscriber like many others — information on the issue. But try as I might, I could not spot anywhere in the Express report what the email said about Modi. The Express used coded phrases such as “reference” and “claims” without explaining what they were.

A little later, The Times of India dropped. The story was tucked away in one of the Siberian pages but with no enlightenment on what exactly the email allegedly said.

Then it was Mathrubhumi’s turn, which, mercifully, mentioned the details but added at the end that the BJP had alleged that the mail had been “edited”. That landed me in a quandary: if the email is edited as the BJP has claimed, how can I rely on the details the paper mentioned?

An option then was to check what the government is saying. I went to the External Affairs ministry site and saw its statement: “We have seen reports of an email message from the so-called Epstein files that has a reference to the Prime Minister and his visit to Israel. Beyond the fact of the Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt.” (For the kind attention of the Express reporter and desk: the MEA says “trashy ruminations” but your headline and copy say “rumination” unless the ministry said so first and made it plural later.)

The ministry’s statement was colourful but did not offer any insight into what the email said. Back to square one.

Surfing the E-papers of The Indian Express and The Times of India (both are behind paywalls), I learnt about the alleged sex life and medical history of Bill Gates and the dexterity of Prince Andrew on all fours on the floor but I still could not figure out what the email said about my Prime Minister. NDTV did not hold back in its headline: “Ex-Prince Andrew Seen On All Fours Over Woman In Fresh Epstein File Images”.

Then The Hindu came through, and it had the quote that matched what Mathrubhumi said. A while later, The Telegraph also reported the quote that matched what The Hindu reported.

For the record, on July 6, 2017, Epstein allegedly sent an email to a contact in Qatar describing Modi’s recent visit to Israel. Reproduced verbatim from the website of the US Department of Justice, Epstein’s alleged email reads: “The Indian Prime minisiter modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED.!”

Is this how Indian citizens are expected to find out information about their Prime Minister?

Below is a quick wrap-up of how some newspapers covered the issue and my thoughts as a former editor. (I have kept out party mouthpieces.) The phrase “Journalism of cower-age” is not my coinage. The credit goes to a clever social media user.

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 6

Size: Single column

Position: Middle of the page

Relative prominence: Smallest single column on the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” and “certain claims” but does not share with the reader what the “reference” or “certain claims” are.

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 12) has a big splash on the latest Epstein “document dump”, full with pictures and other details. The alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given pride of place in the roster. The after-party that Mira Nair (the headline helpfully gives the detail that she is the “mother of NYC mayor Mamdani” as if he decides which party his mother attends) allegedly went to has a separate story on the page.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9/10

THE TIMES OF INDIA

Edition: Delhi

Page number: 18

Size: Single column

Position: Top of page

Relative prominence: Top but small single column

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” to Modi and his visit to Israel, under the headline, “Govt trashes ‘Epstein files’ email on Modi”. How The Times of India missed a chance to say “Govt trashes ‘trashy’ Epstein ’email’ is a mystery.”

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? Ha, ha, ha. Not at all. The Times of India has a Page 1 bylined article, datelined Washington, on the Epstein files but the report focuses on Gates and others (under the headline, “New Epstein files claim Bill Gates caught STD from ‘Russian girls’,” and studiously avoids Modi. The same article continues (again bylined) as the lead story in the Global page (Page number 26) under the headline “Epstein emails have 100s of references to Trump, likely to shake up US politics”. Evidently, the Indian newspaper is more worried about US domestic politics. The paper has a chart on Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Steve Tisch but not on the purported content of the email referring to “modi”. The paper lists the granular references against “political and business elites” in spite of mentioning in the very first paragraph of the Page 1 report that some of the references are “lurid and unsubstantiated”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9.5/10

THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: 0 (Could not readily find the report but I did not check the sports page)

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 9) has the following as the main headline: “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump, newly-released files reveal”. Gates gets top billing here too.

TELLING CLUE: The newspaper has a very important piece of news on Page 8: “Newspaper reading made mandatory for students in 800 skill centres in UP”. The eagerness to protect students from the “trashy rumination by a convicted criminal” (the Indian foreign ministry’s description of the alleged Epstein entry on the PM) must have made the newspaper drop the report. If so, a question pops up: shouldn’t the students be protected from such details as “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump”?

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 10/10

THE TELEGRAPH

Edition: Calcutta

PM-Epstein report: Page 2

Size: Three columns

Position: Second deck

Relative prominence: Prominent but for some reason, the alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given top-of-the-page play than the purported reference to the PM, Trump and Israel.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The report quotes verbatim from the purported Epstein file, under the headline “Centre rubbishes Modi mention in mail”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 5/10

THE HINDU

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Long double column

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Prominent but shoved down the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The Hindu has carried the longest and fairly comprehensive report on the issue, compared with the other newspapers I saw.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 4.5/10

MALAYALA MANORAMA

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Three columns

Position: Top of the page

Relative prominence: Prominent but light font headline, blue background and colourful standalone picture below overshadow the report. But the newspaper is the only one I saw that says in the headline the news first and then the reaction: “Epstein file has a Modi reference; Centre dismissive”.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. It is mentioned clearly

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6/10

MATHRUBHUMI

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Five columns

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Somewhat prominent because of the double-deck headline in red.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes, it is mentioned clearly. But the headline is a bit confusing. The headline says “Epstein files: Centre denies allegation that Modi’s name is mentioned”. As far as I can understand from the statement of the external affairs ministry, it has not explicitly denied that Modi is mentioned in the email (neither has it confirmed but chooses the double-edged phrase “so-called Epstein files”. What the ministry has denied is the veracity of parts of the claims in the email, as far as I can understand.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6.5/10

WHAT AN EDITOR SHOULD DO (According to me)

To be sure, Epstein is a jerk whose claims should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. But a newspaper cannot dismiss any information without trying to verify it.

A newspaper’s principal role is to inform its readers. An editor has the final say on which news to carry and where to carry it but they have no business spiking any information concerning the Prime Minister or any elected representative or public figure if it involves public interest.

If an editor is not sure of the authenticity and is unable to verify it, they should see if the information is free of filthy language and indecent comments. If so, the editor should share it with the reader with an admission that the authenticity could not be verified. Even if the information has bad language, it should either be paraphrased or the nature of the information made clear and then published if it involves public interest. India’s foreign policy definitely involves public interest. Also, if the information turns out to be false later, it can be displayed prominently. Public figures always get a second chance. In any case, the newspaper is not levelling the allegation but merely reporting what has been released in another country under intense public pressure, survivor advocacy and binding legislation.

As a measure of extreme caution, the editor can get the information vetted to see if some of the specifics could be verified. From Epstein’s mail, the first question that pops up is: did Modi visit Israel around the time the purported email was said to have been sent? In short, did Modi visit Israel around July 6, 2017? Yes, Modi did visit Israel from July 4 to 6, 2017. This is what the Ministry of External Affairs had said on July 05, 2017: “Marking the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India visited Israel from 4-6 July 2017 at the invitation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. This historic first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel solidified the enduring friendship between their peoples and raised the bilateral relationship to that of a strategic partnership.”

Second question: After referring to Modi and the US President, the purported email says “they had met a few weeks ago”. Did Modi and Trump meet a few weeks before? Yes. On June 21, 2017, Brookings, the US-based think tank, had announced: “Three years into his term, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit two countries with which India has close partnerships. He will return to Washington on June 25-26, this time for his inaugural meeting with President Trump. Following that, he will travel to Israel on July 5-6 for the first-ever visit by an Indian premier. For Israel, the growing relationship with India is part of a wide-ranging effort to deepen its relationship with major Asian powers including India, China, and Japan. On June 21, The India Project and the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings hosted an event, with one panel each focused on India’s relationship with the United States and Israel.” In focus during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. was his establishment of a personal equation with U.S. President Donald Trump, the Hindu Net desk reported on June 27, 2017.

Third and million-dollar question: Did Modi dance and sing in Israel? We don’t know. We don’t even know if the email writer used the phrase figuratively or literally. What we know is that Modi and Netanyahu hit it off very well. This is what NDTV reported — rich in details of statecraft — on July 6, 2017: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu today took a stroll on the beach, their natural warmth and chemistry on full display. The two prime ministers hitched up their trousers and waded barefoot into the surf together at Olga beach in northern Israel. They had gone to the beach to see a demonstration of a mobile water desalination unit. Later, they drove together in the mobile water desalination unit — which looked like a dune buggy – and were seen sipping samples of water from wine glasses, even raising a toast.” Most readers are certain to remember the beach pictures so vividly described in the NDTV report. (This was five years before the Adanis gained control of NDTV.)

With the information available so far and the subsequent as well as persistent claims by Trump and the silence by Modi, an editor has only one option: the information must be published but without being judgemental and without casting aspersions on the Prime Minister or how his foreign policy is conducted. The responsibility of the media to inform the public assumes paramount importance here. Besides, withholding information can sometimes harm the person or organisation a newspaper could be seeking to protect. In the absence of clarity, readers may speculate and imagine the worst possible scenarios that are far more damaging than what may have actually taken place. Maximum transparency possible, provided the information does not affect public order or harm national security and is within the limits of decency, is always the best policy.

Then the editor faces a big question: Should the purported claims of a beast like Epstein be published? The answer does not lie in the character of Epstein but in the question why Epstein mentioned Modi. Then other purported mails come into play, including those involving Anil Ambani. Then comes the very BIG question: Were the Indians dealing with Epstein even after his atrocities were known? The Wire reports: “The most significant communications occurred in May 2019 – barely six weeks before Epstein’s arrest on federal charges of trafficking underage girls – as India’s general election results were being counted.” Considering these details, my answer is: Yes, the purported contents of the email must be published.

The next question is how to play it. Almost every newspaper, except a party mouthpiece, I saw wrote the story as a denial. None of the reports began with the news: that the Prime Minister’s name figured in the purported mail and what the mail said. Most news reports chose to begin with the denial, regardless of the fact that they had not reported the email content earlier. Some editors try to justify this by saying TV has already shown the news and the print wants to take it forward. Then why do reports on the speeches of Modi and Amit Shah attacking the Opposition (which are shown ad nauseam on TV) begin with the same attack in the newspapers the next day and not with the Opposition’s reaction? The uniform manner in which most newspapers have begun the story with the external affairs ministry’s denial raises the question whether it was choreographed or whether the default response from the media now is to highlight the official response.

Of course, Epstein was among the worst scum on earth, whose utterances have no ring of credibility — a factor that must have influenced the decision of the editors who decided to bury the news. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Why, then, did some of these newspapers publish Epstein’s claims against Gates and others in detail and prominently in spite of them issuing denials? Why didn’t these newspapers begin the story with Gates’s denial, instead of Epstein’s lurid claims?

Of course, editors can and should decide what they should highlight in a story. The Wire led with the Ambani angle, which is of far greater significance and which ties into the Modi reference. In a brilliant report by Devirupa Mitra and with the headline “Epstein Messages Reveal Anil Ambani Using Sex Offender’s Access to Pitch Modi’s Agenda With Trump”, The Wire nails it. The Wire also reported that “Newly released email exchanges between Bharatiya Janata Party leader Hardeep Puri and Jeffrey Epstein – though confined to business networking and investment discussions – cast doubt on the BJP’s earlier claim that Puri’s appearance in a message from Epstein amounted to little more than casual “name-dropping”. I could not readily see this information in the legacy newspapers I buy. AND THE WIRE IS FREE, UNLIKE THE LUMBERING LEGACY GIANTS WHO CHARGE MONEY BUT WITHHOLDS INFORMATION OR UNDERPLAYS IT. The point is: highlight what you want but do not begin with a denial and do report the full information as long as it is printable.

On the question of placement in newspapers, was this not a blind Page 1 report? How am I affected if “Bill Gates caught STD” or not? Should I not be bothered more about India’s foreign policy than Gates’s alleged medical affliction? Let alone Page 1, the Modi reference report has not made the main slot even in inside pages in the English legacy newspapers I buy. Hindustan Times has a Page 1 mention in a small box at the bottom of the page but that too focuses on the government denial.

The British press can be accused of many things. But when it comes to accountability, the British papers sometimes do what needs to be done. I leave you with the front pages of three “quality”, not tabloid, British newspapers although the revelations involving the former prince are not comparable with the entries linked to Indians so far.

Author’s Note: Epstein’s alleged email has spelling mistakes and, like many rich people, he did not believe in capital letters. I have reproduced the quote exactly as it appears on the US DoJ site.

About Author

Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post When Some Titans Of Indian Media Crawled On All Fours, Like Ex-Prince Andrew, To Cover Up Or Bury The Indian Links in Epstein Files appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This was the thirteenth occasion on which the petitions have been listed before the Supreme Court. The proceedings arise from a group of writ petitions pending since 2020, raising substantial constitutional questions concerning the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality, and the extent of State power to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, Advocate Srishti Agnihotri and Advocate Sanjana Thomas are representing CJP, the first and lead petitioner in the case.

Origin and expansion of the challenge

The challenge was first initiated in January 2020, when the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions questioning the constitutional validity of laws enacted by certain States to regulate religious conversion. These early petitions focused on statutes in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.

Over time, similar laws were enacted in additional States. In 2023, the Supreme Court permitted Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)—the lead petitioner in the batch—to amend its writ petition to bring within the scope of the proceedings comparable statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. As a result, the present batch now concerns nine State enactments, each styled as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” law.

The petitions contend that although framed as measures to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, the impugned statutes impose criminal, procedural, and administrative burdens on the exercise of individual choice in matters of faith and marriage.

Hearing of April 16, 2025: Applications for early hearing and interim relief

A significant procedural development occurred on April 16, 2025, when the Supreme Court heard applications filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace seeking (i) an early hearing of the long-pending petitions and (ii) interim relief in light of continued enforcement of the impugned laws.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The applications were filed against the backdrop of the ongoing operation of the anti-conversion statutes across several States and subsequent legislative amendments, including amendments enhancing penalties and expanding the scope of offences.

Appearing for CJP, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that the interim applications were necessitated by the manner in which the laws were being implemented on the ground. It was urged that certain provisions—particularly those relating to prior declarations before conversion, criminalisation of conversion associated with marriage, third-party complaints, and reversal of burden of proof—were resulting in repeated invocation of penal provisions against consenting adults. Singh requested the Court to issue notice on the interim relief application and to stay the operation of the most consequential provisions pending final adjudication.

On behalf of the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested the submission that there were instances of misuse warranting interim relief. In response, the Bench directed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to examine the applications and indicate the Union’s position on the various prayers raised therein, including identifying aspects that may not be opposed.

The Court further directed that States and non-applicants file responses to the interim applications, even in the absence of a formal notice, with a view to ensuring that pleadings are completed expeditiously. The matter was directed to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day, signalling the Court’s intent to take up the applications in a substantive manner.

Details of the proceedings may be read here.

Proceedings of September 16, 2025: Directions on pleadings and de-tagging

The batch of petitions, along with the pending interlocutory applications, came up for consideration on September 16, 2025, before a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

At this stage, the Court directed nine respondent States—Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—to file detailed responses to the applications seeking interim stay of their respective statutes.

The Court granted four weeks’ time to the States to file affidavits in reply and indicated that the matter would be taken up for consideration of interim relief after completion of pleadings. To facilitate the preparation of common compilations and streamline submissions, the Court appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the respondents.

During the same hearing, the Court considered a separate Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. The Bench clarified that the subject matter of that petition was distinct from the constitutional challenge to existing State enactments and accordingly de-tagged the Upadhyay petition from the present batch.

Detailed proceedings may be read here.

Nature of the impugned statutes

Across the nine States, the impugned laws generally contain provisions that regulate religious conversion through a combination of prior declarations, criminal penalties, and procedural presumptions. The petitioners have argued that these provisions, taken together, create a legal regime in which conversion is treated as inherently suspect, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

A central feature of many of the statutes is the requirement that a person intending to convert must give prior notice to a District Magistrate or other designated authority. In several States, this declaration is followed by a police inquiry or verification process, and in some cases, the declaration is required to be publicly displayed. The petitions argue that such requirements subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to prior executive approval, thereby altering the constitutional relationship between the individual and the State.

Another significant feature is the manner in which conversion associated with marriage is addressed. Several statutes presume that conversion undertaken for the purpose of marriage is suspect and may amount to conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. According to the petitioners, this effectively places consensual interfaith marriages under criminal scrutiny, even in the absence of any allegation by the individuals concerned.

The statutes also commonly permit persons other than the allegedly aggrieved individual to lodge complaints, thereby enabling third-party intervention in private relationships. In addition, many of the laws reverse the burden of proof, requiring the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary, and impose stringent bail conditions that can result in prolonged incarceration.

During the course of the hearings, CJP (petitioners) drew the Court’s attention to legislative amendments and judicial developments relating to individual State statutes.

Particular reference was made to amendments introduced by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2024 to its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. It was submitted that these amendments enhanced the penal consequences under the statute, including the introduction of minimum sentences extending to long terms of imprisonment and the imposition of bail conditions similar to those found in special statutes. It was also pointed out that the amendments expanded the category of persons who may lodge complaints under the Act.

The petitioners (CJP) also relied on interim orders passed by High Courts in challenges to similar laws. The Gujarat High Court has stayed the operation of certain provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act on the ground that they impinge upon the right of consenting adults to marry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed provisions requiring prior declaration to the District Magistrate. Appeals against these interim orders are presently pending before the Supreme Court.

Related proceedings and de-tagging of a connected petition

During the September 16, 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court also addressed the status of a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for the enactment of a central law regulating religious conversions. The Court directed that this petition be de-tagged from the present batch, observing that its subject matter was distinct from the challenge to the constitutional validity of existing State enactments.

Submissions on personal liberty and gender concerns

In addition to CJP, several interveners have placed submissions on record. The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) has raised concerns regarding the impact of these laws on women’s autonomy, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships. It has been contended that the statutory framework tends to treat adult women as lacking agency in matters of choice, thereby inviting State and familial intervention.

Position as of the latest listing

As of the listing on January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet heard arguments on the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief, nor has it commenced final hearing on the constitutional validity of the impugned statutes. The matter now stands listed for February 3, 2026.

The outcome of the forthcoming proceedings will determine whether interim directions are issued pending final adjudication of questions that bear on the interpretation of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, and on the extent to which the State may regulate religious conversion without infringing upon personal liberty and freedom of conscience.

Below is a table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, which provides the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

Unpacking ‘Love Jihad’ and Caste Purity

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

Join the fight against the love jihad laws

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms

The post Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His tragic death has been widely mourned but it should also lead to soul searching beyond improving VIP travel modes. They get all the attention, they choose to spend huge amounts chartering aircraft even when there is no urgency for travel, they build airports in their areas leaving State bus transport in a shambles, the bus stations are dirty, basic amenities are lacking.

Similar neglect of a train travel long distance as well travel in urban areas. In Mumbai 3,000 people fall from overcrowded trains each year, three days before Ajit Pawar’s death, a college lecturer was murdered in a local train in Mumbai due to tension caused by overcrowding.

On roads in the country over 100,000 are killed in crashes, many more are injured every year and the numbers keep rising. But there is little media attention, little discussion on TV channels which spend hours on deaths of people like Ajit Pawar or when there was the Indigo air disruption. Far more disruption is caused to millions on a daily basis to ordinary people which never gets the focus.

Our ecosystem now exists largely to serve political, corporate and VVIP clients — an ecosystem where aircraft are booked at short notice, routes change rapidly and operators compete to provide speed and reliability. This demand structure means aircraft are often flying multiple sectors in a single day, crews are working tight rotations, and planning windows are compressed. While none of this automatically implies unsafe operations, it creates an environment where margins are thinner and the system relies heavily on strict procedural discipline to compensate for Even during investigations into the Baramati crash, VSR aircraft were used to ferry politicians for funeral-related travel, underscoring the company’s continued role in high-profile political transport, points out Shreedhar Rathi, aviation writer.

Santosh Desai said in response to the Indigo, disruption, mismanagement. When airports were being built and modernised in the 1990s and 2000s, railway stations were also there, also serving millions. The choice to pour resources into airport infrastructure while leaving railway infrastructure as it was did not arise from abstract economic reasoning. It reflected a clear judgment about whose comfort mattered, whose complaints would be heard and which spaces needed to perform India’s modernity to the world.

Even when stations are redesigned, the aesthetic choices tell their own story. They gain glass facades, retail units and food courts. They are remade to resemble consumption spaces rather than transportation hubs.

What is being modernised is not only travel but the traveller. The aim is to turn them into a new category of person, someone who buys a latte, a fancy coffee cup, rather than someone who sits on a platform eating from a tiffin. It is a prefab vision of modernity often unconcerned with what railway users actually need.

When passengers complained that airports looked like railway stations, they were not merely pointing out operational failures. They were confronting the fear of category collapse, the discovery that their status as air travellers rested on fragile foundations and that a system breakdown could render them ordinary again. They had paid for elevation but found themselves in conditions they recognised from the category they believed they had left behind. Without the confirming architecture, they became just people in a crowded building, shouting to be heard.

When IndiGo flight cancellations caused massive chaos, newsrooms called in panels to discuss the ‘crisis’. But delays on trains, including the Rajdhani whose fares now match those of a budget flight, feels ‘normal’. Over 23 million people take trains every day, which is 51 times the number of air passengers, and an estimated 20% of long-distance trains experience delays of several hours.

Passengers inconvenienced by the flight crisis were described as the ‘stranded middle class’, officially numbering 4.5 lakh daily flyers according to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. But what about the beedi-roller in Bihar rushing to a clinic or the daily wage worker from Patna standing for 12 hours in a general compartment? As the sociologist, Ashis Nandy, points out in The Intimate Enemy, the post-colonial elite’s sense of time favours the clock of capital over the rhythms of the struggling classes. This makes waiting seem like a normal part of life for the impoverished.

daily wage worker from Patna standing for 12 hours in a general compartment, pointed out Ankita Jain in an article in the Telegraph earlier this month.

Ajit was also known as Ajitdada

The original Dada in Maharashtra’s politics was Vasantdada Patil, former chief minister, whose government was toppled by Mr Sharad Pawar through defections and alliances in 1978.  SP (Sharad Pawar) was then a young man, I was recently looking at all the names in his ministry, all are gone, he remains but clearly now he has really aged.

Vasantdada came to acquire the respectful way of address (Vasantdada) through love: he was a freedom fighter, knew difficult days, there were times when he travelled second class by train to attend Congress meetings.

Sharad Pawar never acquired the title dada, he remained Sharad Pawar in the media, at best during personal meetings people would call him, saheb, Sharad rao, sir etc. He never instilled fear.

Ajitdada grew in entirely different circumstances, he acquired power at a very young age becoming a minister in SP’s ministry when I met him a few times, never later. His becoming a dada is relatively a later phenomenon.

Politics has changed so much in the last few weeks. I saw Supriya Sule in a jovial mood at the inauguration of the golden jubilee of Stree Mukti Sanghatana at Y.B. Chavan Centre last month.

She cracked jokes about there being both Pawar and Shinde in her family, her mother is originally a Shinde (the daughter of cricketer Sadu Shinde.). She was referring to the two deputy c.ms, Pawar and Shinde. She said people should not draw any conclusions from what she was saying.

Subsequently there were reports that she may be drafted into the ministry at the Centre following the alliance with the AP (Ajit Pawar) faction.

Sanjay Raut of the Uddhav Sena made a valid point in a news conference that top ministers should not exert too much, should not travel too much by air, they should leave decisions to other leaders, they themselves need not campaign in every lower level election. All this was taking toll of their health.

After all these years in the profession, I get a feeling that journalists can be too liberal in their understanding of politicians, even naïve. They get easily carried away with all the hospitality they enjoy, they must realise that the politician treats you well because you have clout, you are from the media. They may give you a scoop, but in that also they have a motive, else they would just keep their mouth shut. The question is how the politician treats common people, that is the real test.

These journalists praise some politicians for working hard, the question is working hard for whom? They are busy enriching themselves, average politicians with some standing now have assets running into crores of rupees.

If the politicians were so competent, why are their constituencies getting, worse, unliveable?

(The author is a senior journalist and commentator; the present text is from his post on Facebook on January 31, 2026 that may be read here)

Related:

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

Government and automobile lobby are in a cosy affair while public transport is treated like filth

The post Ajit Pawar’s death and the deprivation of everyday connectivity & transport appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the present time, Uttarakhand has become a centre of hate crimes. A few days ago, a report by a US-based think tank was released, which stated that the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, Pushkar Singh Dhami, delivered the highest number of hate speeches in the year 2025. In 2025 alone, he gave a total of 71 hate speeches, which included terms such as spit jihad, land jihad and love jihad.

In Uttarakhand, under the protection of the government, dargahs are being continuously targeted. Sometimes the administration itself reaches the spot with bulldozers, and at other times anti-social elements arrive with hammers to demolish them. In one of his speeches, Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami himself claimed that his administration has demolished 600 dargahs. This is the official figure; apart from this, hundreds of other dargahs have already been demolished so far.

Something similar happened when, influenced by the Chief Minister’s provocative speeches, anti-social elements themselves vandalised an over 100-year-old shrine dedicated to Syed Baba Bulleshah in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, on 24 January 2026. Approximately 25 to 30 people arrived at the shrine early in the morning and damaged the site using hammers. The group reportedly chanted religious slogans during the act, and a video of the incident has been circulated on social media. The police have taken the video as evidence for their ongoing investigation.

Perhaps the attackers do not know, O ignorant hammer-wielders, which personality’s shrine they went to demolish. They do not know who that great personality was. That shrine belongs to Hazrat Bulleh Shah, the great 17th-century Sufi, poet and philosopher.

Hazrat Sayyid Abdullah Shah Qadiri, also known as Hazrat Baba Bulleh Shah, is universally acknowledged as the greatest of the Punjabi mystics. No Punjabi mystic poet enjoys wider fame and a greater reputation. His kafis have gained unique popularity. In truth, he is one of the greatest Sufis of the world, and his thought equals that of Jalal al-Din Rumi and Shams Tabriz of Persia.

About Hazrat Bulleh Shah, Shah Inayat Qadiri writes:

Hazrat Shah Inayat, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

Bullhia rabb da pan ai

edharo puttan odharo lan hai.

“O Bulleh! This is the secret of Almighty Allah: on this side He uproots, on the other side He creates.”

“This,” says the tradition, “so deeply impressed Baba Bulleh Shah that, forgetting his family and its status, he became Inayat Shah’s disciple.”

Hazrat Bulleh Shah always stood for humanity and peace. In his life, we find many such incidents that prove that he was a humanist.

He emphasised universal love, tolerance, and the transcendence of sectarian identities, viewing humanity as inherently united under a single divine essence. His teachings advocated equality and rejected caste, creed, and ritualistic barriers that separated people, especially Hindus and Muslims, during a time of communal tensions under Mughal rule.

Influenced by Sufi traditions and elements of Hindu philosophy such as Vedanta, Bulleh Shah promoted humanism, urging followers to prioritise inner spiritual connection over external religious labels, and to see God in every individual regardless of faith.

He was revered across communities, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike, for his role as a beacon of peace, denouncing dogma and social stratification while fostering fraternity and oneness.

Bulleh Shah’s time was marked by communal strife between Muslims and Sikhs. But in that era, Baba Bulleh Shah was a beacon of hope and peace for the people of Punjab. While Bulleh Shah was in Pandoke, Muslims killed a young Sikh man who was riding through their village, in retaliation for the murder of some Muslims by Sikhs. Baba Bulleh Shah condemned the murder of the innocent Sikh and was censured by the mullas and muftis of Pandoke. Bulleh Shah maintained that violence was not the answer to violence. He also hailed Guru Tegh Bahadur as a ghazi (an Islamic term for a religious warrior), which earned him the wrath of the fanatical Muslims of that time.

Banda Singh Bairagi was a contemporary of Bulleh Shah. In retaliation for the murder of Guru Gobind Singh’s two sons by Aurangzeb, Banda Singh Bairagi sought revenge by killing ordinary Muslims. Baba Bulleh Shah tried to persuade Banda Singh Bairagi to abandon his campaign of revenge. Bulleh Shah told him that the same sword which fell upon Guru Gobind Singh’s sons and innocent Sikhs had also fallen upon innocent Muslims. Therefore, killing innocent Muslims was not the answer to Aurangzeb’s oppressive rule.

Hazrat Bulleh Shah’s famous poem “Neither Hindu Nor Muslim” (original Punjabi: Na Hindu na Musalman) is a powerful critique of religious labels. This poem calls for discarding pride and walking on the path of peace, transcending binaries such as sin and virtue, or believer and non-believer, in order to embrace universal love.

Neither Hindu nor Muslim,

Sacrificing pride, let us sit together.

Neither Sunni nor Shia,

Let us walk the road of peace.

We are neither hungry nor full,

Neither naked nor clothed.

Neither weeping nor laughing,

Neither ruined nor settled.

We are not sinners nor pure and virtuous;

What is sin and what is virtue, I do not know.

Says Bulleh Shah, the one who attaches his self to the Lord

Gives up both Hindu and Muslim.

Bulleh is neither Rafzi nor Sunni,

Nor learned, nor an intellectual, nor a Jaini.

I have learnt only the lesson of the love of God.

People say: Bulleh is an infidel (kafir)

And an idol-worshipper.

But in the Lord’s court, both the momin and the kafir

(Believer and non-believer) are treated alike.

Here was Ramdas (a Hindu) and there Fateh Muhammad (a Muslim),

What an ancient quarrel there was between them,

But now their dispute has vanished,

And something new has emerged!

Makkay gayaan, gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow jummay parrh aaeey

Ganga gayaan, gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow gotay khaeeay

Gaya gayaan gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow pand parrhaeeay

Bulleh Shah gal taeeyon mukdee

Jadon Mai nu dillon gawaeeay

~In English

Going to Makkah is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of prayers are offered.

Going to River Ganges is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of cleansing (Baptisms) are done.

Going to Gaya is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of worships are done.

Bulleh Shah the ultimate is

When the “I” is removed from the heart!

This composition subverts orthodox identities and aligns with Sufi concepts such as wahdat al-wujud (the unity of being), where religious multiplicity dissolves into divine oneness, promoting interfaith reconciliation and humanistic equality.

In some of his verses, the Vaishnava colour is so dominant that one hesitates to accept them as the compositions of a Muslim. The vocabulary, metaphors, atmosphere, and thought are all Vaishnava. In the following verses, the gopis of Krishna’s devotees speak:

Murlī baj uthi aghatan, sun sun bhul gaian sab batan;

Sun sun Sham Sundar dian batan……

(Lord Krishna is playing the flute. Hearing its sound, I have forgotten everything.)

Bullhe Shah main tad birlai;

Jad di Murli Kanha vajai;

Bauri hoe ke tain val dhai,

Kaho ji kii val dast baratan.

(When Lord Krishna sounded the flute and I heard its voice, says Hazrat Bulleh Shah, I cried in agony. Since then I have been wailing in the pain of separation. Bulleh, the gopi, turned mad and ran towards Lord Krishna. The gopi asks where else she should go.)

Bulleh Shah sees God in Krishna, who grazed cows in Brindavan, and in Rama, who invaded Lanka:

Bindraban vich gauan charaen;

Lanka charh ke nad vajaen;

(O God, it was You who grazed the cows in Brindavan in the form of Krishna, and it was You who blew the trumpet of victory and invaded Lanka.)

In the verses where Islamic terminology appears, the spirit remains undeniably Vaishnava. Hazrat Bulleh Shah adored Prophet Muhammad not merely as a messenger of God, but as an incarnation of God.

He died in 1757 at the age of 77 and was buried in Kasur, where he had spent most of his life.

A regular contributor to New Age Islam, Sahil Razvi is a research scholar specialising in Sufism and Islamic History. He is an alumnus of Jamia Millia Islamia.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Hate Politics and the Message of Hazrat Bulleh Shah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to CJP’s complaint, the show in question surrounded the tragic incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, which the program used as a pretext to incite communal tension within India. It is important to mention that while the professional identities of the Muslim panellists—including Islamic scholars and researchers—were acknowledged in the introductions, the channel systematically reduced them to a religious monolith by utilising the sensationalist and confrontational title “Kalicharan Maharaj Vs 4 Maulana.”

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

The show may be viewed here:

The complaint argues that the format, framing, selection of panellists, choice of questions, and on-screen graphics collectively abandoned journalistic neutrality and elevated unverified conspiracy-laden assertions into national discourse without editorial scrutiny. CJP has asserted that the show not only misrepresented facts regarding violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also used such incidents as a pretext to frame Indian Muslims as a civilisational threat.

From cross-border violence to domestic polarisation

According to the complaint, the broadcast opened by linking violence against Hindus in Bangladesh with the purported rise of “Islamist aggression” globally. However, instead of exploring geopolitical circumstances or international minority protections, the show allegedly shifted its focus toward a domestic communal binary. The choice to present the debate as “Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulana” formed the foundation of this shift, CJP states.

Despite introducing the Muslim speakers as an Islamic scholar, political analyst, researcher, and commentator, the anchor and graphics repeatedly referred to them simply as “Maulana,” thus transforming a discussion that could have been political or geopolitical into a religious contest. CJP describes this as “misclassification for ideological staging,” intended to create a perception of siege, in which a solitary Hindu ascetic was portrayed as battling an institutionalised Muslim clerical bloc.

Six-question format framed as leading accusations

Throughout the program, the anchor posed six structured questions with the duration of the program revolving not strictly around them. The title and the overarching theme of the show were entirely misleading, communal, and provocative in nature;

• Why are Maulanas selective regarding the lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh

• Is there a conspiracy to defame India by labelling it ‘Lynchistan’?

• What is the need for a ‘new Babri’ in India?

• Why the deception of Hindu daughters by hiding one’s identity?

• What is the cure for the extremist mindset of ‘Spit Jihad’?

• Is this an attempt to incite Muslims using threats of Jihad?

The debate concluded with a final question from the host that was intentionally biased and communally charged:

• Will the country be governed by the Constitution or by Sharia?

Rather than clarifying the issue, CJP contends that these questions acted as “leading indictments” that presumed collective Muslim culpability. Queries such as “Why are Maulanas selective regarding lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh?” presupposed silence or complicity, while the final question — “Will the country be governed by the Constitution or Sharia?” — framed Indian national identity in existential religious terms.

The complaint argues that such formulations not only lacked neutrality but also “prime viewers toward moral panic,” presenting Muslims as inherently disloyal or hostile to constitutional order.

Unchecked hate speech and historical tropes

CJP identified the segment between timestamps 03:47 and 05:50 as particularly problematic. According to the complaint, Kalicharan Maharaj used this interval to allege that Quranic verses command violence against non-Muslims, that a “Ghazwa-e-Hind” war was imminent, and that Indian Muslims were celebrating terrorism, foreign defeats, and the “endangerment of Hindus.”

The complaint stated that the host refrained from interrupting or contextualising these claims, nor did he correct doctrinal misinterpretations or historical inaccuracies. This lack of intervention, CJP argues, amounted to “editorial acquiescence” and violated NBDSA’s guidelines on anchor conduct, which require moderators to prevent communal provocation and ensure fair debate.

Ticker graphics as messaging devices

Beyond the spoken exchanges, CJP drew the NBDSA’s attention to ticker text such as “थूक जिहाद वाली कट्टर सोच का इलाज क्या?”, which the complaint argues acted as subliminal messaging designed to reinforce conspiracy theories regarding Indian Muslims.

According to CJP, such graphics, appearing independently of verbal debates, functioned as “parallel instruments of communal persuasion,” circumventing potential rebuttal from panellists.

Rebuttals marginalised, counter-narratives interrupted

The four Muslim panellists reportedly condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, referenced Quranic principles of humanity, and questioned the logic of demographic threat narratives. However, the complaint contended that these rebuttals received limited airtime, often collapsed mid-sentence, or were reframed by the anchor to suit the original premise.

This, CJP argues, transformed the broadcast from a debate into a performance of polarisation, where countervailing facts were permitted only insofar as they sustained spectacle.

Constitutional vs. civilisational framing

The complaint pays particular attention to Zee News’ repeated invocation of a “civilisational clash” premise, perpetuated through references to “New Babri,” “Land Jihad,” and demographic fear-mongering. This framing intentionally juxtaposed constitutional citizenship against religious identity, portraying Indian Muslims as aligned with transnational Islamist forces rather than as domestic citizens.

According to the complaint, this framing not only essentialised Indian Muslims into a singular political category but also presumed collective disloyalty, a hallmark feature in scholarly definitions of hate speech.

Journalistic responsibilities and democratic stakes

The complaint stresses that broadcasters hold heightened responsibility during prime-time debates, which significantly influence public discourse and Zee News neglected established standards requiring accuracy, fairness, and avoidance of communal colour, thereby violating both NBDSA guidelines and the basic tenets of responsible media conduct.

The broadcast “an act of manufactured communal crisis,” warning that such content corrodes democratic deliberation by replacing informed public reasoning with fear-driven binaries, the complaint reads

Relief sought

In its prayer for relief, CJP has requested corrective action, including takedown of the broadcast, broadcast of a public apology, and institutional compliance directives aimed at preventing recurrence of such programming. The petition argues that accountability is essential not merely for redress but for restoring ethical norms within India’s broadcast ecosystem.

The copy of complaint dated January 20, 2026 may be accessed from here

A complaint had earlier addressed to Zee News on January 7, 2026, seeking a response and corrective action. As the broadcaster did not engage, CJP subsequently escalated the case to the NBDSA on January 20, 2026.

Related

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

NBDSA ने ‘मिया बिहू’ पर सांप्रदायिक, एजेंडा–आधारित ब्रॉडकास्ट के लिए टाइम्स नाउ नवभारत को फटकारा; भड़काऊ कंटेंट हटाने का आदेश दिया

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

The post CJP files NBDSA complaint over Zee News’s ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’, alleging communal framing and hate tropes appeared first on SabrangIndia.