One of the statements reads:

“We are writing to express our deep concern about the complete lack of transparency regarding the draft legislations proposed to be taken up during the 3-day special extension of the Budget Session of Parliament scheduled to be held from April 16 to 18, 2026. As per media reports, the cabinet has cleared 3 bills to ostensibly pave the way for 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from 2029 – an amendment to the Women’s Reservation Act (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), a Delimitation Bill and a separate bill to extend the quota to Union Territories. The draft legislations reportedly include a proposal for a uniform 50% increase in seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, raising the Lok Sabha’s strength from 543 to 816 and total assembly seats from 4,123 to 6,186.

“The laws will fundamentally re-shape India’s electoral democracy and impact every voter in the country. Given the far-reaching ramifications of these legislations, it is shocking that the citizens of the country have been kept completely in the dark about the contents of the bills, their implications and the rationale for bringing these constitutional and legislative amendments. Information about the proposed laws is reaching people only through media reports based on “sources”. This is a flagrant violation of peoples’ fundamental right to information and the principles laid out in the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy.

“The Pre-legislative Consultation Policy adopted by the Union Government in 2014 mandates placing draft legislations in the public domain for at least 30 days, inviting public comments and making a summary of feedback/comments received available on the concerned ministry’s website prior to sending it for Cabinet approval. It also requires that wide publicity be given to the consultation process and the draft legislation through print and electronic media, or in such other manner considered necessary to reach the affected people.

“Given the tremendous impact the three legislations proposed to be taken up in the upcoming session of Parliament will have on our democracy, we demand that the government:

• make the text of the draft bills public immediately and ensure wide dissemination through various modes, and in multiples languages;
• put the draft bills through robust public consultation in line with the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy.

“While we wholeheartedly support reservation for women in legislature, and many of us have been part of campaigns demanding the same, we strongly oppose the secretive, non-democratic manner in which the proposed legislations are being brought. It is a profound irony and a grave disservice to the democratic process to introduce legislation for women’s empowerment while simultaneously excluding women from the conversation. A reform of such historic magnitude deserves transparent debate, public scrutiny and the inclusion of diverse voices to ensure it truly empowers people, rather than being rushed through in the midst of ongoing state elections as a political tool.”

This statement has been endorsed by:

1.   Anjali Bhardwaj, Transparency activist, Delhi
2.   Prof. Ganesh Devy
3.   Prof Santosh Mehrotra, Visiting Prof, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Telangana
4.   Aditi Mehta, IAS Retd, Rajasthan
5.   Amitabha Pande, Constitutional Conduct Group, Uttar Pradesh
6.   Kamal Malhotra, Head, United Nations (retired), Delhi
7.   Ashish Joshi, IP&TAFS (retd), Former Civil Servant , Additional Secretary Equivalent       Uttarakhand
8.   Kamal Kant Jaswal, Former Secretary to the Government of India, Haryana
9.   Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita, Delhi
10. Teesta Setalvad, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Maharashtra
11. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Haryana
12. V. Ramani, IAS (Retd.), Maharashtra
13. Harshavardhan Hegde, Doctor, Delhi
14. Ashok Sharma, IFS (retd.), Uttar Pradesh
15. Balveer Arora, Centre for Multilevel Federalism ISS, Delhi
16. Yamini Aiyar, Delhi
17. Niraja G. Jayal, Retired academic, Delhi

Related:

Delimitation: Strengthening democracy or rigging the game?

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

Stop saluting us, treat us as equals, TN MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi’s impassioned speech on the Women’s Reservation Bill

The post Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: People’s Watch

The post Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

High-Flying Service: The Decorated Career of Wing Cdr Akhtar

Wing Commander Akhtar, commissioned into the Indian Air Force on 15 December 2006, served the nation with distinction for 17 years. His career included key roles across the country—from training nearly 2,000 airmen at Air Force Station Tambaram to administrative leadership postings in Chandigarh and Allahabad. He also represented India internationally in a Young Officers’ Exchange Program with the Royal Thai Air Force.

He played a crucial role during the devastating 2018 Kerala floods, coordinating rescue and relief operations while serving at the Southern Air Command. After taking voluntary retirement (VRS) in July 2022 due to family commitments, Akhtar has been actively mentoring youth aspiring to join the armed forces and working with underprivileged students.

From Combat to Courtroom: A Veteran’s Fight for the Vote

According to Akhtar, his name was placed “under adjudication” during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). However, before he could even be called for a hearing, his name was deleted in the second supplementary list released on March 28, 2026.

The Wing Commander (Retd) claims he followed all instructions issued by the Election Commission and remained in constant touch with the BLO at every step. “My name was there in the final list, so I had nothing to act on. But in the first supplementary list on March 23, it was marked ‘under adjudication’. I contacted my BLO, Mondal, but he did not tell me any procedure to follow and assured me that it would be restored automatically. Then on March 28, when my name was deleted in the second list, the BLO told me to hire a lawyer and approach the tribunal,” rued Akhtar.

What makes the case more puzzling is that:

Longevity: His name had been part of the electoral rolls since 2002.

Family Status: His family members’ names continue to remain on the list.

Lack of Due Process: No formal hearing or opportunity for clarification was provided.

The incident has sparked outrage among sections of civil society, with some questioning whether the deletion could be linked to the officer’s identity as a Muslim. “When a decorated officer with an impeccable service record is denied even a hearing, it naturally raises questions,” said Athar Firdausi, a rights activist.

Recently, Alt News, in its report “Bengal SIR: The Wall ECI Built Around Electoral Data and How We Broke Through It,” highlighted large-scale discrepancies, claiming that voters from communities less likely to support the BJP were disproportionately targeted for deletion or placed under doubt.

However, the Wing Commander is not the only alleged victim of the controversial SIR process. The list is long. eNewsroom has also reported that AGWB gazetted officer Reshma Shirin Iqbal’s name was deleted in a similar manner. Former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi’s name was also removed, and he publicly stated that the experience was not only humiliating but left him unsure of where to seek redress. It has also been reported that the names of the grandson and granddaughter-in-law of Indian Constitution illustrator Nandalal Bose were dropped.

Courtesy: https://enewsroom.in

The post No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Roy cited the case of Ripon Mollya, whose name was deleted despite his family’s long-standing voter registration in the constituency, and Jesmina Khatoon, whose name was purged following her marriage, even though both her parents and husband are registered voters. He noted that in Booth No. 56 of Swarupnagar Assembly Constituency, 13 names were deleted on February 28, followed by another 52 on March 23, with most belonging to legitimate citizens.

The letter accuses electoral officers of procedural failures, including ignoring Form 6 applications and petitions submitted to the District Election Officer and District Magistrate. Roy warned that “silly clerical typos” and departmental whims were being used to disenfranchise marginalized communities in border villages. He described the ongoing Special Intensive Revision as “chaotic” and “non-transparent,” turning what should be a citizen-friendly process into an instrument of harassment.

Calling the exercise of power a public trust, Roy demanded immediate restoration of the names of Ripon Mollya and Jesmina Khatoon, a time-bound inquiry into ignored applications, and directives to ensure marginalized populations are not excluded due to minor technicalities. “We look forward to your immediate intervention to end this ‘nightmare’ for these families and to uphold the sanctity of our democracy,” Roy wrote.

This complaint underscores growing concerns about electoral integrity and the protection of voting rights in sensitive border regions.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund has now listed the matter for April 24, 2026. While the hearing itself was limited to procedural aspects, the petition raises substantive challenges to the Foreigners Tribunal process, the delay in approaching the Court, and the legal consequences of an ex-parte declaration of foreigner status. The legal aid in this case is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace.

Details of the previous case proceedings in GHC, challenging their detention, may be accessed here, here and here.

Proceedings before the High Court

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, submitted that the writ petition is maintainable and deserves consideration on merits for two primary reasons.

First, it was argued that the delay in filing the petition has been sufficiently explained, and is not attributable to any deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner.

Second, it was emphasised that the present petition has been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court, which had expressly permitted the petitioner to challenge the Foreigners Tribunal opinion.

Advocate Dutta also sought that the Court may call for the records of the Foreigners Tribunal, particularly in light of the contention that the proceedings were initiated without disclosure of the grounds of suspicion.

The State, at this stage, did not address the merits of the challenge. Instead, it sought time to file an affidavit raising preliminary objections, specifically on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

The Bench allowed the request and passed the following directions:

• The State is permitted to file an affidavit on preliminary objection,
• The interim protection against deportation is extended, and
• The matter is listed on April 24, 2026, with a direction that a copy of the order be furnished to the petitioner.

At this stage, the Court has not adjudicated on maintainability or merits, but has kept the petition alive and ensured that no coercive action is taken in the meantime.

Background: Tribunal opinion and subsequent proceedings

The petition challenges the ex parte opinion dated June 13, 2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang, in FT Case No. BNGN FT/CHR/220/07, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had allegedly entered India after March 25, 1971.

According to the petition:

• The petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal through an advocate,
• However, due to financial constraints, he was unable to continue legal representation or file a written statement,
• As a result, the proceedings culminated in an ex parte opinion.

Following the declaration:

1. The petitioner was detained on April 30, 2019,
2. Subsequently released on April 30, 2021 due to Covid based relaxations,
3. Thereafter, he was required to report regularly to the police station, which he is stated to have complied with.

The petition further states that:

• On May 25, 2025, he was taken into custody again, allegedly without issuance of an arrest memo or any formal order cancelling his release conditions.

This sequence of events forms the immediate background to the present writ petition.

Supreme Court proceedings and grant of liberty

An important stage in the litigation is the petitioner’s approach to the Supreme Court. After earlier proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner filed an SLP, which came to be disposed of on December 12, 2025.

While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the Foreigners Tribunal opinion. This clarification is central to the present proceedings.

The petition asserts that:

• The current writ petition is being filed in exercise of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, and
• Therefore, objections based on delay or prior proceedings must be considered in that context.

Explanation for delay in filing the petition

The petition sets out a detailed explanation for the delay in challenging the 2018 Tribunal opinion.

1. Financial constraints- It is stated that the petitioner:

• Was unable to pay legal fees before the Tribunal,
• Could not pursue remedies thereafter due to continued financial hardship,
• Faced severe economic difficulty, particularly during the COVID period.2. Periods of detention- The petitioner’s ability to pursue legal remedies was affected by:

• His detention from 2019 to 2021, and
• His subsequent detention beginning May 25, 2025.3. Lack of access to the petitioner- The petition records that:

• Family members were not permitted to meet him freely,
• Efforts to obtain a fresh vakalatnama were unsuccessful,
• At certain points, even information regarding his whereabouts was not clearly disclosed.4. Absence of legal aid- It is specifically pleaded that:

• The petitioner was not provided legal aid, despite being eligible,
• The present petition has been filed only after assistance was arranged through an external organisation.5. Practical difficulties in preparing the petition- The petition had to be prepared:

• Without direct access to the petitioner,
• By reconstructing documents and facts from available records.

Legal submission on delay- On the basis of the above, it is argued that:

• The delay is neither intentional nor negligent,
• The matter involves citizenship and personal liberty, and
• The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought to consider the petition on merits despite delay.

Challenge to the tribunal proceedings

The petition raises multiple grounds challenging the validity of the Tribunal proceedings.

1. Absence of “Main Grounds” in Notice- It is contended that:

• The notice issued to the petitioner was a standard printed format,
• It did not disclose any specific grounds or material forming the basis of suspicion.

The petition argues that such a notice is insufficient in law and affects the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. Validity of the reference- The reference made by the police is challenged on the ground that:

• It was not based on disclosed material,
• There is no indication that there was application of mind before initiating proceedings.

3. Ex Parte opinion- The ex parte opinion is explained as a consequence of:

• The petitioner’s inability to sustain legal representation,
• Rather than any deliberate failure to participate.

4. Opportunity to contest- It is argued that:

• The petitioner was not provided access to materials relied upon,
• Nor given an effective opportunity to present his case.

Documentary basis of citizenship claim

The petitioner relies on several documents to establish his claim to Indian citizenship, including:

• Entries in the NRC 1951 relating to his family,
• Inclusion of his and his family’s names in voter lists of 1965 and 1970,
• Land records showing inheritance from his father.

These documents are relied upon to demonstrate longstanding presence and linkage within India.

Legal argument on burden of proof

The petition addresses the operation of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act by submitting that:

• While the law places an onus on the proceedee,
• This arises only after the State establishes basic facts justifying the reference.

In the present case:

• It is contended that no such foundational material was disclosed,
• Therefore, the burden could not have been validly shifted to the petitioner.

Reliefs sought

The petition seeks:

• Quashing of the Tribunal opinion dated June 13, 2018,
• Setting aside of the reference and notice,
• Directions restraining the authorities from acting on the declaration, including deportation.

Related:

“They were once sent back, awaiting deportation”: State’s new claim deepens uncertainty over fate of Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

The post Abdul Sheikh Citizenship Case: Deportation stayed as Gauhati High Court Hears challenge to ex parte foreigner declaration, state to raise maintainability issue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The process of drafting, tabling and passage of the Bill into law has been non-transparent and hurried, itself displaying an extremely undemocratic and unconstitutional approach. After some scant media reports regarding the state government’s intent, the Bill (Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 2026) was tabled on Friday, March 13, 2026, hurriedly passed in the Vidhan Sabha on Monday March 16, 2026 (Vidhan Sabha) and March 17, 2026 (Vidhan Parishad).

Just days before Citizens for Justice and Peace, along with other city-wide groups had addressed a press conference outlining the major objections to the Bill. This Joint press conference was held on March 11, 2026. Participating organisations emphasise that introducing another anti-conversion law while the Supreme Court is actively considering the constitutional validity of similar statutes raises serious questions of legislative prudence and constitutional accountability.

CJP is a Lead Petitioner in the Supreme Court challenging all such laws filed in other states in since 2020.

The Maharashtra law, being hurriedly passed also comes at a time when the constitutional validity of similar anti-conversion laws across several states is already under challenge before the Supreme Court of India.

A batch of writ petitions –first filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Mumbai that is the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court– has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2020, raising fundamental constitutional questions about the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality before the law, and the limits of State power in regulating religious conversion and interfaith relationships. Hearings in the matter that have happened intermittently with pressing demands made by CJP for an interim stay on the most egregious provisions are also scheduled today, March 11, 2026.

Originally filed against laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, the petitions were later expanded—with the Court’s permission—to include similar statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. As a result, the ongoing proceedings now concern nine state anti-conversion laws, each framed as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” statute.

The petitions argue that while these laws are formally presented as safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversions, their design and implementation have created a legal regime that treats voluntary religious conversion as inherently suspicious, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

Among the provisions under challenge are:

• mandatory prior declarations before a District Magistrate
• police inquiries into the reasons for conversion
• criminalisation of conversions associated with marriage
• third-party complaints by relatives or unrelated persons
• reversal of the burden of proof
• stringent bail provisions and enhanced penalties

According to the petitioners, these provisions subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to executive scrutiny and police investigation, opening the door to misuse and harassment, particularly against consenting adult couples and religious minorities.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court heard applications filed by CJP seeking interim relief against some of the most intrusive provisions, including those requiring prior declaration and enabling third-party complaints. The Court directed the Union Government and the concerned States to file responses, indicating that the matter raises serious constitutional questions requiring detailed consideration.

Several High Courts examining similar laws have already expressed concern regarding provisions that interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults. For instance, the Gujarat High Court stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act that criminalised interfaith marriages involving conversion, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed provisions requiring prior declaration before authorities. Ironically, BJP-ruled states have played ping-pong with Constitutional Courts on such laws since 2012. In that year, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Justices Deepak Gupta and Rajiv Sharma) had struck down portions of an earlier version of the law in that state which sought to monitor (and penalise) the intention behind converting. The BJP was in power in Himachal Pradesh at the time.

Evangelical Fellowship of India vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (4) RCR 283 (Civil), which was a judgement authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, the Himachal Pradesh High Court court had set aside Section 4 of the HP Act of 2006 as ultra vires the Constitution and struck down Rules 3 and 5 thereunder and held that the right to privacy and the right to change the belief of a citizen cannot be taken away under the specious plea that public order may be affected. Arguing its case before the Supreme Court in early 2023, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh e pointed out that the 2006 Act was repealed and replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 in which provisions set aside by the High Court have been included.

The post Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Signatories to the Appeal include: senior activists, academics, scientists of Telangana such as Prof. Haragopal, Dr. K Babu Rao, Prof K. Laxminarayana; human rights activists Jeevan Kumar, Dr. Tirupathaiah, Vasantha Lakshmi; feminist activists V. Sandhya, V Rukmini Rao, S. Ashalatha, K. Sajaya, Bhanumathi, Meera Sanghamitra; social activists Venkat Reddy, Kanneganti Ravi, P. Shankar, Saraswati Kavula, Maria Tabassum, Shaikh Salauddin, Sreeharsha, Lateef Khan, Sowmya Kidambi; climate justice activists Ruchit Asha Kamal, Nikita Naidu, Deeksha; law researchers Akhil Surya, Raja Chandra etc.

The Abhaya Hastam Assembly Elections Manifesto (2023) of TPCC made multiple assurances including establishment of a welfare board and provision of social security for unorganised workers, a specific welfare board for Hamali workers, health cards to Hamali workers, establishment of a ‘Hamali Nagar’ in every mandal centre, where houses would be allocated to the workers. The letter describes the many challenges and exploitation faced by Hamali workers, across different godowns and markets. The activists said that State is bound to protect rights, dignity and livelihoods of all workers – whether belonging to Telangana or coming from other states, in search of livelihoods.

The communication also pointed out that 2026 marks 50 years of enactment of the Telangana Mutta, Jattu, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1976 and Rules, 1977 which provide the legal framework for setting up institutional mechanisms and upholding rights of the Hamali workers. The said Act and Rules mandate the state government to establish a Board (Section 6) as well as an Advisory Committee (Section 14) representing employers, unprotected workers, members of the legislature and the Government.  Effective implementation of the Act would be the least that can be done to secure the rights and interests of Hamali workers.

The signatories also appreciated that last week, Minister Dr. Dansari Anasuya (Seethakka), has assured them that the issue will be taken up with the Chief Minister, for establishment of Hamali Welfare Board when she addressed the Hamali Maha Garjana at Hanmakonda, a historic gathering of 7,000 Hamali workers from 30 districts of the state.

The signatories hoped the CM would immediately issue directions for constitution of a Statutory Welfare Board and Advisory Committee for Hamali Workers, along with necessary budgetary allocations and ensure fair wages and payments, PF, ESI, health rights and housing. The activists also pointed out statutory welfare boards and schemes in Kerala and Maharashtra for Hamali workers and urged that Telangana also must consider such measures at the state and district level.

The letter petition was jointly initiated by the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and Telangana People’s Joint Action Committee (TP-JAC), in solidarity with the Telangana Hamali Workers Union (THWU).

Related:

February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India

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

As 30 crore workers, farmers join July 9 strike against govt.’s policies, will there be media coverage of the shut down?

The post Telangana: Safeguard lakhs of Hamali workers, set by welfare board, citizens groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its statement, the DUJ said that the body is “outraged at the manhandling of UNI journalists by the Delhi Police on March 20, 2026. The Police entered the UNI newsrooms in large numbers and demanded that journalists peacefully working the night shift immediately leave the premises. They were told UNI was being evicted following a High Court Order. No Order was shown.

“When the surprised journalists asked for time to inform their management, many of them were manhandled. Women journalists too were physically pushed out as video footage reveals. No time was given for people to retrieve their personal papers and belongings. We severely condemn this arbitrary action.

UNI, the second oldest news agency in the country, has been severely mismanaged over the past decades.  It was the responsibility of the current management to inform employees of the High Court Order that came earlier in the day, anticipate the eviction and protect employees from harm. Regrettably, they did not do so.”

The DUJ statement issued on March 21 states that the prime land on which India’s oldest news agency stands has long been “eyed” by the powers that be and powerful corporate owned media organisations vying for both control and ownership. The statement has been issued by Sujata Madhok, President, SK Pande, Vice-President and AM Jigeesh, General Secretary.

“By cancelling the lease,” said the DUJ, the Union Government has dealt a death blow to the news agency by cancelling the lease.

In the past the Government tried to change the lease conditions and bring in other media players, promising them a share in a new building to be constructed on the plot. Earlier UNI managements challenged these orders in court. Meanwhile, the agency struggled financially, especially after the government withdrew subscriptions for Prasar Bharati and other government bodies. UNI employees suffered the consequences, with years of delayed salaries and other dues.

Years of struggle in and outside courts by employees, including retirees and those who had left UNI, the agency was declared bankrupt by the National Company Law Tribunal. It was then taken over by The Statesman who paid a small percentage of their dues to the employees.

The DUJ has called upon The Statesman management to fulfil its responsibilities, continue to run the agency and pay the journalists and other employees their full dues.

Meanwhile, the Editors Guild of India (EGI) strongly condemns the use of excessive force, as well as the undue haste shown in implementing a High Court order cancelling the allotment of land on which the premises of United News of India, one of India’s oldest independent news agencies, was situated, and allowing the Land and Development Office of the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry to re-take possession of the land.

The Guild statement also states that, “While the Guild does not question the need to implement the High Court’s order, what is disturbing is the lack of due process, and the manifestly excessive display of force by the authorities in executing the Court’s directions. As per reports, the order was pronounced in Court at around 1.30 PM on Friday, March 20, 2026.”

“Within hours, and even before the order was made available on the Court’s website, a force of hundreds of police and paramilitary personnel had arrived at the UNI’s premises. Journalists, including female staff, were forcibly evicted in the midst of carrying out their duties. The journalists have asserted that no notice was shown to them, and that the authorities refused to allow time for the UNI management to arrive, or even allow journalists to collect their personal effects before the premises were sealed. They have also alleged that some staff, including some women journalists, were manhandled in the process, a charge which the Delhi Police have denied.

The alacrity with which the authorities reacted, as well as the overwhelming display of force, sends a chilling message to the media. The action has not only halted the dissemination of news to UNI’s subscribers, but has also cast a shadow over the future of the organisation, and the careers of hundreds of journalists.” The EGI further has urged the authorities to exercise greater restraint, and desist from actions which restrict the freedom of media to operate and carry out its functions in a democracy. The EGI statement has been issued by Sanjay Kapoor, President and Raghavan Srinivasan, the Treasurer.

Meanwhile on the same date, March 21, the Mumbai Press Club has strongly condemned the sealing of the office of United News of India (UNI) in Delhi, an action that has caused deep concern across the media fraternity.

The Mumbai Press Club statement released on ‘X’ states that, “Reports of staff being forcibly evicted without being allowed to collect their personal belongings, the alleged manhandling of female journalists, and misconduct by certain Delhi Police personnel—including claims of intoxication while on duty—are extremely disturbing. The reported abuse of individuals by police personnel and lawyers further reflects a serious breakdown of professional conduct and accountability. Such actions not only undermine the dignity and safety of journalists but also raise serious concerns about press freedom and the ability of media institutions to function without fear or intimidation.”

The Mumbai PC has “urged the authorities to ensure a prompt, impartial, and transparent inquiry into the incident, and to fix accountability for any excesses or misconduct. It is equally important to take immediate steps to restore confidence within the journalistic community and safeguard the rights and independence of the press,” says the Mumbai Press Club. Samar Khadas is currently President and Mayuresh Ganapatye the Secretary of the PC.

Related:

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos

J & K: Attempt to muzzle FoE, Media? Police summons to media, journalists

Pervasive fear, surveillance of media, spiral of anti-India sentiment in Kashmir: CCG

The post Delhi, Mumbai: Media organisations sharply criticise UNI eviction appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This piece reads the Charter seriously, which means reading it both appreciatively and critically. It has genuine strengths that deserve recognition. It also carries certain limitations that are worth naming honestly, not to undermine the effort but because the quality of the document warrants that kind of engagement.

A Decade of Stalled Policy

To understand what this Charter is trying to do, it helps to recall the political history that preceded it. In 2011, a panel led by ecologist Madhav Gadgil submitted a science-based framework for governing the Western Ghats. It proposed meaningful conservation, community-controlled decision-making through gram sabhas, and restrictions on mining, quarrying and destructive infrastructure in ecologically sensitive areas. The scientific case was widely regarded as sound.

Madhav Gadgil

The political reception was not. A coalition of church institutions, plantation interests, quarry operators and farming organisations in the Ghats districts framed the report as an anti-people agenda that threatened the livelihoods of smallholders and plantation workers. No Kerala government, regardless of political alignment, was willing to defend it. The Kasturirangan Committee, constituted in response, offered a more moderate approach: satellite-based mapping to distinguish natural from cultural landscapes, with strict protection applied only to the former. Even this considerably diluted version faced persistent resistance in the Ghats districts. Fifteen years later, Ecologically Sensitive Zone notification in Kerala remains incomplete and contested.

The environmental movement drew a clear lesson from this experience. Conservation arguments that do not attend to livelihood and development concerns are politically self-defeating in a democratic context. Meanwhile, the state had accumulated a different kind of evidence about what ecological neglect actually costs. The 2018 floods caused widespread devastation and prompted the Rebuild Kerala initiative, which for the first time embedded resilience thinking into state-level planning. The Mundakkai-Chooralmala landslide of 30 July 2024, which resulted in 373 deaths, over 200 injuries and 218 people still missing, remains the most devastating disaster in Kerala’s recorded history. These events gave ecological arguments a human weight that policy documents alone could not provide. The Charter reflects what the movement has arrived at after absorbing both lessons.

The Mundakkai-Chooralmala landslide

What the Charter Proposes

From Forest to Sea is an unusually substantive document for a civil society manifesto. It is organised around the idea that Kerala’s ecological systems form a single connected landscape running from the forests of the Western Ghats through midland hills, agricultural land, wetlands and rivers to the coast. Disturbances in any part of this system affect the whole. Upstream deforestation intensifies downstream floods. Floodplain encroachment amplifies coastal erosion. Wetland loss reduces a city’s capacity to absorb flood water. The Charter argues that governing this landscape requires not sectoral programmes operating in isolation but integrated governance across the entire continuum.

This framework is translated into proposals across eleven sectors including agriculture, forests, water, coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, mining, urban ecology, waste management, tourism and energy. For each sector the Charter offers both a situational assessment and specific commitments formatted for direct adoption by political parties. These range from structural proposals such as river basin governance and agroecological transition to specific ones such as Ecological Service Payments of at least Rs 2,500 per acre per year for wetland-conserving paddy farmers, mandatory 200-metre buffer zones for quarry blasting near residential settlements, and abandonment of the proposed coastal highway.

The governance architecture proposed is equally detailed. A Kerala Climate Action and Resilience Mission with cross-sectoral authority is the centrepiece, supported by approximately fifteen new missions and councils covering wetlands, river basins, coastal resilience and urban ecology. This is complemented by proposals for ecology-tagged budgeting, ecological fiscal transfers to local governments, and a Kerala Climate Rehabilitation Act modelled on the land acquisition law that would give climate-displaced communities enforceable rights. Taken together, the Charter represents the most detailed attempt yet made in Kerala to translate ecological governance principles into a politically addressable policy programme.

The Charter also makes a significant political choice in how it frames ecology in relation to development. Rather than presenting conservation as a constraint on growth, it argues that functional ecological systems are a precondition for it. Paddy fields buffer floods. Wetlands recharge groundwater. Mangroves protect coastlines. Forests sustain rivers. Degrading these systems generates public costs through disaster relief, infrastructure repair and agricultural losses that standard development accounting does not capture. This reframing is one of the Charter’s most important contributions.

Paddy Fields in Kerela

The Charter also ties its ecological proposals to livelihood protections in ways its predecessors did not. Ecological Service Payments for paddy farmers, wildlife damage compensation within thirty days rather than the current years-long wait, Adivasi rights to be recognised before any relocation is considered, and Free Prior and Informed Consent for fishing communities before coastal development proceeds are among the provisions that reflect this orientation. These are not decorative additions. They represent a serious attempt to sever the equation that made the Gadgil report politically indefensible: that environmental protection means taking something away from people who have little to spare.

Human-wildlife conflict receives more specific attention in the Charter than in most previous policy documents. It calls for wildlife damage compensation to be settled within thirty days, a universal insurance system for crop and livestock losses, and a statutory interstate coordination mechanism between Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for managing shared elephant corridors. On relocation, the Charter is explicit that communities in or near elephant corridors cannot be displaced until their rights are fully recognised and fair compensation provided, acknowledging in its own language the historical injustice involved. These are more grounded provisions than earlier frameworks offered.

What the Charter Leaves Unanswered

Acknowledging what the Charter achieves does not require setting aside its limitations. The political constraints that shaped its strategic choices also produce certain silences, and some of these are worth examining carefully.

The first concerns the Western Ghats. The Charter calls for development proposals in the region to be evaluated against ecological carrying capacity, which is the right principle. But it does not specify what follows when that evaluation produces a negative answer. This is precisely the question that made the Gadgil report so difficult to defend politically. Recognising the WGEEP as legitimate science is not the same as demonstrating how its findings can be applied in practice when organised and powerful interests are opposed. The Charter proposes a Western Ghats Ecological Governance Council to manage these decisions, but it does not explain how such a body would be constituted or insulated from the same coalition of interests that stalled implementation for fifteen years. This is a significant gap, and one that future policy work will need to address directly.

The second limitation concerns what governance scholars sometimes call wicked problems. These are situations where ecological requirements and existing livelihood practices point in opposite directions and where no straightforward policy solution exists. The Charter’s call for seasonal fishing bans in wetland breeding grounds is ecologically sound, but communities dependent on inland fishing have no immediate alternative income during those periods, and the livelihood support provisions in this section remain vague. Similarly, the Charter is appropriately direct about ecological damage from unmanaged tourism in Munnar and Wayanad, but the tourism economy in those districts has become a significant source of income for large numbers of homestay operators, guides, vehicle owners and vendors. Carrying capacity limits would have real distributional consequences that the Charter acknowledges without fully working through. Where ecological and livelihood interests are compatible, the Charter is careful and detailed. Where they conflict, it tends to state the ecological position and note the livelihood concern without resolving the tension.

The third limitation is structural. The Charter documents ecological degradation with considerable authority, but it is relatively silent on the forces systematically producing it: real estate speculation, the remittance-driven construction boom, tourism promoted as a state growth strategy, and the infrastructure-led development model. These are not incidental factors. Governance prescriptions that do not engage them risk remaining parallel to the development model rather than transforming it.

Finally, the Charter’s institutional proposals are ambitious but unsequenced. Approximately fifteen new missions, councils and coordination bodies are proposed without a prioritisation logic, without an assessment of the cumulative administrative and financial demands they would place on the state, and without guidance on how jurisdictional conflicts between them would be managed. Kerala’s governance experience suggests that institutional multiplication without adequate capacity and sequencing tends to produce overlap rather than improved outcomes. The Charter would be more useful as a political document if it indicated which institutions should be established first and why.

The Charter as a Political Document

The limitations noted above do not diminish what the Charter represents as a political intervention. It is designed as a pre-election document, and its proposals are formatted as manifesto commitments precisely so that parties can adopt them and be held accountable for them. This is a legitimate and important function, and it is worth being clear about what it asks of the political process.

The question that voters and civil society organisations should be putting to the major parties is not a general one about environmental commitment. General commitments are easy to make and difficult to measure. The questions the Charter makes possible are specific. Will the party commit to abandoning the proposed coastal highway? Will ecology-tagged budgeting be introduced in the first budget? Will time-bound wildlife damage compensation be implemented? Will a climate displacement rehabilitation law be enacted? Which of the Charter’s institutional proposals will be established in the first year of government, and in what sequence?

These are questions that have concrete answers, and parties that have offered detailed positions on industrial investment, infrastructure spending and fiscal policy should be equally capable of responding to them. The Charter has done the work of translating ecological governance into politically addressable commitments. Whether that work produces accountability before and after the election depends on whether civil society organisations, journalists and voters treat these commitments as seriously as they treat other manifesto promises.

There is a broader point here as well. Kerala’s political parties have governed the state through two major flood disasters and one catastrophic landslide in less than a decade. The question of how the landscape is governed is no longer a specialist concern. It is a matter of public safety, fiscal prudence and the long-term viability of the state’s agricultural and coastal economies. The Charter makes that case carefully and in detail. The election is an opportunity to determine whether Kerala’s major parties have heard it.

After the Manifesto

The Charter’s deeper limitation is not a failure of analysis. It is a feature of the form. Manifestos identify what should happen. They are not designed to work through what happens when the communities whose livelihoods are directly affected resist, negotiate or require something different from what the policy proposes. The next phase of this work requires going beyond demonstrating that ecology and development are broadly compatible, which the Charter does effectively, to navigating honestly the cases where they are not.

Those cases involve communities with real and legitimate economic stakes in the outcome. The small farmers in forest-edge settlements whose income from marginal land is affected if quarrying is restricted. The fishing families whose wet season catches sustain them through leaner months when breeding bans apply. The homestay owners in the hill districts who have built their livelihoods around a visitor economy that carrying capacity limits would change. These are not obstacles to ecological governance. They are the communities that ecological governance most needs to engage seriously.

Human-wildlife conflict illustrates the limits of what compensation-based approaches can achieve. The Charter’s provisions on time-bound compensation and universal insurance address real and long-neglected grievances. But compensation responds to damage after it has occurred. The underlying conflict, between wildlife movement and settled farming communities in forest-edge areas, is persistent, geographically specific and carries costs that fall disproportionately on already economically marginal households. Working through it requires sustained institutional engagement with affected communities, not just a policy commitment. The Charter names this problem more honestly than its predecessors. Resolving it will take considerably more.

Doing justice to all these cases requires not just livelihood provisions appended to conservation proposals, but sustained institutional processes for working through conflicts, with affected communities participating meaningfully, with enforceable protections in place, and with enough flexibility to adjust when plans meet ground conditions that policy did not anticipate.

The Charter points toward this work without completing it. That is perhaps as much as a document of this kind can reasonably do.

What it has done is considerable. It has produced a rigorous, rights-integrated ecological framework and placed it before Kerala’s major parties on the eve of an election, addressed not to specialists but to the political process itself. In the fifteen years since the Gadgil report, Kerala’s environmental movement has learned that scientific rigour alone does not determine policy outcomes. Equally important is the capacity to translate ecological knowledge into political commitments that parties can carry and communities can demand. The Charter represents a serious attempt at that translation. Whether the translation holds through an election campaign, a government formation and the ordinary pressures of administration is the question that the next phase of this work will have to answer.

The author is grateful to Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Chair of the Drafting Committee, for conversations that informed this piece. The usual disclaimers apply.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Ecology Before the Ballot Box appeared first on SabrangIndia.