A quick search of the 142-page judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, finds these key words missing. Instead, the judgement expanded the contours of terrorism. Further, it created two categories of accused – leaders and followers. Researchers Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were designated as “architects” of the conspiracy and denied bail, whereas student activist Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed were granted bail under stringent censorial conditions. All of them have been in jail since 2020.

While freedom of speech and the right to political dissent are significant contextual elements in the judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly clarified that they are not the core legal issues determining the outcome of the bail applications.

Critics, however, argue that the top court’s judgment sets a dangerous precedent by classifying political dissent and protest speeches as acts of terrorism.

Conditional freedom that robs the right to speak

Supreme Court imposed strict conditions while granting bail to the Fatima, Rehman, Khan, Haider and Ahmed. Apart from the ₹2 lakh personal bond each with two local sureties of the like amount, the top court also gagged the five activists from speaking about any issue from any platform after their release.

Conditions also include that they are:

• Required to stay within the territorial limit of Delhi NCT for the pendency of the trial. Not allowed to leave the city without court’s permission. Any request for travel shall disclose reasons, which would then be considered by the trial court “strictly” on its “merits”
• Surrender passports if any. If there is no passport, then an affidavit to be filed to that effect. Furthermore, immigration authorities have been direction to prevent any exit from the country without the court’s permission
• Twice weekly check-ins at the Delhi Police Crime Branch police station. The police are then required to submit monthly attendance reports to court; Furnish full current address and all contact details with the investigating officer of the case. there must be a seven-day notice before any change to the same.
• Co-operate during the trial, appear at every date unless exempted by court and ensure they don’t act in any way to delay the same
• No witness tampering, or any contact with them at all – direct or indirect. Not allowed to participate in the activities of any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the present FIR/ final report
• Complete media gag
• Gag on attending any rallies – political or otherwise, physically or virtually till the conclusion of the trial
• Not allowed to distribute any posts, handbills, posters, fliers, banners
• “Maintain peace and good behavior.” Violation of this condition gives the police “liberty” to seek revocation of bail

UAPA comes a full circle

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs State (2026 INSC 2) represents a ‘coming to a full circle’ moment for the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The UAPA, which was originally meant to address “secessionist” activities, was later amended and rebranded as India’s anti-terror law.

Around 1962-63, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned UAPA to act as a deterrence against secessionist ideologies and preserve national integration. In the backdrop of the 1965 India-Pakistan war, UAPA was primarily intended to tackle the strong secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu which wanted to be a sovereign state. It was followed by a series of preventive detention laws and, when India signed and ratified all major United Nation counter-terrorism conventions after 9/11, the UAPA was specifically amended in 2004 to align with the country’s international obligations.

The law, in its current avatar, is so vast and vague, that even expressing disaffection towards the state or affection for another state, as in the case of the three Kashmiri youth who were jailed under sedition charges for allegedly cheering for Pakistan’s cricket team when it won the 2021 T20 World Cup, is liable for prosecution.

When protest becomes an act of terrorism

Can protest speeches, public meetings and WhatsApp group membership constitute conspiracy under Sections 16–18 of the UAPA at the bail stage?

According to the Supreme Court: Yes, they can. Even if the protests were peaceful assemblies.

The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgement essentially redefined terrorism. Even though the judgment recognized freedom of speech as a protected right, it stopped where an allegedly pre-planned conspiracy for systemic violence began. Ironically, cases against BJP politicians like Kapil Sharma, who made incendiary speeches on the eve of the breakout of violence in Delhi in 2020, continue at a snail’s pace,

Yet, the January 5 judgement read: “The factual record placed by the prosecution repeatedly returns to a distinction that is central to the case: the differentiation between a conventional dharna and a chakka jam. This is not treated as semantics. It is treated as strategy.”

“A dharna may be expressive; a chakka jam, as alleged, is disruptive by design. The prosecution case is that the sustained choking of arterial roads, replication of blockade sites, and the movement of crowds from minority clusters into mixed population areas were not accidental expressions of dissent, but calibrated acts meant to generate confrontation, overwhelm law enforcement, and create conditions for violence,” it added.

The top court said Delhi Police did not rely on a “single speech, a single meeting, or a single blockade” to oppose bail, rather it relied on “a course of conduct, spread over weeks, involving repeated meetings, formation of coordinating bodies, issuance of directions, and alleged preparations for escalation.”

“The Court cannot, at the bail stage, segregate this course of conduct into isolated benign fragments and assess each in abstraction,” the judgment read.

The Supreme Court reiterated that “dissent and protest occupy a protected space in a constitutional democracy,” however, that protection does not extend to a design that involves “systemic disruption, engineered confrontation, and preparatory steps towards violence”.

“At this stage, the Court must resist from committing two errors. The first is to criminalise speech merely because it is politically charged. The second is to immunize a continuing course of conduct merely because it contains language of non-violence,” the judgment read.

“In the application of such law, the Court does not proceed on identity, ideology, belief, or association. It proceeds on role, material, and the statutory threshold governing the exercise of jurisdiction,” the judgment read. “…[the judgment] neither endorses the prosecution case nor prejudges the guilt of any accused,” the court said adding that it applied the law as it stands, “recognising that individual liberty must be protected, but that it must also withstand the legitimate demands of national security and collective safety.”

“This balance is not a matter of preference rather it is a matter of constitutional duty,” the court added.

Selective application of law

While the Supreme Court’s judgment could be seen as a mixed bag of relief for some accused, in the denial of bail to Imam and Khalid, the top court selectively applied its own judgement and those of the high court on free speech or even bail under section 43d of the UAPA.

In cases like Vernon Gonzalves, Shoma Sen, Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Sheikh Javed Iqbal, the top court granted bail due to prolonged incarceration despite the bar under section 43D of the UAPA act.

On free speech, the Supreme Court in its 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment said that dissenting discourse is not a crime. In its Balwant Singh judgment, the court emphasized that shouting stray slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” were not a crime.

In fact, the Delhi High Court granted bail to student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha—co-accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case—and pulled up the Delhi Police for its “wanton use” of the UAPA.

In this case, the High Court clearly stated: “… in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril.”

“… the intent and purport of the Parliament in enacting the UAPA, and more specifically in amending it in 2004 and 2008 to bring terrorist activity within its scope, was, and could only have had been, to deal with matters of profound impact on the ‘Defence of India’, nothing more and nothing less,” it added.

Process is the punishment

In the past decade, the State (or corporations) has often been accused of (mis)using the law to stifle dissent. In effect, making the process of law the punishment. Sedition (the old and new avatar), UAPA, defamation, Copyright Act are all being used against free speech.

The NewsClick founder editor Prabir Purkayastha was charged under the draconian UAPA for publishing “propaganda” reports on China that allegedly served to endanger the “sovereignty, unity and security of India.” He secured bail after seven months in custody after the Supreme Court held that his arrest was “invalid in the eyes of the law.”

Sedition, in its new avatar, has been used against climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, stand-up comic Kunal Kamra, satirists Madri Kakoti and Shamita Yadav better as Dr Medusa and Ranting Gola respectively, Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore, TV star and Big Boss winner Akhil Marar, a 20-year-old autorickshaw driver Sahil Khan and even Pushpa Sathidar, wife of the late actor Vira Sathidar, who was booked for merely reciting the acclaimed Faiz Ahmed Faiz poem ‘Hum Dekhenge’ at a meeting.in Nagpur in May 2025.

Even after sedition cases are dropped, the punishing process does not end, as the ordeal of Manipuri journalist Kishore Wangkhemcha, booked for speaking out about the struggles of leaders of Manipur or film maker Aisha Sultana, charged for criticising the Lakshadweep administrator, bears out..

Clearly, the price of dissent and critical thought is extremely high. And now, a Supreme Court order penalises peaceful protest and expression as acts of terror, effectively putting an undemocratic premium on the freedom to speak freely.

*About the Author: After an almost decade-long career as a photojournalist in Mumbai, Ritika now covers the Indian judiciary and hopes to simplify the law and decode the judiciary. Now based in Delhi, Ritika is a writer, part-time dreamer & full-time K-drama addict who escapes the city when she’s not bingeing on K-dramas.

Courtesy: Free Speech Collective

The post When Speech Becomes an Act of Terrorism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Clearly, after the widespread criticism and the sensitiveness of the issue given he upcoming local corporation elections (municipal corporation elections are on  Thursday January 15), on January 8, Yogesh Sabale, Senior Police Inspector of the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, called Deepak Pawar and who informed him that they were dropping the case and hence they did not need to appear in court! Since no formal intimation (or confirmation of the withdrawal of the misconceived case by the police has yet been received) Pawar raised the question: “…ahead of the elections, are you suggesting that I should not come to court on January 12 because the government does not want unnecessary trouble over the Marathi issue? However, does that mean the case has been withdrawn? On this point, Sabale could not give a definitive answer—nor could he!”

Pawar further writes, “For a grassroots activist, if within the span of ten days one is first ordered to appear in court and then requested not to appear, one can imagine the mix of happiness and astonishment this would cause. Over the past two or three decades, the decline of street-based movements has meant that even the police are unsure how to deal with people who come out onto the streets through lawful means—especially for causes like language and schools. Therefore, if those who ordered the registration of the case and instructed that charges be framed changed their minds within 24 hours, there may be reasons for this that we are not aware of. What are those reasons?”

Deepak Pawar, a renowned figure in Maharashtra also queries that,” If a case was to be registered, it should have been registered against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, Harshvardhan Sapkal, and Nitin Sardesai for the June 29 programme. Similarly, cases should have been registered against all leaders of political parties present at the December 18 programme. This clearly shows how convenient and selective the police’s process of registering cases is.”

The entire tale runs thus:

On January 7, a letter was published on social media in my (Deepak Pawar’s) name and in the name of Anand Bhandare. That letter concerned the case registered by the police in connection with the march we had organised on December 18, 2025—from Hutatma Smarak to the Municipal Corporation headquarters—to save Marathi schools, and about appearing before the Mazgaon court on Monday, January 12, for the framing of charges. The post highlighted that, in Maharashtra, carrying out a lawful agitation for Marathi schools has effectively been treated as a crime. After the text was published on social media, it was widely shared. Citizens’ reactions strongly condemned the government and the police in harsh terms.

नमस्कार,
७ जानेवारी रोजी समाजमाध्यमांवर मी आणि आनंद भंडारे यांच्या नावाने एक पत्र प्रसिद्ध केले होते. १८ डिसेंबर २०२५ रोजी हुतात्मा स्मारक ते महानगरपालिका मुख्यालय या दरम्यान मराठी शाळा वाचविण्यासाठी आम्ही आयोजित केलेल्या मार्चाबाबत पोलिसांनी दाखल केलेला गुन्हा आणि सोमवार, दिनांक… pic.twitter.com/hDqmJAZkJe

— Dr. Deepak Pawar दीपक पवार (@drdeepakpawar) January 11, 2026

Hello,

(Continued text of tweet)…Even if it is difficult for our voices to reach a government with a brute majority, there is a possibility that the police may still be somewhat sensitive to public criticism. Accordingly, the very next day I received a call from Yogesh Sabale, Senior Police Inspector of the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, who informed me that they were dropping the case. I asked him to convey this in writing, and by the end of the day I received a letter from him, which is attached here. Three days later, letters addressed to Anand Bhandare, Girish Samant, and Pranali Raut arrived. Notably, while Pranali Raut had never received a letter asking her to appear in court, she did receive a letter telling her that she need not appear in court.

If an agitation has taken place under my chairpersonship (Deepak Pawar), then at the very least, the names of everyone who participated in that agitation should have appeared in my letter. That did not happen. Not only that, but while we were initially instructed to appear in court on Monday, letters began arriving one after another—right up to Saturday night—saying that there was no need to appear. If the police are sending such letters via a police station’s WhatsApp, some basic questions arise: does each police station have an email ID, and if so, why is it not being used for this purpose—what exactly is it used for?

Yogesh Sabale, Senior Police Inspector of the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, spoke to me at length over the phone. The very system that officially exists to maintain law and order often ends up suppressing the rights of ordinary citizens. Officers like him work at the intermediate level within this system, and therefore their authority has limits. Perhaps their personal integrity and goodwill exceed their formal powers. That may be why he said to me (Deepak Pawar), “I request you not to appear in court on Monday.”

For a grassroots activist, if within the span of ten days one is first ordered to appear in court and then requested not to appear, one can imagine the mix of happiness and astonishment this would cause. Over the past two or three decades, the decline of street-based movements has meant that even the police are unsure how to deal with people who come out onto the streets through lawful means—especially for causes like language and schools. Therefore, if those who ordered the registration of the case and instructed that charges be framed changed their minds within 24 hours, there may be reasons for this that we are not aware of. What are those reasons?

The question I (Deepak Pawar ) put to Sabale was this: ahead of the elections, are you suggesting that I should not come to court on the 12th because the government does not want unnecessary trouble over the Marathi issue? But does that mean the case has been withdrawn? On this point, Sabale could not give a definitive answer—nor could he. He merely said that cases had been registered against workers of political parties. However, this claim does not hold water. I (Deepak Pawar) had already demonstrated this by citing the names of those against whom cases were, and were not, registered in connection with the June 29 programme protesting unjust government resolutions. If a case was to be registered, it should have been registered against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, Harshvardhan Sapkal, and Nitin Sardesai for the June 29 programme. Similarly, cases should have been registered against all leaders of political parties present at the December 18 programme. This clearly shows how convenient and selective the police’s process of registering cases is.”

At the point of writing this detailed post on social media, Pawar informs people of Maharashtra “all of us activists from the Marathi Abhyas Kendra are busy in Shirur with preparations for the 9th Marathi-loving Parents’ Conference.”

The letters sent by the police may be read here:

(The original tweet on X was in Marathi)

Related:

Mumbai’s Second Lifeline in ICU: Mumbaikars respond to call of “Save BEST”

BMC Polls: ECI claims superintendence on citizenship even as Foreigners (NRIS) enter Mumbai airport carrying Indian Voter IDs

Remove illegal and unstable hoardings, signboards & electric signages immediately: Mumbaikars to BMC

The post Academic, Deepak Pawar to Mumbai Police: Are frivolous cases against us –filed after a peaceful demonstration to save Marathi schools –being dropped because of the upcoming BMC polls? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The country, India, the world’s largest democracy, placed fourth out of 168 nations assessed for the likelihood of what researchers call intrastate mass killings. More significantly, India topped the list of countries facing such danger that are not already experiencing large-scale violence.

This is the December 2025 report Countries at Risk for Intrastate Mass Killing 2025-26, Statistical Risk Assessment Results, available here, from the museum’s Early Warning Project estimates India has a 7.5% chance of seeing deliberate mass violence against civilians before the end of 2026. The researchers define such violence as armed groups killing at least 1000 non-combatants within a year based on their group identity, which could include ethnicity, religion, politics or geography.

Three countries scored higher than India. Another South Asian neighbour, Myanmar, holds the top spot, followed by Chad and Sudan. However, the difference is that several high-ranking nations including Myanmar and Sudan are already dealing with ongoing mass killings, making India’s position particularly noteworthy as a potential new flashpoint.

Methodology: Researchers at the museum and Dartmouth College analysed decades of historical data to identify patterns. They look at which characteristics countries shared in the years before mass violence erupted, then search for similar warning signs today.

“Which countries today look most similar to countries that experienced mass killings in the past, in the year or two before those mass killings began?” the report asks.

The model examines more than 30 factors, from population size and economic indicators to measures of political freedom and armed conflict. Historically, roughly one or two countries experience new episodes of mass killing each year.

It was Lawrence Woocher, research director at the museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, wrote in the report’s foreword that the project aims to help officials and organisations decide where to focus resources for prevention. Pointing out that the Holocaust was preventable, Woocher wrote, “By heeding warning signs and taking early action, individuals and governments can save lives”.

The assessment looks only at future outbreaks, not whether existing violence might worsen. This approach helps fill what researchers see as a gap in prevention efforts, since ongoing crises often dominate attention.

Crucially, the researchers caution against viewing their findings as predictions. The statistical model identifies risk factors that historically appeared before mass violence, but these factors do not necessarily cause such events.

“Readers should keep in mind that our model is not causal,” the report states. “The variables identified as predicting higher or lower risk of mass killings in a country are not necessarily the factors that drive or trigger atrocities.”

For instance, a country’s large population, for instance, does not trigger violence. However, nations with bigger populations have historically been more likely to experience mass killings, making it a useful indicator when combined with other data.

The model relies on publicly available information from 2024, which means events from 2025 do not reflect in the current rankings. Data limitations also mean the assessment may not fully capture conditions in places where governments restrict access to observers. “This assessment is just one tool,” the report underlined. “It is meant to be a starting point for discussion and further research, not a definitive conclusion.”

Identifying the countries in the top tier, the report lays out specific concerns.

“For every country in the top 30, we recommend that policy makers consider whether they are devoting sufficient attention to addressing the risks of mass atrocities occurring within that country,” the authors recommended.

The report suggests several lines of inquiry. Are governments paying enough attention to the danger of systematic attacks on civilians? What specific triggers, whether elections, political upheaval or protests, could spark widespread violence?

The authors recommend that international bodies and national governments conduct their own detailed assessments of high-risk countries. Such reviews should examine what drives the risk, what scenarios seem plausible, and what existing strengths in a society need to be reinforced to prevent violence.

“Strategies and tools to address atrocity risks should, of course, be tailored to each country’s context,” the report noted.

The Early Warning Project has released annual assessments since 2014. In that time, mass atrocities have occurred in multiple countries, including genocide against the Rohingya in Burma and mass civilian deaths in South Sudan and Ethiopia. “Even in cases like these where warnings have been issued, they have simply not prompted enough early action,” Woocher stated.

Related:

Partitioned minds, a Saffron Fatwa & Denial of Fair Opportunity: Mata Vaishno Devi University, Jammu

Apologies from an ashamed Hindu

Muslim student set on fire in Bareilly outside exam centre, suffers 8% burns

The post India tops among countries at risk of mass crimes, atrocities, US Holocaust Museum warns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Farhad had reportedly just stepped out of the examination centre when the attack occurred at the college gate. Witnesses saw flames leap from his clothes as people nearby scrambled to put them out.

Fortuitously, another group of students and passers-by rushed to douse the fire with water and cloth. Some used water bottles. Others shouted for help. For a few minutes, the scene dissolved into panic.

Police said that Farhad sustained around 8% burn injuries. He was first taken to a private facility on Delhi Road and later shifted to the district hospital. His condition is said to be stable, officials said. Moradabad (city) SP Kumar Ranvijay Singh said, “It appears the attackers used a petrol-filled bottle. We’re collecting forensic samples to confirm. An FIR is being registered.” Predictably, none have been arrested yet.

Hindu College is one of Moradabad’s older educational institutions. Police have taken statements from witnesses and are analysing footage from nearby CCTV cameras. The bottle suspected to have been used in the attack has been sent for chemical analysis. Police identified suspects as students of the same college. Their names emerged during questioning of those present on campus.

Related:

Maharashtra Mob Violence: Muslim student and a fruit vendor, forced into chanting ‘Jai Sri Ram’

Muslim student denied exam for wearing beard in Ahmedabad: A disturbing reflection of rising intolerance

Terrorism’s Shadow: Rising hatred against Indian Muslims after Pahalgam terror attack

The post Muslim student set on fire in Bareilly outside exam centre, suffers 8% burns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The First Information Report of seven pages mentions offences under Sections 353 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Samhita and details a complaint lodged on December 18, 2025 over a reported Facebook post dated December 14, 2025. On perusal this post appeared unavailable for viewing. A resident of the United Kingdom and key consultant with the National Health Service (NHS) Dr Patil’s Videos and advise on public health issues especially at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic are remembered with affection and respect. The fact that before his arrest/detention no information as is required was provided to the British consulate since he is a citizen of that country has also raised eyebrows. The complainant, it is reported is one Nikhil Bhamare, member of the BJP Maharashtra’s Social Media cell who has faced cases for intemperate language posts on social media during the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi government (MVA) between 2019-2022.

The FIR may be read below.

Here are some of the social media posts strongly condemning the detention.

Dr. Sangram Patil, a British citizen of Indian origin and a proud son of Maharashtra, was arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch at Mumbai’s Adani Airport early in the morning as he entered India, in connection with a case of engaging in “objectionable” social media conversations against the Modi government. His wife was also with him. It could not be ascertained whether anything was informed to the British legal authorities in this regard.

According to information received from sources:

Dr. Sangram Patil, a British citizen of Indian origin and a proud son of Maharashtra, was arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch at Mumbai’s Adani Airport early in the morning as he entered India, in connection with a case of engaging… pic.twitter.com/94hCS0UFIG

— Raju Parulekar (@rajuparulekar) January 10, 2026

लंडनचे डॅा. संग्राम पाटील यांना मुंबई विमानतळावर पोलिसांनी
ताब्यात घेतलंय.
या बिनडोक कारवाईचा निषेध!#DevendraFadnavis

— nikhil wagle (@waglenikhil) January 10, 2026

Strongly condemn the arbitrary arrest of Dr. #SangramPatil at #Mumbai airport this morning!
A proud son of #Maharashtra, British citizen of #Indian origin, who fearlessly spoke truth is now targeted.

This is nothing but state-sponsored suppression of voice!… pic.twitter.com/wmpWFWox4k

— Dr. Jitendra Dehade (@jitendradehade) January 10, 2026

Some of Dr Sangram Patil’s social media posts may be seen here

April 2025

आपलं संविधान ,माझ संविधान.
धन्यवाद बाबासाहेब तुमच्या संविधानाने किमया केली. pic.twitter.com/mF9L6gLaWT

— Dr Sangram Gokulsingh Patil (@drsangrampatil) April 8, 2023

January 2025

“तुम्ही शूर विरांची संतान आहात ही गोष्ट काल्पनिक नव्हे, तर भीमा कोरेगांवला जाऊन बघा तुमच्या पूर्वजांची नावे तेथील विजयस्तंभावर कोरलेली आहेत. तो पुरावा आहे की, तुम्ही भेड बकरीची संतान नसून सिंहाचे छावे आहात.”
– डॉ. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर
(दिनांक २५.१२.१९२७ महाडचे भाषण) pic.twitter.com/43Xs0g7YpU

— Dr Sangram Gokulsingh Patil (@drsangrampatil) January 1, 2026

December 30 2025

pic.twitter.com/pVs24PBu2x

— Dr Sangram Gokulsingh Patil (@drsangrampatil) December 30, 2025

Related:

लंडनहून मुंबईत परतातच डॉक्टर संग्राम पाटील यांना विमानतळावर पोलिसांनी घेतलं ताब्यात, सरोदेंनी व्यक्त केला संताप

The post Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint arises from a speech delivered by Satam on December 6, 2025, during the public inauguration of a BJP office in Ward No. 47, Malad West, at a time when the Model Code of Conduct was in force owing to the ongoing Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) electoral process. The speech, widely circulated through video footage online, deploys familiar yet deeply dangerous communal tropes—branding Muslims as “jihadis,” accusing them of facilitating illegal immigration, and invoking conspiracy theories such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”

From political speech to communal vilification

CJP’s complaint makes it clear that the impugned speech goes far beyond permissible political criticism. Satam is seen alleging that “jihadis” have infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club, accusing Muslims of aiding Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents, and suggesting that demographic changes driven by Muslim presence pose a threat to governance and society.

These remarks, delivered at a public political event and amplified through digital circulation, effectively criminalise an entire religious community, casting Muslim citizens as infiltrators, conspirators, and demographic threats. The language used is not incidental—it is part of a growing repertoire of coded hate speech, designed to mobilise voters through fear, suspicion, and hostility towards a minority community.

CJP has annexed the video footage of the speech as evidence, underscoring that these are not stray remarks but verifiable, deliberate public statements made in an electoral context.

Clear violations of the Model Code of Conduct

The complaint highlights that the Model Code of Conduct explicitly bars political actors from making appeals to communal feelings, aggravating differences between religious communities, or using unverified allegations that vitiate the electoral atmosphere. Satam’s remarks, CJP argues, strike at the very heart of these prohibitions.

By invoking Muslims as a collective threat and framing them as agents of demographic and electoral subversion, the speech seeks to polarise the electorate along religious lines—a practice the Election Commission has repeatedly condemned, including in cases involving indirect or “dog-whistle” appeals.

Statutory breaches under the Representation of the People Act

CJP further points out that the speech attracts multiple violations under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These include:

• Section 123(3), which prohibits appeals based on religion—violated here through indirect but unmistakable religious mobilisation
• Section 123(3A), which bars the promotion of hatred or enmity between communities
• Section 125, a penal provision that criminalises the promotion of enmity in connection with elections.

The complaint draws strength from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), which unequivocally held that any direct or indirect appeal to religion corrodes the foundations of secular democracy.

An assault on constitutional values

Beyond electoral law, CJP situates the speech within the broader constitutional framework. The remarks, it argues, violate Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (right to dignity), while abusing the protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a)—a right that does not extend to hate speech.

At stake is not merely legal compliance, but the constitutional promise of secularism, fraternity, and equal citizenship, values explicitly enshrined in the Preamble.

Why This Matters: Electoral integrity and minority rights

Malad West and its surrounding areas are religiously diverse. In such contexts, speeches that frame minorities as conspirators or infiltrators carry real consequences: voter intimidation, communal polarisation, and erosion of public trust in free and fair elections.

CJP warns that allowing such rhetoric to pass without consequence lowers the threshold of acceptable political discourse and emboldens further communal targeting—turning elections into arenas of fear rather than democratic choice.

CJP’s call for urgent action

In its prayer, CJP urges the Election Commission to take immediate cognisance of the complaint, initiate proceedings against Ameet Satam for MCC violations, issue a show-cause notice, impose appropriate sanctions, and direct law enforcement authorities to examine penal liability under the RPA. Importantly, CJP also calls for a general advisory to political parties, cautioning against the use of conspiracy-laden communal narratives like “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

CJP flags serial inflammatory speeches by Kalicharan Maharaj, seeks urgent action over repeated calls for Muslim exclusion and vigilantism

NBDSA pulls up Times Now Navbharat for communal, agenda-driven broadcast on ‘Miya Bihu’; orders removal of inflammatory content

CJP files complaint with ECI against Arunachal Minister Ojing Tasing for threatening voters with denial of welfare schemes

CJP moves NCM against surge in Hate Speech at Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

The post CJP approaches Election Commission over communal and hate-based speech by BJP Mumbai President appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint, dated December 23, 2025, comes nearly a month after CJP’s initial representation of November 25, 2025, which documented how a politically affiliated individual publicly targeted Muslim vendors through religious profiling, forced identity checks, and inflammatory accusations. The absence of any visible deterrent or corrective action, CJP notes, has emboldened the perpetrator and enabled a series of fresh incidents — transforming hate speech into administrative and police action on the ground.

A pattern, not isolated incidents

At the heart of CJP’s follow-up complaint is a critical assertion: what is unfolding at Malabar Hill is not a series of sporadic outbursts, but a continuing and aggravated course of conduct.

Across multiple dates — November 13, December 6, and December 17, 2025 — the same individual has repeatedly targeted Muslim street vendors by appearance and presumed religious identity, invoking communal conspiracy theories such as “land jihad,” “illegal Aadhaar,” and “national security threats.” Each time, these public accusations were followed by immediate and tangible consequences: removal of vendors’ stalls, disruption of livelihood, and police intervention.

The cumulative effect, the complaint argues, is the systematic conversion of a public marketplace into a site of religious policing — where Muslim citizens are publicly cast as illegal, dangerous, and undeserving of economic survival.

Details of the previous complaint may be read here.

December 6: “Land jihad” and the criminalisation of livelihood

On December 6, 2025, a video widely circulated on social media captured the accused individual publicly accusing Muslim hawkers at Malabar Hill of engaging in “land jihad” — a loaded communal trope that frames ordinary economic activity as covert territorial aggression.

Soon after these statements, the vendors’ stalls were removed and the vendors themselves were handed over to the police.

The complaint underscores that such rhetoric is not casual or rhetorical. By deploying conspiratorial language in a crowded public market, lawful vending activity was reframed as an anti-national act, effectively legitimising coercive action against an entire religious group without any due process.

December 17: “Illegal Aadhaar” and national security paranoia

Barely eleven days later, on December 17, 2025, the same individual returned to Malabar Hill to once again target Muslim vendors — this time alleging, without evidence, that they possessed “illegal Aadhaar cards” and posed a threat to national security. He openly declared his intent to emulate extremist campaigns against so-called “illegal Muslim immigration.”

Once again, these statements were followed by the removal of Muslim vendors’ stalls.

CJP highlights the gravity of such allegations: claims of “illegal Aadhaar” directly impute fraud, foreignness, and criminality, placing individuals at immediate risk of detention, harassment, and vigilante violence — particularly when made by politically connected actors in public spaces.

Vigilantism enabled by silence

The follow-up complaint raises serious questions about preventive policing and institutional accountability. When a private individual can repeatedly:

• Declare members of a religious community “illegal” or “anti-national”
• Publicly demand police action
• Successfully trigger eviction, detention, or livelihood loss

— without restraint or prosecution, it signals the emergence of a parallel system of authority, where hate speech substitutes for lawful governance. This silence, the complaint warns, does not merely fail victims; it actively legitimises communal intimidation and encourages imitation — both within Mumbai and beyond.

Markets as sites of exclusion

Street vendors are among the most economically vulnerable groups in urban India. Repeated eviction and public humiliation based on religious suspicion strike directly at the right to livelihood and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

CJP’s complaint powerfully situates these incidents within Mumbai’s fraught communal history, warning that branding Muslims as “security threats” in crowded urban markets risks triggering panic, retaliation, and public disorder. When shared civic spaces are transformed into zones of surveillance and exclusion, they cease to be neutral — becoming theatres of majoritarian dominance.

Economic punishment as communal control

What emerges from the Malabar Hill incidents is a form of targeted economic punishment — where Muslim citizens are made to understand that their right to earn a living is contingent on communal acceptability. Such practices amount to collective penalty based purely on religious identity, enforced not through law, but through intimidation, spectacle, and administrative complicity.

The complaint identifies a range of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including promoting enmity between groups, imputations prejudicial to national integration, criminal intimidation, public mischief, and unlawful assumption of public authority. The repetition and continuity of acts, CJP notes, satisfy the threshold for continuing offences.

Constitutionally, the incidents amount to serial violations of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g), 21, and 25 — eroding secularism, equality, and fraternity as lived principles.

A call for urgent intervention

Through this follow-up complaint, CJP has urged:

• Immediate registration of a comprehensive FIR covering all incidents
• Accountability for any police or civic officials who acted on unlawful verbal directions
• Clear prohibitory orders against private identity checks and religious profiling
• Restoration of livelihood and protection for affected vendors
• Robust intervention by the National Commission for Minorities, including summoning the accused and issuing national advisories

At stake, CJP warns, is not merely the fate of a few vendors — but the integrity of constitutional governance in everyday life. Allowing hate speech to translate into state action normalises religious vigilantism as governance, hollowing out citizenship from the ground up.

Unchecked, such practices threaten to make exclusion ordinary — and injustice routine.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Image: jernih.co

Related:

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

The Architecture of Polarisation: A structural analysis of communal hate speech as a core electoral strategy in India (2024–2025)

Words that Divide: BJP MP’s Bhagalpur speech targets Muslims, CJP files MCC complaint claiming violation of election laws

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

Communal rhetoric during Jubilee Hills by-election, CJP lodges complaint against Bandi Sanjay Kumar over religious mockery

The post Unchecked Vigilantism, Repeated Harm: Why CJP has filed a fresh complaint on Malabar Hill incident appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Gadgil, who founded the Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Sciences, Bengaluru, had been studying India’s ecology and environment for more than half a century. Gadgil pioneered research on the ecological significance of the Western Ghats. It was for this work that in 2024, the United Nations Environment Programme awarded him their Champions of the Earth award for the year under the ‘Lifetime Achievement’ category. Decades before this, in 1981 he was awarded the Padma Shri in 1981 and Padma Bhushan in 2006.

Fifteen years ago. Madhav Gadgil published one his widely-recognised works was his report submitted to the government as head of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) in 2011. The panel submitted its report after a lot of field visits, interactions with local communities and more. The report categorised the Western Ghats across six states into Eco Sensitive Zones of different gradations: 1 (areas of highest sensitivity), 2 (areas of high sensitivity) and 3 (areas of medium sensitivity). The report also made a lot of recommendations, including no mining or quarrying in areas listed under ESZ1.

Ironically, all states rejected the report; many called it “impractical.” And 14 years later, it has not been implemented in any form yet, across any of the six states home to the Western Ghats in India – even after another panel headed by Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan submitted another, more diluted report that also decreased the area across the Ghats that is to be eco-sensitive.

In his interview with The Hindu last year, he had expressed concerns about the disasters in the Western Ghats, adding that all the recommendations in the report were much needed to avert disasters. “What we witnessed was a model of development being imposed on people: mining operations and polluting industries were forced upon communities without their consent. At the same time, even conservation efforts were imposed in a top-down, authoritarian manner by a forest department that often acted in a tyrannical and anti-people way,” he said.

Apart from this report on the Western Ghats, his areas of work included the sacred groves of the Western Ghats to traditional ecological knowledge and peoples’ participation, India’s ecological issues and conflicts to environmental movements, and more.

Madhav Gadgil had also authored and co-authored numerous books, from This Fissured Land in 1992, to A Walk Up The Hill – Living with People and Nature, in 2023. Gadgil had also expressed strong views on the detrimental development projects coming up in the Great Nicobar Island, in tune with the warnings of scientists, conservationists, activists and several other sections of society. “If India has to act as a law-abiding country, then the Forest Rights Act would very much apply to the Shompens and the Nicobarese. Those areas should remain inviolate. They should be community forest resources of particularly vulnerable tribal groups and they should not be touched. So we are violating these laws all the time,” he had said.

A man of courage and conviction, he always opined that scientists, like all academics from various dispensations should speak truth to power.

Related:

Cries for Environmental Justice: India at a low 176/180 countries in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index

Modi Govt’s Coal Reform Policy Quashed Over Environmental Concerns

Noted rights defender and environmental rights activist, Prafulla Samantara abducted from hotel room in Rayagada, later found in Berhampur: Orissa

The post Madhav Gadgil’s unshakeable faith in science appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There was a section of political opinion consisting of mainly conservative Hindus and those arguing that India should become a Hindu nation; who opposed the Constitution right from the start. The views of these leaders of Hindu nationalist politics, supported by a conservative section of society were articulated in an article in Organiser, the RSS mouthpiece, which opposed the Indian Constitution; saying that there is/was nothing Indian about it and that it will not be accepted by Hindus. Savarkar, went on to (CNBC TV18) say that Manusmriti is the Constitution today. In this spirit Swami Avimukteshwaranand recently stated (Navbharat Times) that Manusmriti is “above” the Indian Constitution.

This stream is not the only one within India to undermine the Constitution by showing the primacy of ‘word of God’ or sacred scriptures as above its docrine. Maulana Mufti Shamail Nadwi made a similar statement recently. This Maulana has come to prominence in the last few days after his debate with Javed Akhtar on “Does God exist?”. In a viral clip, he asserts that “Muslims erred by accepting secularism and the supremacy of national institutions over Shariah, criticises democracy and the notion of placing the nation (desh) above religion. He questions whether believers should passively accept court verdicts conflicting with Islamic law. These statements (The Chenab Times), while presented as theological opinions, have been interpreted by critics as undermining India’s constitutional secularism and promoting religious supremacy.”[1]

While Manusmriti is a scriptural compilation representing the values of Brahmanism, the dominant stream within Hinduism, Sharia is based on multiple things. Sharia (Arabic: the path) is the Islamic legal-ethical system derived from:

“Qur’an, Hadith (sayings/actions of Prophet Muhammad), Ijma (consensus of scholars) and Qiyas (analogy)” It guides personal conduct and law, not just punishments. In practice, Sharia is interpreted through schools of jurisprudence (Sunni: Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali; Shia: Ja‘fari), so there is a diversity within the legal system of Sharia.

Out of nearly 55 Muslim majority countries it shapes the laws etc. only in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan fully. It is partly i implemented in a few other Muslim majority countries. In India it forms a base in matters of Muslim personal laws only.

So, what does one do with changing times and the social patterns, which have occurred over a period of centuries when these laws were devised? Those indulging in politics in the name of religion in India harp on bringing in the Manusmriti and countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are implementing the Sharia in entirety. In many Muslim countries it is not implemented or implemented only in part.

Can Sharia be above the Constitution as the Mufti claims? The legal luminary Faizan Mustafa in a video https://youtu.be/T8BCr27fA24 argues that in every country the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution does consider Sharia in many countries and integrates some aspects of that in the Constitutions.

So, what is the status of democratic institutions in Muslim majority countries? There are different degrees of ‘democracy’ in these countries.  At the moment many social media accounts have been criticizing Shamail for encouraging Muslims not to follow the Constitution, as an anti-patriotic act. On the other hand, many are praising the Mufti for upholding the Sharia! It is interesting to note that during the medieval period of Indian History, the Muslim Kings did not make the Sharia law obligatory for the state.

While Mufti Shamail has one opinion there are others like Asghar Ali Engineer, the foremost scholar of Islam in India; who have different idea about the role of Sharia viv a vis the Constitution. Dr. Engineer harps on Shura (Mutual consultation); to argue that democracy and related principles are possible in the contemporary World. Dr. Engineer says a Quranic concept – and modern-day representative democracy – merely a human concept – may not be exactly similar. However, “the spirit of modern democracy and the Qur’anic injunction to consult people is the same”.

As per him “New institutions keep on developing and human beings, depending on their worldly experiences, keep on changing and refining these institutions. And in the contemporary world, the concept of Shura should mean democratic process and constitution of proper democratic institutions of which elections are a necessary requirement.” The Qur’anic text not only gives the concept of Shura (democratic consultation) but “does not support even remotely any concept of dictatorship or authoritarianism”.

During India’s freedom struggle, which was based on democratic principles and aimed at democratic institutions, a very highly regarded Islamic scholar Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and a dedicated Muslim leader Khan Abdl Gaffar Khan (to name but a few) strove for the values and institutions of democratic secular country. Just a few years ago the Muslim women through the Shaheen Baug movement showed their democratic strength in protecting the community from the fear of disenfranchisement.

What is needed in contemporary times? In India as Muslims are being targeted by Hindutva politics, they have become a besieged community. The conservatism among Muslim community is on a sharp rise. The major issue confronting them is enforcement of their rights using the law and its instruments, asserting representation and accountability from modern institutions.

Even in Islam there are various streams of laws and systems of jurisprudence. Since this is part of Sharia, in that case what Sharia recommends will be another contentious issue. Since Muslims are a minority in this country, they already have Personal laws, which are again under opposition.

Today within the extreme Hindu right wing there is a dominant retrograde tendency trying to bring to fore the values of Manusmriti. Such assertions which want to bring inequality in the garb of religion are not welcome. We need to also look to some European countries where religion is on the back foot.

We are living in contradictory times. On one side human society has developed the principles of dignity and equality as represented in the UN charter and on the other religious right-wing has become stronger during the last few decades. While the Mufti may be knowledgeable in concepts of Islam, we also need to know what are the trends of contemporary society and values of democratic institutions.

[1] This controversial debate has been sharply questioned by political observers, funded as it was by the Maulana himself and his Wahyain Foundation (based in Kolkata) and the Delhi based “Academic Dialogue Forum” reportedly associated with social activist Shabnam Hashmi.

Related:

India 2025: Plight of the Christian minority

Identity issue to the fore: Vande Mataram controversy

Hindu Nationalism’s sectarian nationalism and its concept of ‘duties and rights’

The post Sharia, Manusmriti or the Indian Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP’s complaint is not an isolated intervention. It situates the latest instances within a longer history of complaints, FIRs, and prior representations against the same individual, including a detailed complaint submitted in August 2024. Despite this record, Kalicharan Maharaj has continued to occupy prominent public platforms—often at religious or media-sponsored events—where his rhetoric has grown increasingly explicit and dangerous, underscoring what CJP describes as a systemic failure of deterrence.

Previous complaints sent may be read here, here and here.

A pattern of escalation

The complaint centres on three specific public events. The most striking took place on January 8, 2025, at the “Rising Madhya Pradesh” event organised by News18 in Bhopal. From a widely publicised stage, Kalicharan Maharaj openly called for the exclusion of Muslim vendors from the Kumbh Mela, promoted fabricated conspiracies such as “spit jihad” and “urine jihad,” claimed that Muslims do not belong in India, and portrayed Muslim population growth as a form of violence against Hindus. He further accused Muslims of plotting to destroy the Ram Mandir and invoked the conspiracy of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” casting Indian Muslims as internal enemies engaged in civilisational warfare.

CJP emphasises that this was not coded or metaphorical speech. The language was categorical and absolutist, denying Muslims any legitimate claim to equal citizenship and encouraging their removal from shared civic and economic spaces.

Earlier, on December 8, 2024, at a Shri Devi Bhagwat Katha in Nallasopara, Maharashtra, Kalicharan Maharaj advanced a series of demonstrably false claims—asserting, among other things, that 40,000 Hindu women fall victim to “love jihad” every day, that 100,000 temples were destroyed by invaders, and that 100,000 cows are slaughtered daily. According to CJP, these fabricated figures were presented as facts with the clear intent of generating fear, anger, and hostility towards Muslims.

At a Ganesh Janmotsav event in Pune on October 25, 2024, he warned that Muslims intended to turn India into a Sharia nation within 15 years, engaged in demographic alarmism, and explicitly legitimised cow vigilantism—suggesting that extra-legal action by private individuals was justified and even necessary.

Why this is hate speech in law—not opinion

CJP’s complaint draws a clear legal and constitutional distinction between protected speech and punishable hate speech. It argues that the speeches in question attribute collective guilt to an entire religious community, deny Muslims their right to belong to the nation, portray them as conspirators and existential threats, and actively advocate exclusion from public spaces and livelihoods. The repeated endorsement of conspiracies such as love jihad, demographic warfare, and Ghazwa-e-Hind, CJP contends, demonstrates ideological consistency and intent rather than isolated exaggeration or rhetorical excess.

The complaint further stresses that such speech does not need to contain an explicit call to violence to be dangerous. By legitimising vigilantism and repeatedly suggesting that State institutions are inadequate or complicit, the rhetoric creates an enabling environment where discrimination and violence become socially acceptable.

Threats to public order and constitutional fraternity

Beyond individual culpability, CJP situates the issue within a broader constitutional crisis. The complaint warns that sustained hate speech of this nature manufactures social panic, normalises discrimination, and places religious minorities at heightened risk. Calls to exclude Muslims from religious congregations or marketplaces, when made from public stages and circulated widely online, transform prejudice into an actionable social programme.

CJP also highlights the exponential amplification of harm through digital circulation. Videos of the speeches have been widely shared on social media, extending their reach far beyond the physical audience and intensifying fear and vulnerability among minority communities across regions.

Most critically, the organisation argues that such rhetoric strikes at the heart of the constitutional value of fraternity enshrined in the Preamble. By repeatedly asserting that Muslims do not belong in India, the speeches seek to convert citizenship from a constitutional guarantee into a conditional status—contingent on religious conformity.

Legal violations and state accountability

The complaint identifies multiple cognisable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including provisions relating to promoting enmity between religious groups, imputations prejudicial to national integration, criminal intimidation, intentional insult, and statements likely to cause public alarm. The repetition of such speeches across time and locations, CJP notes, aggravates criminal liability and establishes a continuing course of conduct.

Invoking binding Supreme Court directions, CJP underscores that police authorities are constitutionally obligated to act suo-motu against hate speech, irrespective of the speaker’s social or political standing. Inaction, the complaint argues, amounts to dereliction of constitutional duty and signals institutional acquiescence.

A call for urgent and visible action

CJP’s intervention is, at its core, a warning against the normalisation of hate speech in public life. Allowing serial hate speakers to repeatedly occupy prominent platforms without consequence, the organisation cautions, lowers the threshold of acceptable discourse and erodes public confidence in the neutrality of State institutions.

Calling for prompt, transparent, and legally grounded action, CJP stresses that this is not merely about one individual, but about safeguarding constitutional secularism, equality before law, and fraternity itself. Failure to act decisively now, it warns, will only deepen impunity and further entrench communal hatred in India’s public sphere.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

NBDSA pulls up Times Now Navbharat for communal, agenda-driven broadcast on ‘Miya Bihu’; orders removal of inflammatory content

CJP files complaint with ECI against Arunachal Minister Ojing Tasing for threatening voters with denial of welfare schemes

CJP moves NCM against surge in Hate Speech at Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

The post From Media Stages to Religious Gatherings: CJP moves NCM against Kalicharan Maharaj appeared first on SabrangIndia.