The exploitation of the northern Himalayan states has been particularly severe. Ladakh’s unique culture and identity were long subsumed under the larger Jammu and Kashmir issue, leaving little recognition that Ladakhis live with a distinct lifestyle and worldview. Himachal Pradesh, carved out of Punjab, continues to face domination by Chandigarh’s political and business elite. In Uttarakhand, decades of neglect under Uttar Pradesh rule left the region starved of infrastructure and basic services. While leaders like Govind Ballabh Pant, H. N. Bahuguna, and N. D. Tiwari rose to prominence, they did little to secure a special status for the hills. Unlike Madhya Pradesh, which designated tribal areas under the Fifth Schedule, Uttar Pradesh deliberately avoided such recognition.

For years, these regions languished without schools, hospitals, or basic amenities. But with the economic liberalisation of the 1990s, the very areas once dismissed as “backward” suddenly became lucrative for corporate interests. As powerful lobbies began eyeing their resources, governments shed all hesitation. Today, with the corporate-political nexus firmly in place and a pliant media amplifying their agenda, dissent is swiftly branded “anti-national.” Those who challenge cronyism or demand jobs and ecological safeguards are vilified, while those enriching corporate monopolies are hailed as patriots.

The case of Sonam Wangchuk illustrates this distortion. One may debate his methods, but his commitment to Ladakh and to protecting the fragile Himalayan ecosystem is beyond dispute. Wangchuk is respected in the region, yet the national media—what I call lala media—seeks to discredit him by framing his advocacy as subversive. Instead of listening to Ladakhis, they interview a handful of voices in Delhi’s elite neighbourhoods and construct narratives that delegitimize local struggles. This is not journalism but propaganda.

Yes, Wangchuk may run an organisation and be accountable under the law for its funding, but he is first and foremost a citizen of India. Every citizen has the right—and the duty—to defend their language, culture, environment, and homeland. To label such voices “anti-national” is not only unjust but also absurd, especially when the real threat in Ladakh comes not from Pakistan, as authorities hastily allege, but from China across our borders.

The time has come for the government to take the Himalayan question seriously. Ladakh, Himachal, and Uttarakhand are not just picturesque landscapes; they are border states whose ecological stability and native communities are vital to India’s security. The army draws immense strength from the support of these very people. To undermine their rights in the name of reckless “development” is to weaken the very foundations of national security.

Protecting the Himalayas means protecting India’s future. The government must stop mindless excavation of mountains, end the handover of resources to cronies, and instead engage meaningfully with local communities. The demand is simple and just: safeguard the ecology, protect the rights of the natives, and recognise these regions as special zones critical to the survival of both democracy and the nation.

*Human rights defender

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Protecting India’s future: Why Ladakh, Himachal and Uttarakhand deserve special status appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the SEC’s appeal against a July 2025 Uttarakhand High Court order that had stayed the controversial clarification. The apex court upheld the High Court’s reasoning, and said the SEC’s stand was legally untenable.

“When the Statute expressly prohibits the registration of a voter in more than one territorial constituency or electoral roll, the clarification issued by the State Election Commission appears to be in the teeth of the law,” the bench observed.

The Court refused to entertain the SEC’s argument and expressed displeasure at how a statutory body could override express legislative provisions.

What the clarification said

The SEC had issued a notice stating that a candidate’s nomination would not be rejected merely because their name appeared in more than one Gram Panchayat, Territorial Constituency or Municipal Body’s electoral roll.

“The nomination paper of a candidate will not be rejected only on the ground that his name is included in the electoral roll of more than one Gram Panchayat/Territorial Constituencies/Municipal Body”, the SEC clarified

This clarification came after complaints were filed during local elections alleging that several candidates were registered in multiple rolls but were still allowed to contest. The SEC defended the move as a procedural interpretation, not a violation.

Supreme Court calls out SEC overreach

However, the Supreme Court was clear that such an administrative clarification cannot dilute or override clear provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. The relevant law — Section 9(6) and 9(7) — explicitly bars voters from being listed in more than one territorial constituency or electoral roll.

“The clarification appears to be contrary to the mandate of the statute. It deserves to be stayed and shall not be acted upon,” the top court ruled.

By backing the High Court’s stay, the apex court not only dismissed the SEC’s appeal but also imposed costs — sending a strong message about accountability in electoral governance.

Order of the Supreme Court dated 26.09.2025 can be read here

Petitioner flags violation of electoral integrity

The original case was filed by Shakti Singh Barthwal before the Uttarakhand High Court on July 9, 2025. He alleged that the SEC had failed to properly scrutinise nomination papers, allowing individuals registered in multiple voter lists to contest — a clear breach of election norms. His counsel, Advocates Abhijay Negi, Snigdha Tiwari and Sujoy Chatterjee, argued that the SEC’s clarification effectively legitimised a flawed process, putting the sanctity of the   electoral process at risk.

The High Court had stayed the clarification and found it to be prima facie unlawful.

High Court had already raised red flags in its order

The Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra had earlier found the SEC’s clarification to be “in the teeth of statutory provisions.” The Court quoted Section 9(6) and 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, noting that the law clearly prohibits multiple registrations, whether across panchayats or urban local bodies.

“Such a clarification goes against the express mandate of the law and cannot stand,” the High Court had said while granting an interim stay on the SEC’s action.

Order of the Uttarakhand High Court dated 11.07.2025 can be read here

The next hearing in the case is listed for December 16, 2025 before the High Court.

In Brief: what the law says [Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016]

• Section 9(6): No person can be registered in more than one territorial constituency or more than once in the same roll.
• Section 9(7): No person can be registered in a panchayat roll if they are listed on any municipal or cantonment roll — unless their name is struck off from there.

Background: SEC’s Disputed Move

The controversy stems from the SEC’s attempt to manage administrative complaints during elections by issuing a clarification that candidates need not worry about duplicate entries in different rolls. But instead of easing confusion, the move backfired legally — leading to a judicial dressing-down and now a financial penalty imposed by the Supreme Court. Election commissions are bound by statutory limits. Administrative clarifications cannot act as shortcuts around the law — a principle both the High Court and the Supreme Court have now reasserted.

Related:

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

1.88 lakh dubious double voters found in Bihar, unusual deletion patterns raise doubts

In Bihar 3 lakh electors served with doubtful citizen notices by Election Commission

The post SC fines Uttarakhand Election Commission Rs. 2 Lakh for flouting voter roll rules appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Child was assaulted by two teachers in the classroom

According to a police report, the child was assaulted by two teachers—Rakesh Saini and Ravindra—inside the classroom shortly after he returned from a short absence. The complaint, filed by the boy’s father, alleges that one teacher held the child down while the other repeatedly beat him with a stick.

According to the Indian Express, Jhabrera Station House Officer Ajay Shah said that victim’s  father alleged that one of the teachers ‘threw the child to the ground, pressed his face with a shoe, and held his hands’ while the other ‘beat him with a stick’.

A 7-year-old Muslim boy was allegedly beaten by his teachers inside a classroom of a government school in Jhabrera village of Haridwar district in Uttarakhand for allegedly missing a day of school.@ghazalaahmad5 reports:https://t.co/FOyDJn20Ki

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) September 14, 2025

The child reportedly sustained multiple injuries, including a fractured hand and trauma to his back and hips. Photographs of the boy, shared by the family, show red scars on his body, highlighting the severity of the attack.

Principal accused of inaction

The child’s father initially approached the school principal to report the incident, but claims his concerns were dismissed. Instead of receiving support, he alleges he was met with threats from the accused teachers.

“When I went to the school, both teachers threatened me, saying: ‘Go away, otherwise we will kill you,” the father stated in his complaint, as reported

Following the alleged inaction by the school authorities, the father took the matter to Jhabrera police station, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on September 11, 2025.

Legal action and investigation

Police confirmed that the FIR has been filed under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for cruelty to a child. The case also includes charges under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) Section 115(2) for voluntarily causing hurt and Section 351(2) for criminal intimidation.

“Further investigation and due legal proceedings are underway,” officials at Jhabrera police station said.

The child is currently undergoing treatment at a local hospital for his injuries. His family says he remains in shock from the incident.

Complaint filed with Minority Commission and NHRC

Mohammad Saddam Mujeeb, former advisor at the Delhi Minorities Commission, has filed complaints with the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

“This is a clear violation of child rights and it needs to be investigated. Student safety is at stake,” said Mujeeb, Maktoob Media reported.

He added, “This can happen with any student in the state. It should not be repeated; hence, accountability must be ensured.”

Related

‘They Beat Me, Undressed Me, Urinated on Me’: Dalit youth in Rajasthan brutally assaulted; no arrests yet

Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse

Rajasthan’s rape crisis: a string of horrific crimes challenges the state’s record on women’s safety

The post 7-year-old Muslim boy allegedly assaulted by teachers in Uttarakhand’s govt school, FIR registered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This order came after a month-long crackdown by the state, during which over 136 madrasas were sealed for operating without proper affiliation and for failing to meet the standards set by the madrasa board. Furthermore, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami initiated an inquiry into the funding sources of these institutions.

The madrassa owners contested the state’s actions, asserting that their institution was a religious school run by a registered society. They argued that the sealing of their premises lacked legal authority and proper sanction. The court, in turn, questioned the state’s adherence to the required legal procedures when sealing the petitioner’s property.

Advocate General S.N. Babulkar, representing the state, defended the sealing, claiming the madrasa was operating in violation of regulations. However, the petitioners contended that even if the society had overstepped its objectives, the sealing of the property was unjustified without following due process, as reported by The Hindu

In its order dated April 1, the High Court pointed out that the property had been sealed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. As an interim measure, the court ruled that the madrasa be unsealed until the next hearing, provided the petitioners agreed not to operate the madrasa or school without the necessary recognition from the State government, in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.

136 illegal Madrasas sealed in Uttarakhand in the last month

The Uttarakhand government has escalated its crackdown on unregistered madrasas, sealing a total of 136 such institutions across the state, with a particular focus on newly established seminaries near the Uttar Pradesh border. In a notable move on Monday, the district administration of Dehradun sealed a madrasa in Sahaspur after discovering it had illegally constructed an additional floor without prior approval.

Recent intelligence reports have flagged a surge in unregistered madrasas in towns along the Uttar Pradesh border, sparking the state’s intensified actions. Of the madrasas sealed, 64 were in Udham Singh Nagar, 44 in Dehradun, 26 in Haridwar, and 2 in Pauri Garhwal. Government records indicate that while Uttarakhand has approximately 500 illegal madrasas, there are only about 450 registered ones.

According to Times of India, many of these unregistered institutions are operating in towns such as Jaspur, Bajpur, Kichha, Kashipur, Rudrapur, Gadarpur, and areas within Haridwar district. As a result, these locations have been prioritised for action. Additionally, district administrations have been tasked with gathering information about the funding and donations received by both registered and unregistered madrasas. Registered institutions are now required to submit detailed documents, including bank account statements and financial records.

As per report, several of these madrasas are failing to meet the standards set by the Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Uttarakhand Madrasa Board. In response, the Dhami government has ramped up efforts, instructing district administrations to verify the legitimacy of madrasa operators, track student enrollment, and scrutinise funding sources.

This crackdown comes on the heels of statements from Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, who has vowed to continue taking strict action against illegal madrasas. Dhami stressed that those involved in unlawful activities will not be spared, signaling the government’s unwavering stance on the issue.

Uttarakhand CM Dhami orders probe into alleged funding

Notably, the state government estimates suggest that Uttarakhand is home to roughly 450 registered madrasas, alongside around 500 unregistered ones. In response to the recent sealing of 136 madrasas, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami has ordered a thorough investigation into the funding of these institutions. The crackdown, which began in March, specifically targets madrasas that are neither registered with the education department nor the Madrasa Board.

Reports of the Indian Express indicate that many of these unregistered madrasas operate under the Societies Registration Act. Khurshid Ahmed, the state secretary for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, has called the operation unlawful, arguing that the madrasa administrators were not given proper notices before their institutions were sealed. He also highlighted the timing of the drive, which coincided with Ramadan and the end of exams, leaving children displaced and questioning whether they would be able to adjust to the curricula of other schools once transferred, as reported

Mufti Shamoom Qasmi, the Chairperson of the Madrasa Board, reassured the public that students from the sealed madrasas would be moved to nearby schools and madrasas. He emphasised the importance of upholding the right to education, insisting that the administration must ensure no child’s education is disrupted. On the issue of curriculum alignment, Qasmi noted that the education department would work to address this, similar to how Uttar Pradesh has granted equivalence to the Munshi and Maulvi courses for classes 10 and 12, as reported the Indian Express

While a state-wide inspection of madrasas has been completed, the findings have not yet been made available to the public.

Recognised madrasas in Uttarakhand are governed by state boards for madrasa education, while unregistered madrasas typically follow curricula established by larger institutions like Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and Darul Uloom Deoband.

Supreme Court agrees to examine petition from Jamiat against sealing of Madrasas

Meanwhile, on April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to review a plea filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind concerning the sealing of madrasas in Uttarakhand. The case was heard by a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi representing the Muslim body, as reported ETV Bharat

The bench acknowledged that there was no issue with the government seeking information on the quality of education, adherence to the Right to Education Act, or the funding of madrasas. However, it suggested that the petitioner could address its concerns with the jurisdictional High Court. Sibal, however, disagreed, referencing an order from October 21, 2024, by a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, which had stayed actions against government-funded madrasas that were not in compliance with the Right to Education Act.

After hearing the arguments, the bench decided to tag Jamiat’s plea with the main case filed in October last year for further consideration.

In October 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed a recommendation by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), which had called for the closure of unregistered madrasas. The Court also put on hold subsequent actions by both the central and state governments. Additionally, it stayed similar directives from the Uttar Pradesh and Tripura governments that mandated the transfer of students from unrecognised madrasas to government-run schools, as reported

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque
Demonising the Madrasa is insulting India’s freedom fighters

Madrasas: Islamic or Sectarian?

The post Uttarakhand HC orders unsealing of Madrassa, SC steps in to hear Jamiat’s petition against Dhami govt’s crackdown against Madrassa appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ten of these places are located in Haridwar district, four in Dehradun, two in Nainital and one in Udham Singh Nagar. Aurangzebpur in Haridwar has been renamed Shivaji Nagar, Ghaziwali as Arya Nagar, Khanpur as Shri Krishnapur and Khanpur Kursali as Ambedkar Nagar.

Likewise, Miyanwala in Dehradun will now be called Ramjiwala, Chandpur Khurd as Prithviraj Nagar, Nawabi Road in Nainital has a new name Atal Road and Panchukki Marg has been renamed Guru Golwalkar Marg after the second Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief.

“The changes have been made in accordance with the will of the people and per Indian culture and heritage of the country by honouring the great personalities,” claimed Dhami.

The Uttarakhand Chief Minister, who has launched a relentless anti-Muslim rhetoric even since he took over the reins in 2021, began with ‘Land Jehad’, ‘Love Jehad’, ‘Mazar Jehad’, ‘Thook Jehad’, implementation of the Uniform Civil Code ((UCC) and action against Madrassas.

Dhami is a young Hindutva icon of BJP-RSS who is credited with implementing the ‘Hindutva Gujarat Model’ in the hill state of Uttarakhand, reaping rich political dividends for this Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The BJP officially lauded the state government for changing the names as part of the campaign to eradicate the “last vestiges of slavery.”

“Uttarakhand has announced the renaming of several locations across Haridwar, Dehradun, Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar districts. The new names reflect public sentiment and uphold India’s cultural and historical heritage. This initiative seeks to honour great personalities who have played a significant role in preserving Indian culture, inspiring future generations,” BJP leader and its IT cell chief Amit Malviya posted on X.

Rajput Community Miffed?

Interestingly, in its zeal to erase any Muslim-sounding or lslamic names, Dhami has also changed the name of ‘Miyanwala’ village near Dehradun which has nothing to do with Muslims. It was a Rajput village. The renaming of their village is brewing resentment among the Rajput community, which has demanded that the state government should refrain from renaming their village. The ‘Miyans’ are a famous Rajput clan in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh hills, known for their military valour.

Jai Singh Rawat, a senior journalist in Uttarakhand, said the state government should look into history and not act blinded by their opposition of anything that sounds Muslim. “The ‘Miyans’ are famous Rajput clan and Miyanwala is their village. The BJP-RSS think-tanks should educate themselves before acting impulsively in their anti-Muslim campaign,” he told this reporter.

The writer is a freelancer based in Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post ‘Eid Gift’: Uttarakhand CM Dhami Renames17 Places With Muslim-Sounding Names appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since March, action has been taken against 136 madrasas that were ‘not registered with the education department or the Madrasa Board.’ Reports suggest that, according to government estimates, the state has around 450 registered madrasas while 500 are operating without the recognition of these two departments. However, these institutions are being run under the Societies Registration Act.

A statement put out by the state reportedly said, “Action against illegal madrasas, unauthorised shrines, and encroachments will continue. Unregistered madrasas have been reported in towns bordering Uttar Pradesh, and such unauthorised institutions pose a serious security concern.”

In January 2025, the CM had first directed ordered a ‘verification drive’, and the district administrations have been surveying madrasas to ascertain various aspects, including their financial sources. In Udham Singh Nagar, the government has sealed 64 madrasas; in Dehradun, 44; 26 in Haridwar; and two in Pauri Garhwal, officials said.

Khurshid Ahmed, the state secretary for Jamiat ulema-i-Hind, claimed that the exercise is illegal as the managers of these institutions are not given notices before they are closed. “For a large-scale drive like this, the government needs to pass an order, but that has not happened. The sealing is taking place during Ramadan when the children are away at their homes. Several institutions had closed after the year-end exams. What needs to be seen is if the children will be able to assimilate with other schools and curriculum when they get transferred,” he said.

Madrasa Board chairperson Mufti Shamoom Qasmi said that the children from the sealed madrasas will be transferred to schools and madrasas nearby, and urged the administration to initiate this action. “We will look into how many children study here after the report on the drive is submitted. The children are entitled to the right to education and we will make sure it is not violated,” he said.

The issue of inequitable comparisons between educational qualifications in a madrasa and a school, Qasmi said the education department will try to resolve this. It may be recalled that, in Uttar Pradesh, the government has awarded equivalence to Munshi and Maulvi curricula in class 10 and Alim in class 12. “A set of guidelines have been formed, which will bring the congruence. The Education Board headquartered in Ramnagar will resolve this and accord recognition,” he said.

In Uttarakhand, it was the DMs (Collectors) who conducted the state-wide inspection in all 13 districts, yet, the findings are not public. Recognised madrasas come under the state boards for madrasa education, while unrecognised ones follow the curriculum prescribed by the bigger seminaries such as the Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and Darul Uloom Deoband.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Six Muslims killed after demolition of Madarsa, Haldwani MLA says officials rushed the process

Lucknow demolition drives resume a day after central government’s oath taking ceremony

Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty

Historic 600 year old Delhi mosque demolished without notice

The post 136 madrasas sealed, Uttarakhand CM Dhami now orders probe into funding appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, prominent leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar supported the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). However, due to opposition from religious conservatives and limited public awareness at the time, the UCC was included in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution instead of being enacted as a binding law as reported by Manupatra. In 2018, the 21st Law Commission, chaired by Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan, advised that implementing a Uniform Civil Code at that time was neither necessary nor advisable. The Commission went ahead to highlight the importance of maintaining secularism with the nation’s diverse cultural and religious traditions. Further, the commission suggested amending the discriminatory provisions within existing personal laws rather than enforcing a uniform legal framework.

A closer look at the Act reveals various issues that could have severe implications.

Mandatory registration of live–in relationships

Although the UCC has promised to protect women’s rights, critics have argued that provisions such as mandatory registration of live–in relationships does not safeguard women, and instead hampers their freedom and puts them under scrutiny by State and society. The provision results in significant intrusion in an individual’s privacy and autonomy. Part 3 of the Act governs Live–in relationships.

Those who are currently in a live–in relationship or considering the same must provide a statement to the registrar, who will investigate and may request the couple to present further documentation or appear for certification. The registrar has 30 days from the time of the inquiry to either register the relationship and provide a certificate or deny registration and notify the partners in writing. According to the bill, the registrar must also notify the parents or guardians of any partner under the age of 21 and provide the live-in relationship statement to the head of the local police station for record-keeping purposes. The measure imposes fines on individuals who continue living together for longer than a month without providing the necessary declaration.

The UCC Act which was passed by the State Assembly in February 2024, requires couples mandatorily, to register with the government, both while initiating and terminating a live-in relationship. Any failure to register carries a jail term up to six months! This applies to residents of Uttarakhand as well as state residents living elsewhere in India.

The UCC Rules which came into effect on January 2, 2025, provide further measures regarding the application process for live–in relationships. According to the Rules, a 16-page form that needs to be filled, Aadhaar-linked OTP, registration fee, a certificate from a religious leader that the couple is eligible to marry if they so wish, and details of previous relationships — these are among the rules prescribed by the Uttarakhand government for registration of live-in relationships under its Uniform Civil Code.

The Rules mandate that a religious leader or a community head or the official of a religious/community body concerned, must issue a certificate stating that the customs that govern the registrants of the application, permit a marriage between the two individuals willing to live together. Rule 3 (u), which defines a religious leader, states that “in relation to a community means a priest of the place of worship of that community or an office bearer of the religious body pertaining to that community.”
The Rules raise various concerns as the same make it practically impossible for interfaith or inter–caste individuals to be in a live–in relationship. The requirement of religious sanction for two consenting adults to enter a live–in relationship defeats the principle of secularism provided in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

In what could clearly amount to intrusion on adult persons’ privacy and choice, the Rules require in prescribed format “proof of permissibility of marriage between the registrants if they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship”. Besides, for “proof of previous history of relationship,” the Rules require details of “marital or live-in relationship prior to the onset of the current live-in relationship”. These documents could include final decree of divorce; final decree annulling a marriage; death certificate of a spouse; certificate of terminated live-in relationship. For marriages dissolved under customary religious practices, then proof of such dissolution would be required.

If a judicial magistrate finds an individual guilty, they could be sentenced to up to three months of imprisonment, fined up to Rs 10,000, or both. Additionally, anyone caught submitting incorrect or omitting information during registration faces a three-month imprisonment and a heftier punishment of Rs 25,000. A six-month imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000 could be imposed for not submitting the live–in relationship statement after being notified. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that not registering a marriage carries no legal repercussions, while not registering a live-in partnership may result in imprisonment as reported by BBC.

Live–in agreements are usually used as a means to get to know one another before contemplating marriage, if at all. When the seriousness of live–in relationships is equated with marriage, the question of what makes the two different emerges. Is it necessary for a man and a woman to prove they have no romantic relationship if they live together as roommates? Furthermore, are same-sex couples excluded from the definition of a “legal” live-in relationship, or does the provision solely apply to heterosexual couples?

Further, it is concerning that the age restrictions for marriage and live–in relationships differ. An individual can get married at the age of 18 without their parents’ consent, however they would have to wait until 21 for a live–in relationship.

Section 386 of the Act which allows third parties to raise complaints if they believe that a live–in relationship is violative of the provisions of the UCC, has raised various concerns as the same can be misuse, moral policing, and social scrutiny. The provision could result in harassment and unwarranted interference of third parties which could violate the fundamental right to privacy and autonomy of individuals.

Bhuwan Chandra Kapri, Congress MLA from Khatima constituency in Uttarakhand has criticized the Act stating that “When the Supreme Court has validated live-in relationships, how can the State overwrite it by making it mandatory to register?” He further added that, “Imagine the nightmare for women—records creating marital havoc, complaints flying from disgruntled relatives or snooping neighbours. An emboldened Bajrang Dal prying into your private life. Daughters facing marriage hurdles based on these very records. Blackmail, too, can become a weapon.” as reported by Frontline.

The apex court has upheld the legitimacy of live–in relationships in various cases. In the case of Indra Sarma vs V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of relationships and laid down that such relationships should be given protection from social and legal prejudices. Further, right to privacy which has been recognized as a fundamental right in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), includes the freedom to make personal choices without unwarranted state interference. The right also covers the privacy of personal relationships, including live-in relationships, where individuals should have the liberty to form relationships without the fear of government or societal surveillance. The provisions regarding live–in relationships in the Act, are in violation of the Supreme Court judgements and violate the fundamental right to privacy of individuals cohabiting in live–in relationships.

Targeting Minorities

The UCC has also faced criticism for its targeting of Muslims and exclusion of the Scheduled Tribes (STs). According to All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen President Asaduddin Owaisi, the UCC is really a “Hindu Code.”

While speaking to Frontline, Owaisi mentioned that “The UCC is not uniform. Firstly, the tribals are kept out of it. If the UCC is so beneficial for society, why should the STs be left out? Secondly, the UCC has not even mentioned the Hindu Undivided Family [HUF], which gives tax benefits to the Hindu community. Hindus and STs have been given exemptions, and the UCC cannot be uniform as long as it does not apply to the majority community.”

The Uttarakhand administration has also come under scrutiny for allegedly utilising the new law to target Muslims who adhere to Sharia law’s customary divorce and polygamy laws, which are now illegal. “We cannot accept any law that is against the Sharia because a Muslim can compromise with anything but Sharia and religion,” stated prominent Muslim organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

Proponents claim that by outlawing polygamy, granting sons and daughters equal rights to inherit property, and mandating that divorce proceedings be handled in a civil court, the UCC grants Muslim women the same rights as others.

But according to experts, the law does not question patriarchal norms in Hindu civil law, such as the need that the guardianship of a minor boy or unmarried girl go to the father before going to the mother as reported by Al jazeera.

By eliminating Nikah Halala, Section 30(2) permits remarriage without restrictions. Anyone who compels or coerces someone to adhere to such requirements prior to getting married again is criminally charged under Section 32(iii). Although these provisions seek to advance gender equality, they may make personal law systems more complex.

The dilemma of Inheritance

By introducing its own intestate succession process, the UCC ignores the Class I and II legal heirs that are listed in the Hindu and Muslim personal laws as well as the laws that apply to Christians. A person who passes away without leaving a will will be subject to the UCC (intestate succession) as reported by Economic Times. The code disassociates itself from the customs of major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and treats women on an equal basis with males.

1. Impact of UCC on inheritance laws of Hindus

The distinction between self-acquired and inherited property under Hindu law is eliminated by the UCC. Accordingly, each legitimate heir will be entitled to ancestral property in the same way that they are to self-acquired property.

In the event of intestate succession, the UCC elevates both parents—the mother and the father—as Class-I heirs. This differs from the Hindu Succession Act, which states that if the deceased was a Hindu male, the father is listed among the Class-II heirs. In addition, under the Hindu Succession Act, class I heirs are not the same for males and females, but under the UCC, they are. The Hindu Succession Act states that a married Hindu woman’s class I heirs do not include her own parents, while a Hindu man’s class I heirs include his mother but not his father.

2. Impact of UCC on inheritance laws of Muslims

The principle of fixed shares governs inheritance rights in Muslim law on intestate succession, which frequently leads to an unfair distribution that disproportionately benefits male heirs. UCC, on the other hand, permits the division of property freely without having to follow any set proportions imposed by Islamic law because there are no fixed shares. In the event of an intestate succession, the UCC grants Muslim women the same property rights as Muslim men.

Regarding the estate of a Muslim who passes away intestate, the UCC specifies general norms of succession. Relatives (of the deceased) listed in Classes I and II of Schedule 2 of the code would be subject to these regulations. Because of this deviation from Islamic law, the fixed-shares norms will not be rigorously followed in inheritance.

3. Impact of UCC on inheritance laws of Christians

Widows are entitled to one-third of the deceased’s property under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which covers Christians. Other lineal descendants are given the remaining two-thirds. The widow would receive half of the property if there were no lineal descendants. If there are no relatives, the widow would get the whole estate. On the other hand, the UCC states that all class I heirs will get equal shares in property and other assets and classifies a widow as a Class-1 heir.

Unless there are no lineal descendants, the deceased’s parents are not entitled to any portion of the property under the Indian Succession Act. However, parents are granted Class-1 legal heir status under the UCC. They each receive a share, with the other parent receiving the entire share in the event of one parent’s death.

While drastic changes have been made with regards to intestate succession for Muslims and Christians, it can be observed that the only changes made for intestate succession for Hindus is the amendment of the list of Class I and Class II heirs. The law makes a complete overhaul of the procedure for intestate succession while making little to no change for Hindus which has become an issue of criticism.

The Hindu Undivided Family

Regarding Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), which have potentially significant financial ramifications, the UCC remains silent. HUFs, which are considered as separate entities for the purposes of income tax computation, may be established by joint Hindu families. People routinely lower their personal taxable income by directing their individual salaries to HUFs established in conjunction with other family members. In addition to the enormous hypothetical income loss to the exchequer, it has long been known that HUFs are essentially a tax evasion scheme.

Additionally, only members of the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jains communities, to whom Hindu family law applies, are able to use this device, and not the members of other religious communities. It is clearly prejudiced in this regard. At the expense of the nation’s revenue, the Law Commission stated bluntly in 2018 that “it is high time that it is understood that justifying this institution [coparcenaries/HUFs] on the basis of deep-rooted sentiments may not be judicious,” as reported by The Print.

Conclusion

Economically speaking, migratory trends may be impacted by state-led UCC models. Similar to how Colorado’s legalisation of marijuana raised housing costs, people would move to places with laxer regulations. Private life rules, such as those pertaining to relationships, may have a substantial effect on labour mobility, corporate concentration, and state demographics.

There are several concerns regarding the impact of UCC on religious freedom, personal autonomy, and privacy. While the UCC claims to promote gender justice and equality, critics argue that it infringes on individual rights, especially with provisions like mandatory live-in relationship registrations and targeting of minorities. Additionally, the exclusion of certain groups and complexities in inheritance laws highlight the challenges of harmonizing diverse legal systems.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Yukta Adha)

Related:

Uttarakhand’s UCC seen through a Muslim women’s political perspective

Destroying the basic standards of legislation- the Uttarakhand Model of UCC

Uttarakhand: Women’s groups reject UCC say provisions are unconstitutional, criminalises constitutional behavior, Muslims

The post Uttarakhand implements Uniform Civil Code (UCC) attracting criticism and concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioners, a group of former civil servants and activists, have highlighted that the event’s website and promotional materials are riddled with inflammatory content, openly calling for violence against followers of Islam. They have accused the Ghaziabad District Administration and Uttar Pradesh Police of failing to implement the Supreme Court’s clear directives to take suo-moto action against hate speech.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, urgently mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, seeking immediate intervention as the event is set to commence tomorrow. However, the Chief Justice directed Bhushan to file a formal urgency application, leaving precious little time for any concrete action to prevent this hate-filled gathering.

The petitioners include notable figures such as Aruna Roy (Retd IAS), Ashok Kumar Sharma, Deb Mukarji, and Navrekha Sharma (Retd IFS), along with Syeda Hameed, former NCW Chief, and Vijayan MJ, a social researcher. These individuals have consistently spoken against the rising tide of communal violence and the growing impunity of hate-mongers like Narsinghanand.

It is worth recalling that the ‘Dharam Sansad’ events held by Narsinghanand in 2021 sparked national outrage due to their explicit calls for genocide against Muslims. Despite his arrest for hate speech and his subsequent release on bail, Narsinghanand has continued to spew communal poison without restraint. Shockingly, even the Supreme Court’s notice to him in a criminal contempt case for his derogatory remarks against the judiciary has done little to curb his hateful tirades.

The state’s apparent refusal to act in the face of such blatant incitement raises troubling questions: Is the administration complicit in enabling hate speech? Or has the law been reduced to a mere spectator, powerless against the rise of hate-driven extremism? With the Dharam Sansad on the horizon, the consequences of this inaction could be catastrophic.

It is essential to provide here that sources from the ground have told SabrangIndia that the Utar Pradesh police has issued a letter that Dharam Sansad has not been granted permission. It is pursuant to the same that Yati Narsinghanand had announced they are moving the event to Haridwar. However, the Source has told the SabrangIndia team that the Haridwar police has also issued a letter stating that they have denied the permission, but the organisers of the event are threatening to go ahead.

Hate speech marks the announcement of controversial ‘Dharm Sansad’ in Uttarakhand

On September 10, 2024, Yati Ramswaroopanand, a close associate and follower of the infamous Yati Narsinghanand, delivered a deeply disturbing hate speech at the Dehradun Press Club. The event, ostensibly organised for “Sanatani Hindus,” became a platform for Ramswaroopanand to spew venomous and dehumanising rhetoric against Muslims, where he shockingly announced the upcoming ‘Dharm Sansad,’ scheduled for December. This announcement, made against a backdrop of vile and divisive commentary, exemplifies the dangerous intersection of hate speech and communal mobilisation in India.

During his speech, Ramswaroopanand labelled Muslims as “not human” and called for stripping them of their rights, openly dehumanising an entire community. He incited fear with baseless and grotesque claims, alleging that Muslims in Bangladesh had “raped, cut into pieces, and eaten” women. He used this fabricated narrative to argue that Uttarakhand was on the verge of becoming a “second Bangladesh,” stoking communal tensions with deliberate misinformation. The seer even urged Hindus to “arm themselves” under the pretext of protecting their families, a call that dangerously borders on incitement to violence. (Detailed report may be read here.)

In his inflammatory speech, Ramswaroopanand claimed that Muslims were increasing their population to create new countries, while Hindus were being rendered “impotent” and helpless. He pledged to use the December ‘Vishwa Dharma Sansad’ to strategise ways to make Uttarakhand “Islam-mukt” (free of Islam), directly advocating for communal exclusion and hatred.

A video of the said speech may be referred here:

The event, promoted as a gathering for “Sanatani Hindus,” was widely publicised on social media. Videos of Ramswaroopanand’s speech, which included phrases like “Every person reading and believing the Quran becomes a terrorist,” went viral, sparking outrage and concern. The Dalanwala police registered a suo motu FIR under sections 196 (promoting enmity) and 353 (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Dehradun SSP Ajai Singh cited Supreme Court guidelines requiring immediate action against hate speech, but beyond the FIR, no substantive steps have been taken to hold the speaker accountable.

This event is particularly alarming because the announcement of the ‘Dharm Sansad’—an event already under scrutiny for its history of incendiary rhetoric—was made at a venue where hate speech was not only delivered but celebrated. Ramswaroopanand’s remarks mirror the toxic legacy of his mentor, Yati Narsinghanand, who has a long history of using platforms like the ‘Dharam Sansad’ to spread communal hatred.

Notably, Narsinghanand himself is the key organiser of this upcoming ‘Dharam Sansad.’ Despite being out on bail with explicit conditions prohibiting him from making hate speeches, he continues to flout the law with impunity. On September 29, 2024, he had delivered another inflammatory speech in Ghaziabad, which led to violence. Yet, the Uttar Pradesh police have failed to seek the cancellation of his bail, enabling him to orchestrate yet another divisive event.

This pattern of impunity has drawn sharp criticism from civil society. An open letter by former civil servants and activists, including Aruna Roy, Ashok Kumar Sharma, and Syeda Hameed, lambasted the authorities for failing to enforce the Supreme Court’s directives on hate speech. The letter called out the administration for allowing events like the ‘Dharm Sansad’ to proceed, despite their clear potential to incite violence and disrupt communal harmony.

The stakes are high as the ‘Dharam Sansad’ approaches. Ramswaroopanand and other organisers have continued their campaign of provocation, even presenting blood-written letters to Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami in November, demanding the state be declared “jihad-free.” This dramatic and deeply unsettling act underscores the audacity of these hate-mongers and the complicity of those who enable their actions.

The announcement of the ‘Dharm Sansad’ at an event laced with hate speech is a stark reminder of the growing normalisation of communal hatred in India. The failure to act decisively against figures like Ramswaroopanand and Narsinghanand sends a dangerous message: hate speech and calls for violence can be delivered without fear of consequences. With the event just days away, the question remains—will the state and law enforcement finally act, or will this disturbing cycle of hate continue unchecked?

Opposition to the upcoming Dharam Sansad

1. Civil Society groups demand action against upcoming ‘Dharam Sansad’: In a strong show of resistance, over 65 organisations and 190 civil society activists from 22 states have addressed an open letter to the President of India, urging the immediate cancellation of a ‘Dharam Sansad’ planned from December 19 in Uttar Pradesh. Organised by notorious Hindutva leaders, including Yati Narsinghanand—who has repeatedly been accused of delivering hate speeches and inciting violence—the event has sparked nationwide concern over its potential to stoke communal tensions.

The letter highlights the unchecked actions of Hindutva figures like Narsinghanand, Rakesh Tomar, and Darshan Bharati, who, despite facing multiple charges for hate speech and direct violations of bail conditions, continue to operate with impunity. “No action is being taken against these individuals despite their history of incitement to violence and their blatant defiance of court orders,” the letter states, underlining the grave inaction by law enforcement agencies and the state governments.

The signatories caution against the planned ‘Dharam Sansad,’ warning that it involves individuals with records of violence and hate crimes. They also raise alarm over the involvement of “national and international elements” linked to such crimes. The letter asserts, “A group of people already charged with multiple offences, whose activities have drawn national and international condemnation, is planning a public gathering in western Uttar Pradesh with the explicit intent to propagate hate and division.”

Representatives from prominent organisations such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA), Ambedkar Students Forum, Bharat Jodo Abhiyan, and Bebak Collective are among the signatories. These groups have consistently worked to uphold constitutional values and fight against communal violence.

The letter makes urgent demands, including:

• Immediate cancellation of the ‘Dharam Sansad.’
• Prevention of international participants linked to hate crimes from entering India for the event.
• Legal action by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to revoke the bail granted to Yati Narsinghanand and others in violation of their bail conditions.
• Enforcement of Supreme Court orders to prosecute hate speech and protect minorities from targeted attacks.
• Compensation for victims, especially minorities, who have suffered violence as a result of hate speech and inflammatory events.

The civil society members emphasise that the union Government and the state administrations have a constitutional duty to act against hate crimes and uphold public order. They argue that failing to prevent this gathering will further embolden individuals already responsible for communal disharmony and violence.

The letter ends with a plea for accountability: “We urge the government to comply with the law, safeguard minorities, and ensure that such divisive and inflammatory programmes are not allowed to threaten the secular fabric of our country.”

This urgent appeal underscores the growing frustration among civil society groups over the unchecked rise of hate speech and violence in India and their determination to confront this disturbing trend through collective action.

2. Former civil servants urge Union HM Amit Shah to intervene against communal events in Uttarakhand: Over eight dozen former civil servants have written an open letter to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, demanding immediate action to prevent the planned Mahapanchayat in Uttarkashi on November 4, 2024, and the Dharma Sansad scheduled for December. These events, organised by figures like Yati Narsinghanand, have been condemned for spreading hate and inciting violence against minorities. The signatories, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), have expressed grave concern over the inaction of the Uttarakhand police in addressing violations of bail conditions by Narsinghanand and others, despite their repeated use of incendiary rhetoric to foment communal unrest. They argue that Narsinghanand, in particular, should be arrested under the National Security Act (NSA) for attempting to disrupt public order.

The letter underscores a troubling shift in Uttarakhand, a state once celebrated for its peace and pluralism, which is now being transformed into a breeding ground for communal hatred. The former civil servants highlighted what they called a “wilful injection of communal poison” into the state’s social fabric, driven by majoritarian forces seeking to create an aggressive and militarised version of Hindutva. These efforts, they argue, are aimed at forcing minorities to live in perpetual fear while promoting a narrative of Hindu supremacy. The letter calls this strategy a template for spreading similar campaigns across other regions that have thus far resisted such divisive politics.

The former bureaucrats sharply criticised the authorities’ failure to act against hate speech and violence, despite clear Supreme Court directives mandating legal accountability. They also expressed dismay at the lack of action against repeated bail violations by individuals like Narsinghanand, who has continued to organise events aimed at inciting communal violence. The signatories demanded that both the Mahapanchayat and Dharma Sansad be immediately cancelled, and that the police take strict legal action against all those involved in promoting hate and inciting violence. They further urged the Union government to ensure accountability from the Uttarakhand police, insisting that the state’s law enforcement agencies must act in accordance with constitutional principles and judicial mandates.

In their appeal, the signatories expressed no political affiliation, stating that their concern is solely for the preservation of peace and harmony in Uttarakhand. They warned that failing to act decisively against such events would irreversibly damage the state’s legacy of coexistence and turn it into yet another battleground for communal conflict. Through this letter, the CCG has once again called attention to the escalating threat of communal polarisation in India and the urgent need for firm government intervention to uphold the nation’s secular values.

The letter may be read here.

3. Ayodhya’s Mahant Ram Das appeals to State and Union Governments to deny permission for Yati’s event: Mahant Ram Das, a prominent religious leader from Ayodhya, has appealed to both the State and Central Governments to withhold permission for the controversial World Religious Convention scheduled to take place at Dasna, Ghaziabad, organised by Yati Narsinghanand. Known for his inflammatory rhetoric and involvement in communal hate speech, Narsinghanand’s event has raised serious concerns regarding the potential for further incitement to violence and communal unrest. In his appeal, Ram Das emphasised the need to uphold public order and prevent any event that could disrupt the peace and harmony of the region, urging the authorities to take a firm stance against such divisive gatherings.

The social media post may be accessed below:

The controversial rise of the ‘Dharma Sansad’ and Yati Narsinghanand’s hate speech

A Dharma Sansad, or “Religious Parliament,” is traditionally a platform for Hindu religious leaders, or Sants, to deliberate on issues they deem important to Hindu dharma and make decisions regarding religious matters. The first Dharma Sansad was convened by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in 1984 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, where a pivotal decision was made to launch the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, igniting one of the most contentious religious and political struggles in India’s history that led to violence and encouraged divisions. Subsequent Dharma Sansads were held in various parts of the country, with the VHP’s margadarshak mandal (a body of 65 prominent Sants) at the helm of these events. These sansads began to focus on a wide range of issues concerning Hindu identity and unity, often invoking deep religious sentiments and ideologies rooted in the belief of Hindu cultural and religious supremacy.

In the 1985 Dharma Sansad held in Udupi, for instance, resolutions were passed demanding that important religious sites, such as Shri Ramjanmabhoomi, Shri Krishnajanmasthan, and the Kashi Vishwanath temple, be immediately handed over to the Hindu community. These resolutions set the stage for a series of confrontations that would come to define the religious and political landscape of India for decades, where foundation for religious attacks against religious places and Hindu majoritarianism would be set. Since then, the VHP has organised 17 such sansads, where religious leaders gather to guide the Hindu community on matters of faith, spirituality, and social cohesion. However, the nature of these events has changed over time, especially as they have become increasingly intertwined with the rise of Hindutva politics.

In recent years, the tone has shifted towards a more aggressive and exclusionary rhetoric. The last Dharma Sansad in Haridwar in 2019 demanded the freeing of Hindu temples from government control, and it was held against the backdrop of rising tensions between different religious communities in India. These events, however, started taking a more radical turn with the controversial Dharma Sansad held in Haridwar in December 2021, a shocking turning point in the nature of these gatherings. Over the course of three days, prominent Hindutva figures, hard-line religious leaders, and right-wing activists delivered speeches urging violence against Muslims and calling for a complete annihilation of the Muslim community. The event, which attracted national attention, also saw the participation of BJP leaders like Ashwini Upadhyay, whose involvement in previous events calling for violence against Muslims had already raised alarm.

The Haridwar Dharma Sansad became infamous for the volume of hate speech that was broadcast publicly. Among the most vocal speakers was Yati Narsinghanand, notorious for his incendiary remarks and hate-driven rhetoric. During the event, Narsinghanand, alongside other prominent speakers, incited violent action, calling for genocide and openly threatening the Muslim community. Video footage from the event, including a disturbing clip showing Narsinghanand threatening police officers during the arrest of Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly Wasim Rizvi), further highlighted the dangerously inflammatory nature of the gathering. In the video, Narsinghanand can be heard telling the police, “Tum sab maroge” (“You will all die”), showcasing his disregard for public order and law enforcement.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the legal response was slow. The police only filed an FIR on December 23, and Tyagi was arrested on January 13, 2022, for his inflammatory remarks at the event. Narsinghanand was arrested a few days later, but received bail on February 7, 2022, despite his history of hate speech and his violation of bail conditions. His bail conditions required him not to repeat the same offences or participate in any events that could stir communal disharmony. Yet, just months after his release, Narsinghanand continued his hate-driven activism, making further derogatory and harmful remarks about Muslims.

In September 2024, Narsinghanand stirred controversy once again during an event in Ghaziabad, where he called for the burning of effigies of Prophet Muhammad instead of Ravana during Dussehra. His provocative speech incited widespread anger within the Muslim community, triggering mass protests across multiple cities, including Kashmir, Saharanpur, Aligarh, Meerut, Ghaziabad, and Hyderabad. Protesters demanded Narsinghanand’s immediate arrest, accusing him of inciting violence and spreading communal hatred. His inflammatory rhetoric also included references to Muslim workers infiltrating Hindu homes, accusing them of targeting Hindu women. This baseless and harmful accusation further fuelled tensions, as it played into already existing stereotypes and prejudices, creating a sense of fear and division.

The protests across the country are a direct response to Narsinghanand’s repeated violations of the law and his role in inciting hatred and violence. While Narsinghanand continues to enjoy significant support within certain Hindutva circles, his actions have clearly crossed the line into criminal behaviour. However, despite the widespread public outcry, authorities have failed to take firm action against him, allowing him to continue stoking communal tensions.

In November 2024, CJP had released a chilling investigative video exposing the dangerous rise of hate in India. It goes beyond individuals like Yati Narsinghanand to uncover the deeper ecosystem that fuels their venom. Hindutva organisations, social media platforms like Meta, and government inaction—this is the unholy nexus enabling hate to thrive unchecked. Through shocking footage, incendiary speeches, and in-depth analysis, the video reveals alarming patterns of violence against Muslims and other minorities. Yet, amidst the despair, CJP stands firm—fighting legal battles, documenting hate crimes, and holding perpetrators accountable. If the government won’t act, civil society must rise. But how long can this burden fall on the people? How much longer will justice remain a distant dream?

The CJP video may be viewed here.

A deep dive into Yati Narsinghanand’s history of spreading hate may be read here.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Retd. Muslim Army Officer Faces Ire of ‘Hindutva’ Forces; FIR Filed After 2-Yr Legal Battle

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

The post Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Addressing the Hindu Mahapanchayat, convened on the call given by Devbhoomi Vichar Manch and supported by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang dal and other affiliated organisations of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), T Raja, BJP legislator from Hyderabad known for his hate speeches in the past, said he had come to Uttarakhand to “awaken Hindus in the state”. He called upon them to get united.

Addressing the gathering, Raja advised the Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami to hold a dialogue with neighbouring Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath over a cup and tea and get a cue on “how to tackle the issue of illegal mosques and mazaars”. Darshan Bharati, another hate monger from Uttarakhand, was also present during the mahapanchayat, as per media reports.

Suresh Chauhan, a ruling BJP legislator from Gangtori, said efforts should be made to declare Uttarkashi as a Hindu religious town since many revered Hindu shrine and temples were located in the district. He also called for complete ban on selling of meat, eggs and non-vegetarian food in the district.

On the issue of the Uttarakashi mosque, Chauhan said a re-inquiry, as ordered by the Uttarakhand Chief Minister, would be held and if any illegality was found, the mosque would be demolished. He also made a strong pitch against “outsiders” coming into Uttarkashi and getting involved in small businesses. Without naming Muslims, he warned locals against renting out their houses to “outsiders”.

Earlier, Congress party was attacked by the speakers, who drew parallels with ‘jehadis’ and terming the party as the “bane” of the entire Hindu community, responsible for the Partition of the country and resultant killing of Hindus and Sikhs.

Heavy security arrangements were made for the Hindu Mahapanchayat, which was called to demand demolition of the Uttarkashi mosque, which Hindutva forces claimed, was built illegally. Extra forces from neighbouring districts were also deployed in the town.

Interestingly, the Uttarakhand government gave permission for the Hindu Mahapanchayat despite giving an undertaking in the Nainital High Court last Wednesday that no permission had been granted.

Uttarkashi district administration gave permission with several conditions, which included not making any hate speech, not taking out any rally, not obstructing traffic, not inciting religious sentiments and maintaining peace.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal of Nainital High Court issued directives to the Uttarakhand government and state Director General of Police to maintain peace and security related to the ongoing agitation by Hindu outfits demanding the demolition of the 55-year-old mosque. The division bench had the heard a petition related to the case on November 22, 2024.

The police holding a march in Uttarkashi town a day before holding of Hindu Mahapanchayat.

Meanwhile, the ‘Alpsankhayak Seva Samiti’ had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking its intervention in the issue alleging threats by the Sanyukt Sanatan Dharam Raksha Sangh, a Hindu outfit, against the Uttarkashi mosque and hate speeches directed against the minority Muslim community.  The petition had also sought the court’s intervention in preventing the Mahapanchayat called by the Hindu Right-wing groups in Uttarakashi on December 1, 2024.

Admitting the petition, the court directed the Uttarkashi District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police (SP) to ensure tight security around the Uttarkashi mosque. The court also directed the registry to list the petition as a fresh case on November 27, 2024.

In a hearing before the division bench of the High Court last Friday, senior counsels Kartikey Hari Gupta, Imran Ali Khan, Pallavi Bahuguna, Rafat Munir Ali, and Irum Zeba, representing the petitioners, raised serious concerns regarding hate speeches directed at Muslims.

The state government, through its counsel, informed the court that permission for holding any such Mahapanachayat would not be issued.

The senior counsels for the petitioners also pleaded that the  mosque on Bhatwari Road in Uttarkashi was constructed in 1969 on privately purchased land. It was further stated that “in 1986, the Assistant Waqf Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh conducted an inquiry and confirmed that a mosque existed on Khasra No. 2223, built by members of the Muslim community using charitable funds and used since then by the Muslims and in 1987 was officially registered as Wakf property.”

The petitioners alleged that members of the Sanyukt Sanatan Dharam Raksha Sangh and their associates had engaged in “extreme hate speech” against Muslims and the mosque which, they argued, were in complete violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India Others.

The petitioners asserted that in September 2024, Hindu outfit leaders —Jitendra Singh Chauhan, Swami Darshan Bharti, Sonu Singh Negi, Lakhpat Singh Bhandari, and Anuj Walia—who identify themselves as members of the Sanyukt Sanatan Dharam Raksha Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, began threatening to demolish the mosque. They alleged that these leaders had also spread false information about the mosque’s legality. The next date of hearing t is fixed for December 5, 2024.

Uttarkashi town saw violence on October 24, 2024, when Hindutva groups tried to take out a procession toward the mosque and had violent confrontation with the police force which tried to prevent them by erecting barricades. Several protestors and policemen were injured in the lathi-charge and police arrested eight Hindutva leaders and registered cases against 200 unidentified persons for violence.

Interestingly, Hindutva groups reportedly continued to spread their communal agenda despite the fact that the Uttarkashi district administration, after a through inquiry, found the mosque to be legal. But following the October 24 incident and pressure from Hindutva groups in the run-up to the Kedarnath bye-elections on November 20, Chief Minister Dhami went to Uttarkashi on November 6, in a bid to assuage the ‘hurt’ feelings of his fellow political travellers, and announced that the papers of the land on which the Uttarkashi mosque was built would be re-examined by the administration.

Uttarkashi Mosque

The Chief Minister, during his visit, reiterated that ‘land jehad’, ‘love jehad’ and ‘thook(spit) jehad’ would not be tolerated in ‘Devbhoomi’ Uttarakhand  and his government had “freed” 5,000 acres of encroached land. He further said that the administration would re-examine the land papers of the Uttarkashi mosque to see if there was any illegality.

A delegation of Hindu organisations, led by district BJP chief Satinder Rana, also met the Chief Minister and complained against police lathi charge on October 24. In a bid to “placate” them, the state administration acted swiftly, and finding no scapegoat, transferred a Muslim officer, Raza Abbas, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), to  the state headquarters in Dehradun, while Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Prashant Kumar, Uttarkashi was also attached with the police headquarters in Dehradun with immediate effect.

On November 28, 2024, before the proposed Hindu Mahapanchayat, Uttarkashi Superintendent of Police Amit Srivastava, who acted tough against any law breaker and was on the target of Hindutva groups, was also transferred and replaced by Sarita Dobhal.

The writer is a freelances based in Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Uttarakhand: Despite BJP Govt Assurance to Contrary in HC, Hindu Mahapanchayat Held in Uttarkashi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Huge protest erupts over namaz: Roorkee, Uttarakhand

In Roorkee, students at Quantum University ignited protests by chanting “Jai Shri Ram” in response to a video that had gone viral, showing a woman offering namaz on campus. This incident has become a flashpoint, epitomising the rising anti-Muslim hatred within the state. In the video, a large crowd of students can be seen vocally expressing their disagreement, chanting the slogan “Jai Shri Ram” as they gather in opposition to the woman’s act of offering namaz.

Reports indicate that the protesting students were in contact with the right-wing outfit Rashtriya Bajrang Dal, raising concerns about the influence of extremist groups on educational institutes. This connection highlights how external pressures can exacerbate divisions within educational institutions, turning a place of learning into a battleground for ideological conflicts, fueled by right-wing outfits across the state.

In Roorkee, Uttarakhand, a protest erupted against a woman offering Namaz at Quantum University after a video of the incident went viral. Students responded by chanting “Jai Shri Ram,” while members of Bajrang Dal claimed it was related to love jihad and conversion. pic.twitter.com/tkaz9mCJUS

— The Observer Post (@TheObserverPost) October 29, 2024

While reacting to the incident of Quantum University, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde wrote on social media platform X, that “These students have effectively devalued the employability quotient of the alumini of this university.”

These students have effectively devalued the employability quotient of the alumini of this university. https://t.co/9PCR3YNuuh

— SANJAY HEGDE (@sanjayuvacha) October 30, 2024

Right-wing leader distributed sign board: Ramnagar, Uttarakhand

Simultaneously, in Ramnagar, far-right leader Raju Rawat initiated a campaign to distribute signboards stating “Garv Se Kaho, Hum Hindu Hain” (say proudly! We are Hindus) to Hindu vendors, so that people can identify the stalls based on their religion, urging shoppers to buy only from stalls marked for “purity.”

Notably, these divisive and anti-Muslim signboards featuring “Santani Sabjiwala” have been also distributed among vegetable vendors within the Hindu community across Himachal Pradesh. By encouraging shoppers to identify vendors based on religious affiliation, these signs promote a harmful atmosphere of discrimination and segregation of Muslims on religious grounds. These signboards have been distributed in gross violation of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and seem to go unaddressed, with no punitive actions taken by the concerned state governments.

In Ramnagar, Nainital, on October 28, far-right leader Raju Rawat again intensified communal tensions by checking the Aadhar cards of Muslim vendors, claiming that they were outsiders responsible for disrupting local businesses. His claims reflect a broader narrative that seeks to paint Muslims, particularly those labeled as “outsiders” or “Bangladeshi infiltrators,” as a threat to the local economy and community cohesion.

By framing these vendors as unwelcome intruders, Rawat is not only spreading hate but also inciting fear among the local population against the Muslims.

Srinagar, Uttarakhand

On October 27 in Srinagar, far-right leader Lakhpat Singh Bhandari led a protest rally against what he termed “love jihad,” a controversial term used to describe alleged efforts by Muslim men to convert Hindu women through marriage. During the rally, Bhandari propagated conspiracy theories surrounding this issue, making the unfounded claim that a significant number of these cases involved barbers.

Bhandari’s assertions reflect a problematic trend where unfounded accusations are used to stoke communal tensions. By specifically targeting a profession, he seeks to generalize and vilify an entire community based on the actions of a few, thereby exacerbating divisions within society.

The rise of communal and anti-Muslim protests in Uttarakhand has become increasingly evident, with rising incidents of abuse and discrimination against Muslims. The state government has failed to take preventive measures against these events, and in some cases, has seemingly promoted the distribution of discriminatory signboards, as seen during the recent Kanwar Yatra. This escalation of hate is a direct result of divisive and hateful propaganda propagated by right-wing groups.

These incidents highlight the alarming influence of extremist narratives that fuel anti-Muslim sentiments in the region. This growing hostility not only undermines the rights and dignity of individuals but also poses a serious threat to social cohesion in Uttarakhand and impact to the Muslim population of Uttarakhand.

Related:

Dehradun Press Club allows hate event “how to save women from jihadis”

Tensions escalate in Himachal and Uttarakhand, multiple protest and rallies against mosques

Tide of hatred against Muslims continues: Payment denied for Muslim server

The post Uttarakhand: Students chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ in response to a video showing women offering namaz appeared first on SabrangIndia.