Three terrible things that were inflicted especially on the poor and marginalized people of Delhi by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s younger son Sanjay Gandhi during the internal emergency from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977 can never be forgotten or forgiven when independent India’s history is written: forceful and indiscriminate sterilization; large-scale illegal demolition of slums as well as decades-old residences of the walled city without any warning or notice in the name of ‘beautification’; and brutal massacre of Muslim residents of Turkuman Gate protesting forceful sterilization and illegal demolitions of their more than five-decade-old dwellings.

Following the declaration of the emergency on 25 June 1975, Sanjay Gandhi became the unquestioned Emperor of Delhi and like Nadir Shah decided to change both the map and demography of Delhi. For the beautification program, the slums in different parts of Delhi and the old walled city with a predominantly Muslim population were targeted.

Seven months into the emergency, by when most opposition leaders, including Jayprakash Narain, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, Biju Patnaik, Chandrashekhar, Ram Dhan, and Raj Narain, were in prison under various stringent emergency laws, in February 1976, Emperor Sanjay visited the walled city. He became very unhappy with the reception. He was also very upset that from where he stood at Turkuman Gate, the view of the Jama Masjid was blocked. Standing there, he decided, come what may, all the buildings along the way had to be brought down.
And on 15 April 1976 the Dujana House family planning camp was inaugurated by Sanjay Gandhi and the Lt. Governor of Delhi, Kishan Chand. Soon, scores of rickshaw pullers, beggars, and even quite a few passersby were picked up at random and forcibly sterilized under terribly unsanitary conditions.
In the following months, Rukhsana Sultana, a Muslim worker who was very close to Sanjay Gandhi, started putting pressure on Muslim men and women to get sterilized in return for cash and other incentives. With the people resisting compulsory sterilization, the police were deployed to round up a certain number every day and compulsorily sterilize. Simultaneously bulldozers were deployed in the area, and demolition of decades-old buildings obstructing a clear view of the Jam Majid from Turkuman Gate started.

Anger swelled among the people of Jama Masjid, Chandni Chowk, and Turman Gate against the forcible sterilizations and the illegal demolitions. A general strike was called on the 19th of April, 1976.
Unmindful of the general strike, bulldozers started moving forward, accompanied by heavy police deployment. Hundreds of protesters, including women and children, came out of their homes to the streets and, defying the presence of bulldozers and the police, started attacking Dujona House. The police resorted to lathicharge and teargassing.

In spite of this, by 1.30 in the afternoon, a large number of women and children gathered on the main road at Turkuman Gate. The police attacked the women and children and teargassed and lathicharged them. Scores of women and children were very badly injured.
That did not deter the protesters. The crowd swelled and moved to the open area in front of the Faiz-e-Ilahi mosque and sat on the rubble of the illegally demolished structures. However, the bulldozers moved on and on with police escort, leading to more stone throwing by the crowd.
The armed police then opened fire, and scores of protesters, including women and children, were hit and fell dead. The police continued firing until not a soul was left on the protest site. The entire area was full of bodies scattered like cow dung. They included the dead and the injured. Reinforcements came, firing continued, and an army of bulldozers was brought in, and demolitions were carried out under floodlight.
The bulldozers crushed and collected both the dead and injured bodies along with the rubble, loaded them into trucks, and disposed of them far away at hitherto undisclosed places. The screams of the injured or trapped in the rubble could not be heard over the clanking sound of the heavy-duty bulldozers. The demolitions continued for another 10 days.

The emergency dispensation counted two dozen dead and less than 50 injured in the ruthless and brutal ‘operation beautification’ at Turkuman Gate. However, according to independent investigators like John Dayal, Arun Bose and B.M Sinha, at least 400 people were massacred and more than 1000 injured at the Turkuman Gate. Sinha, in his book on the emergency, lamented, “Never was such a human tragedy caused in any part of the world.”
The Shaw Commission, which inquired into the various excesses during the emergency, indicted Sanjay Gandhi; then Lt. Governor Kishan Chand; DDA Vice-Chairman Jagmohan Malhotra; B.R. Tamta (Municipal Commissioner); and Deputy Inspector General of Police P.S. Bhinder for excesses committed at Turkuman Gate. However, no action whatsoever was taken against any of them because soon after the Shaw Commission submitted its report, Mrs. Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister, and Shaw Commission report was shelved.

The Turkuman Gate massacre of 19 April 1976 to all accounts before the Shaw Commission, was executed with the express orders of Sanjay Gandhi by offical including the Delhi police and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi believed her younger son could do no wrong. This massacre will go down in history as more shameful than the Jallianwala Bagh massacre because the former was executed by a colonial power while the Turkuman Gate massacre was carried out by independent India’s government against its own citizens.

As for demolitions in Delhi during the emergency, the Shaw Commission observed the following: “The manner in which demolitions were carried out in Delhi during the emergency is an unrelieved story of illegality and sickening sycophancy by the senior officers to play the whim of Sanjay Gandhi.”
And an estimated 700000 ( Seven Lakh ) specially the poor and marginalised were displaced from slums and even legal residences over a period of 19 months of terror unleashed by Sanjay Gandhi with full knowledge and approval of his mother , Prime Minister India Gandhi.
Navin Chawla, who served as secretary to Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor Kishan Chand and worked closely with Sanjay Gandhi and who was indicted by the Shaw Commission for his ‘authoritarian and callous role,’ went on to become the Chief Election Commissioner of India. In fact, the Shaw Commission had categorically commented that “he is unfit to hold any public office that demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others.”
In Delhi following the declaration of emergency at the instance of Sanjay Gandhi the Home Ministry ordered to lock up the high courts and cut off electricity to all newspapers. All political leaders and workers who Sanjay Gandhi thought will oppose the emergency were arrested. Delhi’s Tihar Central Jail had a capacity to accommodate 1273 prisoners. But there were 2669 prisoners in the jail by the evening of 26 June 1975. By March 1976 their number rose to 4250.Water and sewage services were extremely poor in the jail.

Kuldeep Nayar, the editor of Express News Service who was arrested on 24 July 1975 and imprisoned in Tihar Jail during the emergency, wrote in his book “In Jail”: “The dal was watery and the chappatis half-made,” and files would float on the surface. And over a period of time he also, like other prisoners, learned to fish out the flies and eat the dal without any qualm. Several detainees died in jail because medical treatment was not provided.
For two days after the emergency was declared, electricity to newspaper offices in Delhi was cut off. The offices of the Motherland were sealed. The office of Everyman’s Jayaprakash Narain’s paper, brought out by the Indian Express owner Ramnath Goenka, was raided, and its last edition was shredded. Censorship was imposed under Rule 48 of the Defence of India Rules (DIR).

Even the names of the people arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) or the Defense of India Rules (DIR) were not to be published. In a letter to Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Communist leader E.M.S. Namboodiripad said that her regime had even outdone British colonial rulers in censorship, because even in the crucial years of 1920-21, 1930-31, and 1942, the newspapers were free to publish the names of those arrested.
The censors warned the editors against using quotations from great works of literature or by national leaders like Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Jawaharlal Nehru, and others. The National Herald, founded by Jawaharlal Nehru, supported his daughter’s and grandson’s emergency through and through and removed the quote ‘Freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might’ from its masthead.

Even though K. Shankar Pillai, the editor of Shankar’s Weekly, the satirical journal famous for its cartoons, ideologically supported Mrs. Gandhi, he wound up his publication a few months after the declaration of the emergency. In his farewell editorial Shankar observed: ‘Dictatorships cannot afford laughter because people may laugh at the dictator, and that would not do. In all the years of Hitler, there never was a good comedy, not a good cartoon, not a parody, not a spoof.’
In the 1980 general elections Sanjay was elected from Amethi and entered parliament along with 150 of his nominees. Mrs. Gandhi did not give Sanjay any official position but continued to rely on his advice on important issues both in the party and the government. He was the undeclared heir apparent.

On the morning of 23 June 1980, Sanjay, along with his flying instructor Captain Subash Saxena, took off from Safdarjung Airport in a two-seater Pitts S-2A sports plane. During aerobatic exercise while taking a loop, the plane hit the ground, and both Sanjay and Saxena were killed. Mrs. Gandhi rushed to the accident site to retrieve Sanjay’s wristwatch, which, according to popular belief, contained secret data. Though this reporter covered the accident for the Indian Express with all details including a photograph of the instructor, still wonder if anything could have been retrieved after the terrible tragedy.
Lt. Governor Kishan Chand acknowledged before the Shah Commission many of the illegal orders he issued had come directly from Sanjay Gandhi through his secretary Navin Chawla. The Commission charged him with ‘ abdicating his legitimate functions in favour of an overambitious group of officers …he betrayed his trust and committed a serious breach of faith with the citizens of Delhi.’

Soon after the Shaw Commission’s report came out in 1978, Kishan Chand killed himself by jumping into a well at the Siri Fort grounds in South Delhi. Death was better than a life of humiliation, a note left by him said.

The post The 1975 Emergency: 21 months of Nightmare in Delhi appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The post ILBS : Public funded Hospitals fostering VIP Culture appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

In a judgment that will have far-reaching consequences for the protection of human rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court on Monday, 18 May 2026, while granting bail to Sayed Ifthikar Andrabi of Jammu and Kashmir, arrested in 2020 under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), said that the rigors of Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA—which restricts the grant of bail—will ‘melt down’ where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial lead to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21 states, “Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujal Bhuyan, in their order, said that in K.A. Naajeeb vs. Union of India (2021), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held the fundamental right to a speedy trial could be a ground for grant of bail even under UAPA. The bench had then upheld the bail granted to Najeeb, arrested and jailed from April 2015. Najeeb was an accused in the chopping off of the hand of a Malayalam professor of Keralam.

Justice Bhuyan, writing for the bench, said, “Therefore, the caution of Najeeb is that continued incarceration cannot go on unabated by a mere discharge by the State of the primary facie standards under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA… The constitutional inquiry in Najeeb therefore operated independently of, and not withstanding, the statutory embargo of Section 43-D (5) in the realm of constitutional principles.

However, in two subsequent judgments, two separate benches of the Supreme Court took a very divergent view from the clear, distinctive trajectory it had earlier followed. In the Gulfisha Fatima vs. State case, an SC bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria on 5 January 2026 granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case but denied relief to Khalid and Imam, saying they stood on a “higher footing in the hierarchy of participation.” The court had unjustly observed that prolonged incarceration cannot be an “absolute entitlement” to seek bail in terror cases.

On Monday Justice Bhuyan, in his order, said, “We have serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima case, including foreclosing the right of the two appellants to seek bail for a period of one year.

“The judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima case would have us believe that Najeeb is only a narrow and exceptional departure from Section 43-D (5) justified in extreme factual situations. It is this hollowing out of the import of the observations in the Najeeb case that we are concerned with,” the SC order emphasized.

In the case of Gurwinder Singh, the UAPA accused, the Supreme Court bench rejecting bail had held that relief could be denied if accusations appear to be prima facie true.

In this context, the SC Bench on Monday said, “We make it clear that K.A. Najeeb is the binding law and entitled to the protection of stare decisis.” It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by the trial court, the high courts, or EVEN BY BENCHES OF LOWER STRENGTH OF THIS COURT.”

The theory of ‘stare decisis’ (to stand by things decided) mandates courts to follow historical or established precedents when making rulings on similar cases. It ensures predictability, stability, and fairness in the legal system, though higher courts can overturn past rulings in exceptional circumstances.

“A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by the bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger bench,” the order pointed out.

In the case of Andrabi, the court directed that he be released on bail, subject to conditions the NIA court may deem fit. Andrabi, who was arrested by the NIA in 2020, was earlier denied bail by the NIA court and also the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.  He was accused of having links with Pakistan-based handlers of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen and involvement in a cross-border narcotics smuggling racket to fund terrorist activities in India. Though the chargesheet was filed in his case on 5 December 2020, the trial was moving very slowly, and over 350 prosecution witnesses are to be examined!

Citing statistics on the low conviction rate in the UAPA cases, the SC judgment said, “It is evident that the countrywide percentage of conviction under the UAPA for 2019-23 hovers between 2 percent and 6 percent. In other words, there is a 94 to 98 percent possibility of acquittal in such cases. When it comes to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the percentage of conviction is abysmal, to say the least. For the aforesaid period the annual rate of conviction is always less than 1 percent. It means that at the end of the trial there is a 99 percent possibility of acquittal in such cases.”

“With these kinds of statistics staring us in the face, the question is, should we continue the detention of the appellant or defer the consideration to a later stage, simply because the charges are serious?” the judges wondered.

Now what awaits Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have been arrested in the 2020 Delhi riots case and have been incarcerated in Tihar jail since then? Though the SC in the Gulfisha Fatima case foreclosed their right to seek bail for a year, citing the latest judgment of the SC, they could immediately apply for bail, according to Ashok Panda, senior advocate.

The post Denial of Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam Unjust : The Supreme Court once again upholds the principle ‘ Bail is the Rule , Jail the Exception ‘ appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Education according to the Indian Constitution, is in the concurrent list and both the State governments and and the union government are entitled to legislate on the subject. However, successive Union governments have so far left it to the states to legislate on education, especially school education.

The NDA government has been since 2014 constantly encroaching on the rights of the states, especially in the fields of education and agriculture, both of which should have been best left to the states considering the huge diversities in the country. Our diversities are many , language, culture, religion , climate, geography, and caste among other things.

School education is largely under the control of the union government through various institutions like the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS). Admission to various professional colleges and universities are controlled through NEET, CUET, IITJEE, and similar examinations, which adversely affect the prospects of the rural poor, especially those belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Other Backward classes, because they do not have the money for coaching. These centralized entrance tests have not promoted merit; they have only helped the growth of the uneducational coaching industry.

The Indian Constitution guarantees education through Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties, mandating free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 under Article 21A. This article was inserted by the 86th Amendment Act. 2002 makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14.

Article 29 protects the interests of minorities by ensuring any section with a distinct language, script, or culture has the right to conserve it.  Article 30 grants all minorities based on religion or language the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Clause 2 of the article adds that the state shall not grant aid to educational institutions on the ground that they are under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination in educational institutions and guarantee equality of opportunity in educational access. Article 45 mandates that the state endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.

Article 350 A directs states to provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision for setting up school management committees. In India there are two kinds of schools: government and private schools . Most government schools are administered by state education departments. The union government does not administer schools . However, the central Board of Secondary Education gives recognition to schools that follow its syllabus. They are mostly private schools administered by a variety of organizations and individuals. There are schools administered by trusts, societies, corporations, churches, and religious congregations of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and others.

The guidelines issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy under the Ministry of Education seek to “strengthen community participation and decentralized school governance.” Now one wonders under what law the Ministry of Education, the union government, derives its power to replace present school managements by school management committees.

Under the guidelines every chool must constitute an SMC within one month of the academic session , replacing the existing School Management and Development committees The size of these committees will vary depending on student strength, consisting of 12 to 25 members. Seventy-five percent of the members of the SMC must be parents or guardians of students and the remaining 25 percent will be drawn from local authorities , teachers, educationists, alumni, and frontline health workers such as ASHA and Anganwadi workers.

There is no clarity as to who will enforce the guidelines and under what law. No private  school management in the country whether majority or minority will willingly surrender their right to manage the institutions they have established

It will only lead to the school management approaching courts to enforce their right to administer the institutions they have established .The guidelines mandate that the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson must be elected from among the parent or guardian members , while the principal of the school serves only as a member secretary. Monthly meetings are compulsory with strict quorum requirements and public disclosure of minutes.

The guidelines have provisions for subcommittees, including a School Building Committee , tasked with overseeing infrastructure , safety , learning outcomes , attendance and counseling. The SMCs are entrusted with wide ranging responsibilities , from ensuring enrollment, monitoring mid day meal programme, promoting hygiene, digital learning, tracking dropouts, and building sports infrastructure.

Further, 50 percent of the members must be women, and representation for SC, ST , OBC communities should also be made. While in principle the new guidelines looks very attractive on paper, these will not be enforceable on the ground. At best these guidelines can be described as UTOPIAN!

The post The proposed School Management Committees (SMCs) are Unconstitutional, an attack on Autonomy and will spread utter Chaos in School Education across the country. appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

” Workers of the World United !

You have nothing to loose but your chains “

The month of April, the New Okla Industrial Development Authority ( NOIDA ) area witnessed unprecedented oppression of  factory workers and their families, including women and children . There was a complete breakdown of the rule of law in the industrial town which was built as a model town for the rest of the country. That this repression was carried out only weeks before we approached the 2026 May Day which signifies the inalienable rights of the workers, is a shame as well as a paradox. Because in NOIDA the workers were fighting not just for minimum wage , eight hour working hours , but for their survival. During the workers struggle the managements, the administrators and the police who are duty-bound to protect their rights and wellbeing, they blatantly violated every rule in the book.`

NOIDA was officially established on 17 April 1976 as a planned city under the UP Industrial Area Development Act  by merging 36 rural villages  situated on the eastern Bank of the Yamuna River. It was designed as an industrial hub to relieve urban pressure on Delhi . It later became part of Gautam Budh Nagar district, formed in 1997.

It was designed to provide industrial, commercial, and residential infrastructure , particularly to relocate polluting industries from Delhi. It is part of the National Capital Region (NCR). The area was site of the Battle of Patparganj in 1803 , part of the second  Anglo-Maratha War , with a memorial situated inside the NOIDA Golf Course in Sector 37. Over the years NOIDA has evolved from an industrial town to a major IT and residential hub , which is described as one of the greenest cities of India.

A fact finding team of members of the All India Lawyers Union, Students’ Federation of India and the Democration Youth Federation of India has found that during the agitation by the NOIDA factory worker the Uttar Pradesh police made large-scale illegal detentions of workers and their families , in violation of rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution as well as various Labour Laws.

According to the report the police have not even bothered to keep proper number of workers and their families it had detained from time to time during the workers protest against various injustices. According to eyewitness accounts at one time the NOIDA police had detained some 350 juveniles and more than 800 workers.

Detentions were made in different phases . On 13 and 14 April, people, including minors , factory workers and construction workers and even bystanders, were picked up by uniformed and plainclothes police. And on 15 and 16 April hundreds of workers were detained from their workplaces at the behest of factory managements.

Families of detainees were not given information about their whereabouts or the grounds of detention. Most were held under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Section says that “a police officer knowing of a  design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant , the person so designing, of it appears to such officer that the commission of offence cannot be otherwise prevented . ” One wonders since when has workers protesting against injustices and demanding their lawful rights have become cognizable offences in ‘ democratic ‘ India.The report further said that several detainees were not even produced before the magistrates on time and arrest memos were not provided meaning many were held illegally.

The report also accused the police officer using undue force by resorting to lathicharge to disperse workers protesting peacefully outside factory gates demanding minimum wages.The police also spread the unfounded rumour that the protests were a result of instigation by external forces, the report added.

The report further described the illegal detentions by the police a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights and demanded disclosure of the detainees’ whereabouts, release of the copies of the FIRs and provide legal aid to the detainees through the Legal Aid Authority.

Another fact finding team of Jan Hastakshep demanded that administration unconditionally release all the arrested and withdraw all cases registered against the workers because all depressive actions against workers were illegal and unconstitutional. It also called for punitive action against guilty factory owners , labour department officials who failed to implement minimum wages and the police officials who resorted to violece to quell rightful protests by workers.

The factories the report said were paying the workers wages below the minimum wages prescribed by the UP government . The labour department officials connived with the factory owners to deprive the workers of minimum wages the report added.

The system of contract labor prevalent in NOIDA industrial area was primarily responsible for the exploitation of the workers the report pointed out.  Also, some employers in NOIDA had even taken advantage of the lax implementation of the labour laws had even terminated the services hundreds of workers and reemployed them on lower wages , the report said.

The post Brutal Opression of Labour in NOIDA : May Day becomes Black Day appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Nithin Raj 22, a dalit , son of Latha , a daily wage labourer under the MRNREGA and Rajan a painter was a very bright first year student at the Anjarakandy Dental College in Kannur. In spite of living in acute poverty Nithin had done very well in his Class 10 and 12 examinations. Encouraged by his mother Nithin was keen on studying medicine and appeared for NEET three times but could not make it to the merit list.

However , when he was offered a Batchlor of Dental Surgery. ( BDS ) seat at the Anjarakandy Dental College , Kanoor he accepted it. On 10 April morning he called his elder sister Rekha and requested her to transfer Rs.200  to his account so that he could pay for his food. Around 11 a.m the same day Nithin Raj also talked to his father Rajan and his other sisters informing them that he will be coming home for Vishu.

Subsequently what happened to Nithin Raj is a tragedy that is repeated in our educational institutions , in our society again and again , students belonging to low caste communities ending their own lives unable to bear casteist slurs and discrimination.

On 10 April before  noon Nithin Raj was called to the Principal Dr.Vinod Monys office where a lecturer of the college Latha Sasidharan was also present. Latha had complained that she was getting repeated threatening calls from a loan recovery agent demanding that Nithin Raj should immediately repay the loan he had taken for his mother’s treatment with interest. At the Principals office for some strange reason Nithin Raj was treated as an accused for Latha Sasidharan accused. Nithin Raj of giving her mobile number to the loan shark who gave him the loan.

What actually transpired in the Principals office will be clear only after the police investigation. However , CC TV footage and eye witness accounts have revealed that Nithin Raj came out of the Principals office crying. The principal had also for unexplainable reason confiscated Nithin Rajs mobile before letting him go.

After he came out of the Principals room crying his friends called him for lunch but he declined the invitation. He was very upset and mentally disturbed. And a little after 1 p.m on 10 April a fellow student found Nithin lying on the gravel patch between the hospital building and casualty building , profusely bleeding. Nithin was rushed to the Kannur Medical College and died at 3.35 in the afternoon.

Two days after his death three audio clips Nithin had made and sent to some relatives and friends started circulating. In  the vedios Nithin described in detail how while visiting the staff room Professor M.K. Ram ,the Head of the Dental Anatomy Department abused him. Dr. Ram mocked him and his mother by commenting on his mother’s sickness and surgery.  Nithin said his answer sheets with markings were circulated among his classmates to run him down.

Rajan , Nithins father told reporters after the funeral some teachers at the collge called Nithin a Rotten Dog and even wondered how , he a Dalit and the son of daily wage labourers could study at the Dental Collge . His sister Nikhita  said some of teachers addressed Nithin as a slum dog in the class. He had made a complaint to the Principal regarding the insult , but nothing came out of it she added.

Nayana Nishikanta a student of college told the TV channel NDTV , Dr.Ram targetted students based on their caste , skin colour and economic background. Students were mortally scared of him , she added.

The Chackarackel Police at first registered a case of unnatural death in the case of Nithin Raj Subsequently cases were registered of abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the Baraiya Nyaya Sanhita and under the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. A special Investgation Team headed by Assistant commissioner of Police Hari Prasad has been formed to investigate the case.

The two accused professors Dr.M.K. Ram and K.T. Sangeetha Nambiar who have been suspended have gone underground fearing arrest .

Nithins father said Nithin had to raise a loan of f Rs.14,000 for the surgery of his mother Latha. The family is residing at Kottamala in Nedumangad , a town only 25 kilometers from the capital of Keralam , Thiruvanathapuram ,the capital of Keralam which boasts of modern free health service . In this context the government of Keralam owes an explanation as to why Latha was not given free tratement.

As for discrimination against Dalits  one can only quote Professor M.Kunjaman . I faced caste discrimiation throughout my life . The fact that I was a dalit worked against me. The Vice Chacellor was a Dalit. There were dalits in the Syndicate also. Still they did not raise their voice against injustices because upper castes called the shots , always. In the field of higher education also caste discrimination is very acute in spite of 75 years of independence. It is a nationwide paradox which has no solution, because caste is deeply inbeded in Indians.

The post Death of the Dalit Nithin Raj – Institutional Muder appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

You scratch an Indian, the caste comes out , irrespective of whether the person is a Hindu, Muslim , Christian , Sikh , Budhist ,Jain , Agnostic or even an Atheist. Community life in India is primarily based on caste not religion.

The majority of Christian and Muslim Converts in India have come from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes populations . Though most of them or their predecessors converted to escape the caste stigma,  the Indian society has hitherto refused to treat them differently. On the ground the converts continue to experience the discrimination they faced before conversion.This has been proved time and again though numerous sociological studies and statements of numerous converts.

In Tamil Nadu, Andra Pradesh and even in Kerala the Christian converts from scheduled caste and other backward class populations are treated as lesser human beings. In Andhra you even have separate churches for Christian converts .

The exclusion of scheduled caste converts to Christianity and Islam from the  satutory provisions for the welfare and progress of the scheduled caste populations in the Constitution of India originated from the 1950 8Constitution ( Scheduled Castes ) Order , issued by the President of India under Article 341 of the Constitution , via Clause 3 which introduced a religious dimention stating , No person who professes a religion different from the Hindu religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

This has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India on 24 March 2026 in spite of the fact  a number of writ petitions challenging constitutional validity of the 1950 Presidential order  itself is under challenge in the Supreme Court ,  ( these petitions have been pending in the Supreme Court for the last more than three decades ) and several Commissions appointed by the Union government has categorically held that caste discrimination exists within Christianity and Islam in India and the exclusion of Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims from SC status is unconstitutional.

In 1955 the First Backward Classes Commission ( Kaka Kalelkar  Commission ) observed that the rigid caste system and the practice of untouchability were widely prevalent among the Indian Christian and Muslim communities.

In 1980 the Second Backward Classes Commission  ( Mandal Commission ) observed that the Hindu caste stratification and the resultant discrimination and ineqalities were common among Indian Christians and Muslims. On the recommendations of the Mandal Commission reservations were extended to OBCs across religions including Christian and Muslim converts. However,  the Union government did not do any thing to change the SC criteria for Christian and Muslim Converts leaving the most oppressed Dalit converts without the statutory proection of SC.

Further the Hindu only rule under the 1950 Presidential.order was amened twice to include Dalit converts to strictly indigenous religions . In 1956 the first amendment was made by Parliament to include Dalit Sikhs following socio political

Mobilisation by Mazhabi and Ramdasia Sikhs who continued to face severe caste discrimination. This amendment recognised that caste discrimination continued outside the Hindu fold.

In 1990 during the V.P.Singh government , a second amendment to the 1950 Presidential.order extended SC status to Dalit Budhists while continuing to overlook the demands of the Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims . The granting of the SC status to Dalit Sikhs and Dalit Budhists  was done on a rather strange logic that both Sikh and Budhist religions were indigenous while Christianity and Islam are  FOREIGN. Mercifully , nobody argued that the Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims are  also foreigners . In the toxic atmosphere under which we live today one should not be surprised if every Muslim and Christian is called a foreigner.

In this context it is pertinent to recall the finding of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities ( the Ranganath Misra Commission ) in 2007. The Commission categorically stated that the non – inclusion of  Dalit Christians and Muslims in the SC list was a discrimination based on religion and therefore unconstitutional.The Commission recomened the total deletion of the Paragraph 3 of the 1950 Presidential order . Caste , the Commission further pointed out is a deeply rooted sociological reality in India that trancends all religious boundaries. Successive Union governments , Congress and the BJP have refused to implement this important recommendation which would have rectified the faltline in the 1950 Presidential Order.

For some inexplicable reason the the Union government is opposed to granting Dalit status to Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians. On 3rd August 2021 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued a statement , The benefits of Centrally Sponsored Schemes  ( CSS ) meant for the welfare and development of Scheduled Castes cannot be extended to converted Christians from scheduled castes.

In  2022 the Union government filed another affidavit  in the Supreme Court arguing that the socioeconomic disadvantages and the nature of untouchability faced by these converts cannot be equated with the experience of Dalit Hindus and the 1950 Presidential Order is not unconstitutional.

In October 2022 the Union government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan to gather contemporary empirical data on the question of exclusion of Dalit Christians and Muslim converts from the SC status. The SC order of 24 March 2026 has come even as the Supreme Court is awaiting the Justice Balakrishnan Commission report . The term of the Commission has been extended twice , the last in October 2025 for six months .

The post The SC order on Scheduled Caste Status of Dalit Muslim and Christian converts is Unconstitutional and Hasty. appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan ( VBSA) ,Bill 2025 to replace the University Grants Commission ( UGC ) , All India Council for Technical Education, ( AICTE ) and the National Council for Teacher Education , ( NCTE ) will centralise higher education in the country overriding federal structure and adversally affecting the rights of the states and doing away with whatever autonomy our higher educational institutions enjoys.

The Bill repeals the three Acts providing for the constitution of these bodies. However , the Bill exempts legal and medical education from its purview .These will continue to be regulated under separate Acts.

The Bill is  to establish the VBSA ( Commission ) as the apex regulatory body for higher education. The Commission will have the following three Councils : (i) Regulatory Council which will function as the common regulator for higher education , ( ii )  Accreditation Council to oversee the system of accreditation , and ( iii ) Standards Council to determine academic standards. The functions of the Councils include : providing strategic direction for higher education and research , developing a roadmap for transforming higher educational institutions and suggesting schemes for improving quality ofeducation.

Currently, the UGC also allocates Grants to universities and colleges. Under the Bill , the Commission or its Councils will not have any powers regarding funding to Higher Education Institutions.

So far so good. But what is most objectional about the Bill is it tramples on the states’ powers. Education according to the Indian Constitution is a State subject. Considering the diversity in our country, language, culture , climate , natural resources , food and dress habits it was very appropriate that the states were given freedom to design and impement educational programmes suited to their particular States or region.

On  Thursday , 19 March 2026 the main opposition party in the Parliament ,the Congress in a statement said that the proposed regulatory framework of higher education in the country represents constitutional overeach by the Union Government . The Bill was introduced without consulting the states , bureaucratises higher education and hands over financial powers to the Education Ministry controlled by bureaucrats and politicians , Jairam Ramesh , Communications Chief of the Congress said in his statement on the Bill.

” The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education’s annual demand for Grants report on the Department of Higher Education presented on Wednesday revealed a shockingly High number of vacancies in key regulatory agencies like the UGC, and AICTE.”

Ramesh said the proposed Bill , as stated in its Objects and Reasons , is introduced for passing in Parliament under entry 66 of the Union list in the Seventh schedule of the Constitution which gives specific legislative powers to Parliament that is only for  “Coordination and determinationof standards in institutionsfor higher education or research and scientific  and Technical institutions .”

The VBSA Bill  gives the Commission powers far beyond the scope prescribed in the constitution and specifically encroaches on the powers of the states, he added.

” Entry 44 of List I -Union List expressly prohibits the Parliament from law making on matters of incorporation , regulation and winding up of universities, and List II – State List expressly gives this law making power to State Legislatures. The Bill is therefore violative of the federal structure of the Constitution “, the statement pointed out.

The current bill the staement added envisions only three Councils, with the exception of a council for grant giving. Consequently , grant giving powers will be taken away from autonomous bodies like the UGC and AICTE governed by acdemics to the Minstry run by the bureaucrats and politicians . This centralisation of financial powers is a departure from the current  practice and a violation of norms set by the National Education Policy ( N E P ). Ramesh poited out.

The Bill was referred to a parliamentary standing Committee headed by Bharaiya Janata Party M.P. Dagubati Purandeswari following its introduction in the Lok Sabha on 15 December 2025.As of March 2026 the committee is conducting hearings focssing on the funding mechanisms and the role of the states in higher education.

Concerns have been raised about potential threats to the autonomy of the Institutes of national importance like  the Indian Institute of Technologies ( IITs ) and the Indian Institute of Managements ( IIMs ) due to clause 49 in the Bill which gives proposed new Commission overriding authority to regulate accreditation and standards.

Perhaps the most controversial issue that concerns academics is the issue of funding universities and colleges. While funding has been taken out of the purview of the new Commission the union government has not provided any information as to how funds will be utilised and what mechanism will be adoped to distribute funds . Funding it is proposed will now be handed over to the education ministry which will be under the total control of bureaucrats and politicians . Such an arrangement it is feared  will go against the interests of opposition ruled states as is happening in other areas like employment guarantee schemes .

Lastly, the Commission and the Councils are according to the bill will  be dominated by bureaucrats and administrators instead of acdemics who were hitherto in charge of Higher Education bodies like the UGC and the AICTE. Representation of States in the Commission and the Councils are also very minimal according to the  Bill which further will lead to centralisation of Higher education.

The post VBSA Bill 2025 : Goodbye to Autonomy of States in Higher Education appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The post The SC order in the NCERT textbook case Impinge on Academic Freedom appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The Supreme Court on 29 December 2025 in an unprecedented but welcome move suo moto stayed its on  20 November order on the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. The November ruling had accepted an elevation based definition proposed by the Union Goverment which caused widespread concern among the people of the affected States of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi.

The 20 November order had to the consternation of the people of the four states and the environmental as well as legal experts had adopted a very narrow definition classifying only landforms with an elevation of 100 metres or more above local relief as ” Aravalli Hills ”

Following widespread protests across the four states irrespective of  party or caste affiliations the Supreme Court perhaps for the first time took note of public concerns  and acknowledged the need for clarification on whether the naarow definition ( 100 metres elevation ) would exclude ecologically fragile areas allowing unregulated mining as well as bilding construction in between the Aravalli Hills.

According to the  latest SC order a High Powered independent Committe consisting of experts in various fields is to be formed to redefine the Aravalli Hills considering all aspects of its ecological and environmental impact andress various ambiguities with regard to the Union laws and state laws for the protection and preservation of environmental and ecological balance essential for sustainable development .

The stay order means that no irreversible administrative or ecological actions can be taken by any authority including Union and state governments based on the framework upheld by the Supreme Court on 20 November.

Untill the matter is resolved there will be a moratorium on the grant of any new mining leases or renewal of old ones across the entire Aravalli landscape in Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Existing legal.mining could be carried out only under strict regulations.

The 20 November 2025 judgement was aimed at laying down a uniform definition of the  740 kilometre long Aravalli Ranges across the states to curb rampant illegal.mining. It also directed the Ministry of Environment , Forest and Climare Change ( MoEF&CC ) to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining ( MPSM ) .

However, the narrow 100 metres hight criterion specified for the Aravalli Hills became the subject of widespread protests and criticism. The 100 metres height criterion would have rendered 90 percent of the small hills of the Aravalli Ranges and low lying areas without the protection of the environmental laws, which are ecologically essential for preventing further desertification and recharging ground water.

The SC had in its 20 Novenber order had simply without applying it’s mind accepted the recommendations of the Union Ministry of Environment , Forest and Climate Change on the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges to protect the world’s oldest mountain system.

The Committe had recommended that “Aravalli Hills ” be defined as any landform in designated Aravalli dtstricts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief , and an ” Aravalli Range” will be a collection of two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other. This narrow definition ecologists, environmentalists the affected ordinary people pointed out will open up lage areas of the ecologically fragile moutain ecosystem to mining and real estate development which have already caused irreparable damage .

The Union Goverment it was further pointed out made the new narrow definition of hills and ranges without any scientific and ecological studies or public consultation. Therefore if the new definition was accepted it will destroy large parts of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges through granite and sand mining and real estate development environmentalists argued.

According to eminent Environmentalist Bhavreen Kandhari the manner in which illegal mining has been going on in the Aravallis is an administrative and governance failure.” The judicial intervention was much needed. It is a welcome step by the Supreme Court of India to stay its earlier order , but it is important that the committee which is going to be formed should have ecologists , environmentalists and not just bureaucrats “, shed added.

Neelam Ahluwalia of the ”  People for Aravalli ” , described the SC stay of its own order is interim win. ” What we actually demand is that the Union and state governments ban all mining in the Aravallis . We need a completely detailed , independent assessment  comulative of the entire range , on people’s health and the ecosystem to determine how much of the Aravalli has already been destroyed ! ” she demanded.

Ecological restoration practitioner , Vijay Dhasmana said there are two lobbies , the mining and real estate which are pressing for a new definition of the Aravallis . However , the fact remains that geological features of the Aravallis have not been defined yet. The mining and real estate lobies strongly belive what is good for their profit is also good for the Aravallis !

The SC order staying its  own order  on Aravallis made on the advise of the Union Ministry of Environment have to be viewed very positively by the people of the country . For one in recent times the Supreme Court’s and High Courts have been very reluctant to go against the government even when it’s orders have been causing unavoidable hardships to the people .

In the 80s and 90 we witnessed the Supreme Court and High Courts taking suo moto action on issues of public interest and even when individual freedoms are in danger. The Aravalli stay order shows that the SC had an open mind on matters of public interest.

Considering the Aravalli Hills and Ranges have been subjected to unbridled human greed for decades now one can only hope that SC will.also appoint a Monitoring Committe to ensure that it’s orders are executed in the letter and spirit.

The post The Supreme Court becomes Pro-People on Aravalli Hills and Ranges appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The new Bill introduced by the Union government , Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin ( VB – GRAMG ) to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Emloyment Guarantee Act 2005 ( MGNREGA ) nullifies the concept of the Right to Work guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

RAMG, in spite of the devine name paradoxically destroys the scheme for guaranteed work for a minimum of 100 days in a year for the rural unemployed poor. RAMG  completely changes the  character of MGNREGA.

The existing scheme to provide minimum employment to the rural poor is based on demand for employment . In other words the Union government is duty bound to provide funds for employment  of the rural poor according to the demand because it is basically a centrally sponsored scheme.

Before the beginning of every financial year the states prepare labour budgets which are aproved by the Union government. Later if more people seek work under the right to work programme the the labour budgets are updated. Thus according to demand for work the budgets are increased. This is one of the key features of MGNREGA.

But under the RAMG the scheme will be converted to an allocation based programme and what is very disturbing is that the norms for allocation of funds have not been made clear yet . It is feared that the Union government will weaponise the scheme to punish unbending state governments specially ruled by the opposition parties.

Presently the wage bill for the scheme is paid by he Union government and the expenses for the implementation of the scheme is shared on the ratio of 75: 25 by the Union and the States. However,  under RAMG the entire expenditure, wage bill plus administrative cost will be shared by the Union and the States on a 60: 40 basis . This will result in a huge financial burden on the states, especially the poorer states like Bihar , Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

From a bottom up scheme the RAMG has become a top down programme , according to Jayanti Gosh , Development economist. Though the new Bill envisages a minimum employment for 125 days considering that the average days  under MGNREGA per year have been only 40 to 50 in future we will get much less ,she added.

” You can’t make decisions like this by sitting in Delhi. This is a stupid way to run a country as complicated and diverse as India. This is a terrible blow for fedaralism  and therefore has to be opposed”, she said referring to Section 4(5) of the VB-G RAM G Bill which states : ” The Central Government shall determine the statewise normative allocation for each financial year , based on objective parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

Under RAMG the Government of India will have full powers to decide the financial allocations , the wage rates , power to decide where and when the scheme is to be implemented . Further RAMG gives the Union government unbridled powers to do what it wants without any obligations .All oblgations are of state governments and without the required funding the scheme will practically remain on paper.

For some inexplicable reason RAMG proposes a sixty day pause during the peak agriculture seasons of sawing and harvesting. In a country like India with varying climatic conditions and diffrent crops and different sawing and harvesting seasons in different parts of the country for which 60 days in a year will pause RAMG scheme ? One is reminded of the businessman on being asked why he wasted money on advertisement said  , ” I know half the money I spent on  advertisement is a   waste, but I do not know which half !”

The Bill proposes division of work into four categories : water security, rural infrastructure , livelyhood infrastructure and disaster resilience. This division of work is inadequate to define work under the new scheme

The MGNREGA provided employment as a matter of right and this right cannot be taken away by a mere majority vote , therefore this bill is reprehensible according to Prabhat Patnaik , Professor Emiretus Jawaharlal Nehru University.

RAMG, in spite of the devine name will spell disaster for the wreched of the country.

The post RAM-G-A ROAD to DISASTER appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Betrand Russel,  plilosopher and logician was arrested in 1961 at the ripe age of 89 for his involvement in an anti-nuclear weapons demonstration. He was charged with the breach of the peace and after refusing to be of good behaviour , was sentenced to Brixton Prison , which he served in the prison’s hospital. His imprisonment alongwith with his wife’s raised significant public awareness for the anti-nuclear movement .

At the prison the warden filling the entry form asked Russel what his religion was, Russel replied ” agnostic”. Exclaimed the warden ” Oh yet another religion ! “.

As if in our country we do not have enough divisions , disputes and controversies in the name of caste  , creed , language , gender and religion the Jammu and Kashmir unit ofthe Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) has invented yet another controversy in the matter of merit based admission to the SHRI  Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence ( SMVDIME ).

The controversy arose after the admission of 50 students to the first batch of the MBBS course by the Institute of Medical Excellence on the basis of the result of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET ) to the 2025 -26 academic session . Of the 50 students admitted solely on the criterion of merit 42 were Muslims from Kashmir 7 Hindus from Jammu and 1 Sikh.

The National Medical Mission  ( NMM) had earlier rejected a proposal by the Vishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence, Katra seeking to place 100 percent of its MBBS seats under the All India Quota to be filled through the Medical Councilling Committe (MCC ).The Institute’s request to the NMC came following protests after it was revealed that the majority of the students  who were eligible for admission on merit belonged to the Muslim community. Already 36 candidates from Kashmir and three cadidates from Jammu have taken admission.

The protests supported by the  Udhampur BJP MLA, is also backed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajarang Dal. The protesters have very strangely argued in violation of the existing statutes and rules of the  Institute of Excellence admisiions to the Institute should not be done on merit and should not be dominated by Muslim students irrespective of merit because the insitute is built with donations from the devotees of Vishano Devi who are Hindus.

The protesters have also demanded reservations for Hindu students at the Institute of Medical Excellence. However , since the Vishano Devi Institute of Excellence is not a Minority Institution under current rules and regulations it is impossible to reserve any seats for Hindus even though they are a minority in  Jammu and Kashmir. Under the existing bylaws of the Institute 85 percent seats are reserved for the students from the State and the remaining 15 percent are left for the All – India Quota.

On Tuesday , 2 December  a number of prominent Hindu academics of Jammu defended the Institute Administration for making admissions purely on the basis of merit and not based on religion .Retired Zonal Education Officer, Bimala Sharma , recipient of a National Teacher Award regretted that the students of the Jammu andKashmir were being divided on the basis of religion. It is very unfortunate that a section of people were trying to sacrifice the future of talented NEET qualified students on the basis of religion. ” The students have got admission on the basis of merit and they have every right to complete their studies ,” she added.

Dr.Himla Sharma former Principal of Government Degree College , Parade pointed out that since the admissions were made as per the regulations of the National Medical Commission and the NEET regulations the students should be allowed to pursue their studies without any outside interference .Tinkering with well laid out procedure for admission will ruin the entire education system in the state ,  Aggarwal warned.

Kashmiri Hindu Social Activist and spokesman of the Nationalist Congress Party ( NCP ) , Engineer Rishi Kaul said that division on the basis of religion in education is totally unacceptable.” Education should not have anything to do with religious beliefs it is highly inappropriate to give this issue a political or religious colour ,” he added.

The Congress Party accused the BJP for giving a communal colour to the issue of admissions to the Vishno Devi Institue of  Medical Excellence to cover it’s failures . The Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress Committee Chief Spokesman Ravinder Sharma  said the  Union government led by the BJP was responsible for creating the communal devide in the state .” When there was no illegality in the allotment of seats in medical education then where was the need to raise the issue of religion .” he wondered.

Omar Abdullah, the Chief Minster of Jammu and Kashmir asserted that admission to medical colleges must be based on merit as determined by examinations like the National  Eligibility cum Entrance Test and not on a student’s religion. He further argued that the Indian Constitution and the State Act that established the Sri Mata Vishno Devi University do not permit the distribution of seats along religious lines.

Responding to demands made by  right wing Hindu organisations that seats should be reserved for Hindu students in the Institute Umar Addillah said that it should return all government grants and free land provided to it and change its status tio a minority institution.

Abdullah warned that denying admission to meritorious students based on their faith could have negative social consequences and potentially push them towards radicalism.

Ends…

The post Merit Versus Religion : an entirely Novel Controversy in Education appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday 27 November 2025 suggested the Union government  make a law to proect the dignity of of the DISABLED. Derogatory remarks against persons with disabilities and rare genetic disorders should be made a punishable offence on the lines of  the Scheduled Caste – Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities  ) Act., 1989, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.

The SC-ST Act crminalises casteist slur, acts of discrimination , humiliation, and violence against the members of the SCs and STs.The offences under the Act are non-bailable. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , appearing for the Union government agreed with the suggestion and said that humour cannot be at the cost of some one’s dignity especially of the disabled and the disadvantaged in the society.

The Supreme Court made the observation on a petition filed by M/s SMA Cure  India Foundation , which works for persons affected by spinal Muscular  Atrophy  ( SMA ) disease. The petition was filed following jokes made by ” India’s Got Latent” host Samay Raina and other social media influencers ,Vipin Goel, Balraj Paramjit Singh gai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar. The Court ordered all these comedy hosts to host at least two fundraising events each month to benefit persons with disabilities. It urged the comedians to invite persons with disabilities in their programmes and share their success stories to raise awareness and funds.

The comedians,  Chief Justice Surya Kant said must begin this initiative before the court hears the matter again. ” We hope and expect that a few memorable events will take place before our next hearing. This is a social responsibility we are placing on you  , not a penal one . You are all respected members of the society .If you have gained significant popularity, then use that influence to benefit others .” he added.

Raina’s joke about a two month old SMA child needing a Rs.16 crore gene therapy injection drew severe criticism as it trivialised the plight of patients and their families efforts at public fund raising.

Such content the Cure SMA India Foundation argued violated fundamental rights , including the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. And in August 2025 the Supreme Court directed these comedians to issue unconditional.public apologies on social media platforms for mocking persons with disabilities and threatened to penalise them in case of non-compliance.The comedians submitted affidavits showing their willingness to engage in fund raising and awareness raising activities for the welfare of the disabled.

Representing the Cure CMA India Foundation,  Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh said that dignity was more important than money in the case of the disabled : ” Samay Raina claims to have donated Rs.2.50 lakh , but our concern is with the dignity of the disabled persons not e money”

She  said many children suffering from SMA have achieved great accomplishments in their lives. The parents of SMA patients are managing funds through crowdfunding and the Foundation refused accept the Rs.2.5 lakh donation by Raina because the issue was not of money but that of dignity.

Aparajita Singh further said that of the children who suffered from SMA is working at Microsoft, another is studying at Michigan State University, one is a classical singer, another is an Assamese writer and publisher and yet another is pursuing a doctorate in Bioinformatics .The parents of these children managed funds for their treatment through crowdfunding. When people like Raina make humiliating jokes about such kids , raising funds for them becomes difficult , Aparijita said. There was a need for a dedicated platform which can raise Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR  ) funds for treatment of children suffering from rare complicated diseases.

In this context the CJI directed the comedians to be more careful about their conduct in future The Chief Justice also said that he was aware of the comments made mocking even the Supreme Court of India by Raina in Canda !

At the end of the arguments the Court said ” As regards to the issues raised by cure SMA India Foundation , the learned senior Counsel Ms.Aparajita Singhhas handed over a brief notedepictingthe success stories of those about whom undesirable and avoidable YouvTube shows were held by some of the private respondents . During the course of the hearing it has been rightly suggested that thereshould be a dedicated fund /corpus that may be created bythe concerned Ministry , or if it is already created , it can be given wide publicity, inviting corporate entities and individuals to generously donate in that fund which is exclusively meant forthe treatment of the speciallyabled persons , like those suffering from SMA.

In this regard the order said that ” We leave it to the the respondents 6 to 10 to persuade and inite the specially abled persons on their platforms to promote the cause of generating funds to provide timely and quality treatment to the specially abled like thisesuffering from SMA.

” We are quite sure that if respondents no 6 to 10 are repentent and show their sincerity and commitment to the case , the specially abled persons who have made landmark achivements in life will also accept to come on the platforms for the purpose of wideg publicity in the cause.”

Ends….

The post THE DISABLED too DESERVE DIGNITY : SUPREME COURT appeared first on The Gulf Indians.