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 Muslims and the nomads in the Himalayan state of Uttarkhand which for decades enjoyed absolute peace and communal harmoney has been witnessing indescribable persecution at the hands of both the state and fundamentalist Hindutwa groups for the last four years.

While the Muslims have been subjected to physical attacks, destruction of properties and even livelihoods the nomads have been deprived of their land and forest rights in the guise of protection of environment and forests, according to a report prepared by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights.

The report released on Wenesday 21 January 2026 documents communal incidents in different parts of Uttarkhand from early 2021 to late 2025. It contains testimonies of people who survived the violent attacks in towns and cities where they  lived harmoniously all their lives but were told to leave only because they were Muslims. The report shows how a Van Gujjar herder , a shopkeeper from Nanda Ghat , a migrant worker and a small shopkeeper from Haldwani discovered that their very existence is contested under the present rule in the state.

While the Bharatiya Janata Party government in the state has enacted three new Acts all with singular aim of suppressing the social , economic , educational and religious rights of the minorities especially the Muslims,  the Hindutwa outfits in the state have unleashed all kinds of violence against the Muslims in the name of ‘ Love Jihad ‘, ‘ Land Jihad ‘ , and ‘ Business Jihad ‘

The three new laws are the Uniform Civil Code , 2024, Freedom.of Religion and Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act 2024 and the Minority Educational Institute Bill 2025.The UCC Act overrides minority personnel laws on marriage, divorse, inheritance and adoption which will have adverse cultural impact on minorities. To further control private lives of individuals the UCC Amendment Bill 2025 prescribe very harsh penalties for unregistered live in relationships, up to seven years imprisonment.

The Freedom of Religion and Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion ( Amendment ) Act 2025 prescribes life term punishment for anyone convicted of unlawful conversions, definition of allurement has been expanded further, and penalties for false promise of marriage has been increased.

The Uttarkand Minority Educational Institute Bill 2025 dissolves the Muslim controlled Madrasa Education Board where Muslims held 9 out of 13 places and replaces with a government body , Uttarkhand State Authority for Minority Education ( USAME ) , where Muslims hold one of the 12 seats. This transfers all control over Islamic curriculam,  teacher qualification , and school recognition from Muslim Educators to the Hindu majority government. The Bill is presented as educational reform , but in actual practice it has become a mechanism for state control of Muslim  religious education in clear violation of Article 30 (1 ) of the Indian Constitution.

Hindutwa right-wing groups in Uttarkhand have been perpetuating a culture of hate and intolerance against Muslims , creating an  environment of fear .Incidents communal violence and economic boycott of Muslims became common with Muslims facing targetted violence leading to loss of livelyhoods.

This religious persecution of Muslims became evident in 2021.  At the Haridwar Dharm Sansad , a three day Hindutva conclave held in December 2021 several leading politicians and Hindu religious leaders made hate speeches and called for violence against the Muslim minority. Some even exhorted the crowd to even exterminate the Muslims and establish a Hindu Rashtra.

In 2023 Uttarkhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami directed officials to identify and demolish illegal structures including religious structures , obviously Muslim religious structures , built on government land. The move was interpreted by right-wing Hindutva groups to describe the construction of mosques and other religious structures by Muslims as illegal. In May 2024 Chief Minister Dhami claimed that the state had recovered 5000 acres of government land from land jihad.

The, Unified Waqf  Management , Empowerment , Efficiency and Development  UMMEED portal digitization deadline of June 2025 created a legal trap specially designed to target Muslim religious properties in Uttarakhand . The government established a six month deadline for all Waqf properties , Islamic endowments including mosques, darghas , shrines and prayer halls to register on an online portal or face automatic classification as disputed or illegal.

Thesystem was deliberately structured to fail. The portal itself was fundamentally brocken crashing repeatedly and taking 10 to 15 minutes per propertyentry. The deadline required documentation that centuries old mosques simply did not have. Many of these properties have ub in bystanding for 200years or longer without any legal papers.

Consequently in Uttarkhand 75 per cent of Waqf properties remained unregistered by the December deadline , not because they were disputed orillegally built, but because the system made registration impossible for ordinary communities without technical expertise , access to historial documents or legal advice. When the deadline got over many legitimate functioning mosques , and darghas were automatically classified as disputed making them targets for illegal demolition.

Once properties were labelled disputed and therefore illegal the Uttarkhand government launched a demolition drive . And between June 2025 and November 2025 over 300 Muslim shrines and darghas were demolished. While a few were illegal most were functiong for decades.

The post The Misery of Muslims and Nomads in Uttarakhand 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.

Joseph Maliakan

 Seven months  of January to July 2025 , witnessed an unprecedented 334 incidents of persecution of Christian communities across India. They included illegal arrests, physical violence , threats , disruption of prayer services and denial of basic religious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution including burial rights. This sustained pattern of persecution of Christian communities reflects an alarming consistency with incidents taking place every month affecting Christian communities across 22 states and union territories, according to documentation mde by the Evangilical Fellowship of India’s Religious Liberty Commission ( RLC )

The geographic concentration of violence targetting christians is deeply disturbing , with the state of Uttar Pradesh recording 95 cases and Chattisgarh recording 86 incidents. Together the two states account for more than half of the documented cases. These two states ruled by Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) governments have emerged repeatedly as primary hot spots where Christian families face not only violence but prolonged legal harassment under anti-conversion laws. The misuse of these laws has become the primary weapon of intimidation , with threats, harassment , and false accusations representing two thirds of all incidents documented for the period from January to July 2025.  

Particularly disturbing are the 13 cases of denial of burial rights, with a whoping 92 percent of cases taking place in Chattisgarh alone , where Christian families are prevented from honouring their dead according to their faith even on private property. The systematic nature of this persecution is evident from the timing , with most incidents strategically executed with precision during Sunday worship services , suggesting organised monitoring and disruption of Christan religious gatherings.

The brutality of some of incidents underscores the escalating nature of persecution of Christians. In July six pastors in Bhilai, Chattisgarh were wrongfully detained and severely beaten with wooden batons inside Durg jail simply for identifying as pastors . Despite documented evidence of torture under custody , charges against the pastors are vigourasly pursued and no action has been taken against the attackers or jail officials responsble for the abuse.

The 334 documented cases actually represent only a fraction of the actual incidents as many go unreported because of fear of reprisals, intimidation by the police and local authorities. The pattern of persecution reveals a cordinated effort by fundamentalist organisations and the local administration to supress Christian religious expression through legal mechanisms and social pressure, this creating an atmosphere of fear that goes beyond the immediate victim and extends to the entire Christian  community.

Given the sensitive nature of religious freedom violations and fear of reprisals many victims are reluctant to report incidents formally. In remote areas reports of persection are not reported because of lack of communication infrastructure.The incidents spanned several states , with the highest incidents taking place in Uttar Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar , Karnataka , Haryana , Rajasthan , Jharkhand and Odisha.

Uttar Pradesh and Chattisgarh emerged as primary hot spots for persecution of christians continuing a troubling pattern with frequent reports of arrestes , false accusations , physical violence and social boycotts. They are followed by Madhya Pradesh ( 22 ) , Bihar ( 17 ), Rajasthan (15 )  and Haryana (15 ) demonstrating persecution span multiple states across different regions of India.

While incidents occured consistently throughout the seven months , March recorded the highest number (66 ) , followed by June ( 52 ) , compared to monthly average of 48 incidents , indicating periods of heightened tensions affecting Christian communities. Many incidents occured on Sundays during or after worship services.

The documented incidents fall into several distinct categories. They included threat, harassment, falsely accused and arrested, physical violence , church worship disrupted or stopped , social boycott, vandalism , church burnt, hate campaigns forced conversion and even murder!

On 25 July 2025 two catholic nuns from Kerala , sister Preeti Mary and sister Vandana Francis were arrested at Durg railway station while accompanying three young tribal women for training in an Agra hospital. Despite proper documentation the two sisters were charged under trafficking and anti- conversion laws following complaints by members of a Hinduthva group.

Video footage of the incident showed the nuns being threatened by Jyoti Sharma of Durga Vahini Matrushakti inside the police station while police officials stood by, the incident sparked national political outrage ,illustrating coordination between different actors can criminalize basic social service activities. The fact that the two nuns were hospital workers ,one a nurse and the other a pharmacist did not matter to the Hinduthva activists and the police or the judiciary.

Anti-conversion laws strangely named Freedom of Religion Acts designed to prevent forceful conversions are being systematically exploited to crmininalize legitimate religious activities and social service .

The vague language used in the  hastily made anti-coversion laws many of which are blatantly unconstitutional enables arbitrary aplication with Christians facing the prospect of imprisonment up to 10 years for constitutionally protected religious activities. The legal framework intended to protect religious freedom actually results in  restricting it. The various state anti-coversion laws are under challenge in the Supreme Court. But for some inexplicable reason the the Supreme Court has not shown any urgency to consider the matter and the persecution of the Christan community under these laws continue unabated.

In this context the the RLC pointed out the promise of religious freedom for all citizens requires immediate , concrete action by government authorities , law enforcement agencies and the judiciary . Law enforcement agencies must fulfill their constitutional duty to protect all citizens regardless of faith. The systematic misuse of anti-conversion laws requires immediate review to ensure alignment with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court must urgently adress the issue so that  India’s secular fabric is not irreparably torn apart.

Ends…

The post Systamatic Persecution of Christians in India appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

In a great relief to political, social and human rights activists in the country who have been alarmed at the shrinking democratic space for protests specialy in the National Capital Delhi, the Supreme Court on 31st July 2025 quashed a First Information Report ( FIR )  registered against Telungu actor and film producer Mohan Manchu Babu and his son Vardhan Babu. The FIR was filed against them in connection with a protest rally held in 2019 on the issue of non-payment of student fee reimbursements in Andhra Pradesh.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K. V. Viswanathan quashed FIR setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings against Mohan Manchu Babu and his son.

” The appllents were exercising their Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and to Assemble Peacefully. Therefore , no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution , ” the court order said.

Only on 1st July 2025 several political parties and progressive and democratic organisations got together and held a joint dharna organised by the Delhi Committee of CPI ( ML ) at Jantar Mantar against shrinking space for PROTEST in the capital. The gathering was addressed , among others , by CPM ( ML ) Delhi spokesperson Comrade Mrigank, Nadita Narain of Democratic Teachers Front ( DTF ) and N.D. Pancholi veteran leader of People’s Union for Civil Liberties  ( PUCL ).

There was a time when all protest programmes , dharnas, rallies and public meetings in Delhi  were organised at the sprawling Boat Club lawns where there was ample breathing space for the aggrieved protesters as well as for the police force and the reporters , including the present writer covering events. One of the famous sit ins at the India Gate lawns this reporter covered was the farmers agitation led by Kisan leader Mahinder Singh Tikait. While covering the event I developed a special bond with the farmers leader and that came in handy while covering the recent farmers’ agitation against the infamous farmers ‘ reform’ Acts.

The shifting of the protest site from Boat Club to the Jantar Mantar took place some time in the late 80s  may be 1988 or 1989 , around that time there was a massive dharna by the Anganwadi workers demanding survival wages which this reporter covered for the Indian Express.

Even though Jantar Mantar is the officially designated protest site nobody is free to protest at the site at will. The Delhi Police , which is responsible for law and order in the capital is insisting that a minimum 10 days notice is a must to hold any dharna,  rally or meeting at the Jantar Mantar. And through out  the New Delhi district in which most of the Union goverment offices and the state goverment guest houses and offices are located prohibitory orders are in force on a permanent basis and permission for protest events are given reluctantly after inordinate delay.

Gradually , peaceful gathering in industrial areas and other workplaces in Delhi are also being brought under highly restrictive regimes and permission for protest programmes are outrightly denied. Jantar Mantar itself has been converted in to barricaded highly monitored zone.

Petitions and memorandums addressed to people in power can no more be  submitted directly by the protesters to the concerned authorities, the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Chief Minister,  Commissioner of Police or Municipal Commissioner. The petitions have to be submitted to the security officer on the spot who will forward them to the concerned authority. The meeting demanded that Section 144 be lifted from the New Delhi District and people should be free to hold protest programmes with a simple notice to the police without waiting for permissions.

The case against Mohan Babu and his sons arose from a protest held on 22nd March 2019 led by Mohan Babu demanding release of pending student fee reimbursement funds . The protesters raised slogans  against the then government for not granting students’ fee reimbursement to Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions of which Mohan Babu is the Chairman.

The complaint was registered by then Model Code of Conduct Officer ( elections were due to be held at that time ) alleging that the protest involved a rally and dharna which obstructed traffic for four hours . Based on the complaint the police registered FIR under Sections 290, 341, 171-F read with 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act , 1861.

Observing that none of the offences charged against the appellants is made out, the judgement authored by Justice Nagarathna said: ” A reading of the FIR and the chargesheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury , danger, annoyance to the public or interference with their public rights , nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in .

” Further they do not disclose material to suggest that there was any undue influence at elections , impersonation at elections or any act committed with the intention to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights.

” Further they do not suggest that any act was committed on a road or in an open place within the limits of a town that caused inconvenience , annoyance or paused a risk of danger or injury or damage to the public , and do not disclose any of the eight specified actions under Section 34 of the Police Act.,1861.

” Therefore , even if the case of the respondent -State is accepted at its face value , it cannot be concluded that the appellants , while conducting the rally and dharna , engaged in any form of obstruction of the road in a manner that led to the offences alleged .” Justice Nagrathna concluded!

The post Supreme Court rules against Criminalising Protest appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

By Joseph Maiakan
The Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) the long arm of the Modi government extensively deployed for
disciplining dissenting political opponents conducted 3010 raids between 2014 and 2022 ( Eight years ) ,
as against 112 raids carried out between 2004 and 2014 , ten years of the United Progressive Alliance (
UPA ) rule.
ED raids target financial crimes like money laundering , violation of foreign exchange regulations,
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act ( FERA and FEMA ) and cases
involving fugitive economic offenders. The objective is to detect, investigate and prosecute individuals
and institutions involved in financial crimes and to recover the proceeds of crime.
And consequently , the ED has the power to conduct searches, seize assets , attach properties and make
arrests in connection with the offences they investigate. It could raid a business suspected of laundering
money through shell companies or a person suspected of violating FEMA by illegally transferring money
abroad.
Among the most famous people raided by the ED are Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, in the National
Herald ( newspaper ) case followed by Bhupinder Singh Honey, nephew of former Punjab Chief Minister
, in an illegal sand mining case. Honey was also arrested in the case. The ED siezed more than Rs. 10
crore , gold worth Rs.21 lakhs and Rolex watch worth Rs.12 laks from the residence of Honey.
Other prominent people raided were IAS officer Pooja Singhal , an aide of the Jharkhand Chief Minister
Hemant Soren , Partha Chatterjee former West Bengal Education Minister and his aide Aprita
Mukherjee. The Minister was also arrested following the ‘ recovery ‘ of Rs.21 crore in cash from the
residence of Arpita Mukherjee.
Arm Admi Party lader and Delhi’s Health Minister Satyender Jain was arrested by the ED in May 2018
under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ) after the CBI registered an FIR
against him in a disproportionate asset caseon 24 August 2017.
Other prominent people arrested by the ED are Karti Chidambaram Congress Member of Parliament and
son of former Home Minister P. Chitambaram in the Chinese Visa case, Shiv Sena M.P. Sanjay Raut ,
Sanjay Chhbria and Avinash Bhosale in the Yes Bank – DHFL case , Maharashtra Minister and prominent
Nationalist Congress Party leader Nawab Malik for his alleged link with fugitive gangster leader Dawood
Ibrahim’s D-Company . The ED also arrested former Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejeriwal and Deputy
Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the alleged liquor scam while in office . It also arrested K. Kavitha
daughter of former Chief Minister of Telengana K. Chandrashekhar Rao in the scam.
The ED also filed a supplementary chargesheet against former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmer
Farooq Abdullah in connection with the Jammu and Kashmer Cricket Association ( JKCA ) fund scam !

Besides these the ED in February 2024 attached Rs.1.17 crore of, Wahington Post Columnist Rana Ayyub
in a money laundering case . The ED charged her of misusing donations for personal expenses.
The ED’s unbriddled more than a decade old run came to an abrupt halt on 21 July 2025 , when a
Supreme Court bench comprising the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
asked The ED why it was being used for ” political battles ” and dismissed ED’s appeal against the
Karnataka High Court quashing the summons against Karnataka Chief Minister Sitaramaiah’s wife B. M.
Parwati and State Minister Byrathi Suresh. The summons was issued in connection with the alleged
illegal allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority ( MUDA ).
While hearing matter the Chief Justice of India B. R.Gavai told the Additional Solicitor General ( ASG ) S.
V. Raju ” Mr. Raju , please don’t ask us to open our mouths. Otherwise , we will be forced to make some
haarsh coments about the ED. Unfortunately , I have some experience in Maharashtra. You do not
perpetuate this violence across the country now. Let the political battles be fought before the
electorate. Why are you being used as a tool ? “
Meanwhile, in a severe indictment of the ED, the Madras High Court in a separate case has said that the
ED can take action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and it cannot conduct investigations
on its own.
A bench of the Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Laxminarayanan observed that the ED cannot act like a
super cop and investigate anything and everything that came to its notice. There should be a ” criminal
activity ” which attracts schedule of the PMLA , and on account of such criminal activity there should
have been ” proceeds of crime ” .It is only then the jurisdiction of ED commences the court said.
There must be criminal activity coming within the schedule of the Act alongwith the presence of the
proceeds of the crime then only the ED will have jurisdiction to start a probe. If the agency was allowed
to conduct an investigation merely on coming to know about any activity , the ED would be conducting
roving enquiry the court added.
“‘ The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like
a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship , the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate
offence and ” proceeds of crime ” . The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any
criminal activity, ” the court pointed out.
The court further explained that as per Section 66 ( 2 ) of the PMLA, if the ED comes across a violation of
law during the course of an investigation , it cannot assume the role of an investigating agency and
investigate those offences also.
In this context, it is pertinent to mention a remark made by Justice Ramesh in June 2025 that the courts
often term the PMLA 2002 as an ” evolving legislation ” which throws up new legal questions , but it is
actually the ” officials of the ED who are evolving day by day by EXPANDING their POWERS ! “

The post ED CANNOT BE A SUPER COP : Supreme Court and High Court appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The Supreme Court of India while hearing a bunch of  petitions challenging the 24 June 2025 notification of the Election Commission of India announcing that it will begin a Special Intensive Revision ( SIR ) of the Bihar Voters List on Thursday 10 th July 2025 asked a number of hard questions to the Election Commission of India.

The petitioners had argued that the Special Intesive Revision ( SIR ) of the  Bihar Voters List announced on the  eve of the Bihar Legislative Assembly election due in November this year is ARBITRARY and DISCRIMINATIVE since it compels even citizens whose names have  been on the voters list for more than 10 years  to reverify themselves.

A division bench of the Supreme  Court of India comprising Justices Sudhanshu   Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi while declining to stay the SIR, expressed serious doubts about the Election Commission’s plan to hold a SIR of Bihar’s electoral rolls months before the Assembly election.

The Supreme Court told the Election Commission ” Your exercise is not the problem … It is the timing . We have serious doubts if you can manage this exercise. With such a big population of more than Eight crore is it possible to link it to the forthcoming election ? “, the court wondered.

Justice Dhulia asked the Commission how will a person whose right to vote has been taken away defend his or her right to vote before the election. ” There is nothing wrong in having this SIR so no non-citizen do not remain on the rolls … but it should be de hours, ie conducted separately from this election ” , Justice Joymala Bagchi said .

The Court then asked three questions to the Election Commission. First , the court wanted to know which section of the of the Representation of Peoples Act allowed the Commission to hold SIR. There is either ‘ summary revision ‘ or  ‘ intensive revision ‘  , where is ‘ Special Intensive Revision ‘ ?

Second , the Court asked the Election Commission to explain the Commission’s authority to conduct a ” special intensive revision ” , the validity of the procedure for review and the timing of the revision, just before the election.

Third,the court  asked how will the Election Commission safeguard the individual’s right to appeal against exclusion from the voters’ list. ” … a person will be disenfranchised ahead of the election and she / he won’t have the time to defend the exclusion before voting, Justice Sudhanshu Dulia pointed out.

In this context Justice Dhulia said ” …courts will not touch the electoral roll once finalised…which means a disenfranchised person will lack the option to challenge the revised list before election “.

The Supreme Court also questioned the decision of the Election Commission to exclude Aadhar from the list of documents deemed acceptable for individuals to reverify themselves on the electoral roll.” Your enumerationn is related to identity…the entire exercise is primarily about identity only.” the court observed. ” We feel Aadhar should be there on the list of approved government issued Identities ” the court further said.

Responding to this the Election Commission maintained that Aadhar is not technically , proof of citizenship because certain foreign nationals can also be issued this ID .

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanian appearing for one of the petitioners, Association for Democratic Rights ( ADR ) said that the Election Commission says the last revision was in 2003 when Bihar’s population was four crore . Now it is nearly Eight crore and 10 elections have taken place since then. And now polls just months away , the EC is carrying out this exercise the draft of which has to be published within 30 days .

And despite amendments to the Act that allow Aadhar for verification of voters the Commision has said that it will not  be considered for verification, Shakaranarayan pointed out. The choice of documents , besides revision itself is illogical he said . And exemptions have been made in the case of certain sections including members of the judiciary . ” The Commision will only accept 11 documents … The  commission said it will not even accept the Voters ‘ identity card issued by the Election Commission, which is absurd , ”  Shankaranarayan said.

The petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 challenging the ECI notification claim that the SIR is arbitrary and violative of the universal right to adult suffrage. The petion argued that the identification process shifts the burden of proof on to the individual citizens , requiring fresh applications and documentary evidence of citizenship by 25 July 2025.

The petition argues that the exercise excludes indicators like Aadhar and ration cards and even the electoral card issued by the Election Commission and makes the proof of parents’ identity mandatory. Given Bihar’s high rates of poverty and migration , such requirements will disenfranchise millions. The petition  also complained about the short time frame ( four weeks ), absence of prior consultation , the notification was issued unilaterally, and therefore the exercise undermines democracy, equality and the right to vote particularly for the most marginalised.

During arguments the ECI held that under Article 324 of the constitution the ECI has the power to ” superintend, direct and control ” elections

In response Justice Dhulia remarked that the SIR exercise appears to be neither a ‘  summary ‘ nor a ‘ special ‘ revision as defined under the statute , but rather an exercise aimed at QUESTIONING CITIZENSHIP !

In this context Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal intervening on behalf of petitioners submitted that under the SIR , low level ECI officials such as Booth Level Officers ( BLOs ) are effectively tasked with determining citizenship. Such power rests exclusively with the Union Georment. The SC bench agreed with the argument.

And at the end of the arguments after raising very bold questions the Supreme Court allowed the ECI to continue the Special Intensive Revision and to examine the Powers, Process and Timing of the exercise. The court also asked Election Commision of India ,  IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , to consider Aadhar card, Elector’s Photo Identity Card ( EPIC ) and ration card ( the only thing most of the poor have ) in the ongoing SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar and the fixed the next date of of hearing for 28 July 2025.

The post Bold Questions Spineless Order appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

A Liberian flagged cargo ship belonging to the Mediterranean Shipping Company  MSC ELSA 3 enroute to Kochi from the Vizhinjam port sank on 25 May approximately 14.60 nautical miles off the Allapuzha coast in Kerala.

The vessel was carrying 643 containers , 244 with highly hazardous and noxious substances, 58 with foreign waste and over 450 metric tonnes of marine fuel. Despite the presence of the  toxic crgo neither the Kerela Government nor the Government of India take any immediate or adequate steps for wreck removal or extraction of oil.

Among the cargo also were 12 containers of calcium carbide and 12 containerss of organic chemicals raising alarm over severe contamination of the entire Kerala coast. So far 50 containers have washed ashore along the coasts of Alapuzha, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. Debris from the sunken vessel continues to reach the shore endagering environmental and public safety.

Yet for two weeks after the sinking of the ship with hazardous cargo no case was filed against the owners of the ship. Following criticism by environmentalists and social and political activists an FIR was finally registered against the vessel’s owner and crew members.

The reluctance of the State and Union governments to register a criminal case against owner of the ship stemmed from the fact that the company which owns the ship , the Mediterranean Shipping Company ( MSC ) , is a partner concern of Adani Ports , which operates multiple ports in the country , including the Vizhinjam International Seaport.

In fact in a meeting on 29 May 2025 Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the Union Director General of Shipping decided not to file a criminal complaint against the MSC because the company is a patron of the Vizhinjum International Seaport ! A patron can do no wrong  is the principle.

The 11 June FIR has been registered under sections 282 ( rash navigation of vessel ) , 285 ( danger in the line of navigation ) ,  286 ( negligent conduct of poisonous substances ) , 287 ( negligent conduct of combustible substances  ) , 288 ( negligent conduct involving explosives ) and 3 (5) ( common intention ) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita ( MNS).

While the 24 crew members were rescued by the Indian Coast Guard , the sinking of the ship has raised concerns about potential environmental damage from oil spills and and dangerous chemicals and plastic pellets. Considering the dangerous environmental fall outs the Kerala Government on May 29 declared the sinking of the cargo ship a state specific disaster. The government also warned public and fisherfolk to stay away from the debris and report any sightings to the authorities.

The MSC, headquartered in Geneva is a major global shipping company founded in Brussels in 1970. With operations spanning 155 countries MSC owns more than 900 vessels and seven aircrafts.

In 2023,  MSC’s investing wing Terminal Investment Limited , acquired  a 49 percent stake in Adani Encore Container Terminal Pvt.Ltd . It is also in partnership with Adani’s CT3 Container Terminal at the Mudra Port.

The State government intially refused to file any criminal case arguing the that the MSC did not indulge in any criminal act. Here one wonders how could one conclude that there is no foul play in the sinking of the cargo ship specially when it was carrying hazardous chemicals and even waste. The State government intially also argued that the Union government is responsible for taking action against the ship owners under the Merchant Shipping Act.

Another argument made by the State government was that the State police has jurisdiction up to only 12 nautical miles from the coastline and the the shipwreck occured more that 14 nautical miles away from the coastline.

In this context the State government conveniently or deliberately forgot a Gazette Notification issued by Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2016 empowering several coastal police stations in India , including the Fort Kochi Coastal police station , to investigate offences under the Maritime Zones Act in areas under Exclusive Economic Zones located within 200 nautical miles.

Following the sinking of the cargo ship the Kerala Government banned fishing within 20 nautical mile radius of the shipwreck . And the fishermen families of the coastal districts of Thiruvanathapuram, Kollam , Alapuzha and Ernakulum were given Rs.1000 and six kilograms of rice each. Congress leader T. N .Pratapan wondered how could the fisherfolk survive on this meagre amount of relief.

The coastal fishing community apart from facing uncertainty about their livelihood is now faced with the prospect of dealing with pollutants left behind by the shipwreck. Hitherto , there has been no report of any oil spill. However , we have to remember that the sunken ship is loaded with 84.44 metric tonnes of diesel and 367.1 metric tonnes of furnace oil.

Following the sinking of the ship V.J Mathew , former Chairman of the Kerala State Maritime Board wondered why the State government delayed releasing the cargo manifest , when the Vishinjam Port as per norms had it , since the ship was sailing from Vizhinjam to Kochi when it sank.

The Government of Kerala was forced to release the cargo manifest after Congress leader T.N. Pratapan filed a Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ) in the Kerala High Court. After the first hearing on 5 June Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji directed the State government to place all information regarding the cargo and the ecological impact of the cargo in the public domain.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) suo motu on 27 May asked MSC to specify the hazardous contents in the cargo containers. The NGT notified that the incident violated the provisions of the Biodiversity Act.2002;  Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act.1974 and the Environment Protection Act.1986.

Several questions remain. One,  what is the state and Union governments trying to hide. MSC Esla had only one more year before it was to be decommissioned. Therefore it is natural to ask the question whether it was deliberately sunk to claim insurance.The list of items published also lacks authenticity. Some containers it was said contained cash ! Later it was changed to cashew ! Even God may not be able to Save ‘ God’s Own Country ‘!

The post The Sordid Tale of a Kerala Shipwreck appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

Three terrible things that was inflicted specially on the poor and maginalised  people of Delhi by Prime Miniser 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 sterilisation ; largescale 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 sterilisation 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 Emporor of Delhi and like Nadir Shah decided to change both the map and demography of Delhi. For the beautification programme the slums  in different parts of Delhi and the old walled city with a predominatly Muslim population were targetted.

Seven months into the emergency , by when most opposition leders including Jayprakash Narain, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Atal Beehari Vajpayee,  L.K Advani, Biju Patnaik, Chadra Shekhar, Ram Dhanand  Raj Narain were in prison under various srigent emergency laws , in February 1976 Emporor 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. Stading there he decided , come what may, all the buildings , along the way had to be broughtdown.

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 passers by were picked up at random and forcibly sterilised under terribly unsanitary conditions.

Women who have been forcibly sterilized

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 sterilised in return for cash and other incentives. With the people resisting compulsory sterilisation , the police were deployed to round up a certain number everyday and compulsorily sterilise. 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 sterilisations and the illegal demolitions. A general strike was called on the 19th April 1976.

Unmindful of the general strike bulldozers started moving forward  accompanied with 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 teargasing.

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 teargased 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-Ilàhi 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 them 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. Ra einforcements came , firing continued and an army of bulldozers were brought in and demolitions were carried out under flood light.

The bulldozers crushed and collected both the dead and injured bodies aong with the rubble loaded in to trucks and disposed off at far away at hitherto undisclosed places. The screms 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 hisbook on the emergency lamented ” Never was such a human tragedy caused in any part of the world”.

The Shaw Commission which enquired 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 retuned as Prime Minister and Shaw Commision 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 Ghandhi 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 Jallianwalla Bagh massacre because the former was executed by a colonial power while the Turkuman Gate massacre was carried out by independent India’s governt against its own citizens.

As for demolitions in Delhi during the emergency the Shaw Commission observed : ” The manner in which demolitions were carried out in Delhi during the emergency is an unrelived story of illegality, sickening sychophancy 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 which demands an attitude of fairplay and consideration for others.”

In Delhi following the declaration 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 and 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 learnt 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 was 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 Maintenance Internal Security Act ( MISA ) or 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 Bitish colonial rulers in censorship, because even in the crucial years of 1920-21, 1930-31and 1942 the newspaers were free to publish the names of those arrested.

The censors warned the editors against using quotations from great workss 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 grand son’s emergency through and through and removed the quote ‘ Freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might ‘ from its masthead.

Eventhough K.Shankar Pillai , the editor of Shankar’s Weekly , the satirial journal famous for its cartoons , ideolegically supported Mrs Gadhi 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 alongwith 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 23June 1980  morning , Sanjay alongwith his flying instructor Captain Subash Saxena , took off from the 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 popular belief contained secret data. Though this reporer covered the accident for the Indian Express with all details including a photograph of the instructor , still wonder any thing could have been retrieved after the terrible tragedy.

Lt . Governor Kishan Chand acknowledged before 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 over ambitious 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 in to 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 Emergency: 21 months of nightmare in Delhi appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

In a great relief to those who upold free speech the Supreme Court on Thursday 19 June directed the Karnataka Government to provide full protection for the screening of ‘ Thug Life ‘ the new film of actor politician Kamal Hassan.

The movie was to have opened in Karnataka on 5 June , but it got mired in controversy over Kamal Hassan’s comment about the Kannada language being ” born out of Tamil ” .The remark , at an event in Chennai , led to anger among various pro- Kannada groups.

They demanded an unconditional apology from  Kamal Hassan but he stood his ground .He argued that his comment had been misunderstood and while he respected the Kannada language he held his fundamental right to freedom speech and expression very dear.

Various Kannada groups called for the boycot of Kamal Hassan’s films and Thug Life was not released in Karnataka.The Supreme Court severely criticised the State of Karnataka for allowing the mob rule to take over and stop the release of the film in Karnataka.

The State of Karnataka assured the Supreme Court that it will provide protection to the film makers so that film’s release is not obstructed by vigilante groups.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan accepted the state’s affidavit and said : ” In view of the stand taken by the State in the affidavit it is not necessary to delve into the rival contentions …The affidavit also discloses in the event the movie is released the state will provide full protection and security for the same…We direct the State that in the event anybody tries to forcibly obstruct the release of the movie , the State shall act promptly against such groups.

The Supreme Court passed the order on a petition filed by a Banglore resident M Mahesh Reddy , who pointed out that despite having valid Censor Board Certificate , the film Thug Life was effectively banned in Karnataka due to threats by fringe organisations and inaction by State authorities.

His Counsel A. Velan , urged the bench to lay down some guidelines to prevent such incidents from recurring in future. However, the Court declined to issue any such guidelines. However the bench reiterated that the State cannot bow to pressure from vigilante groups in such matters.

” Just because of an opinion a movieis stopped, a stand up comedian is stopped, a person is stopped from reciting a poem …You ( State ) succumbed to their pressure. In such circumstances State has a duty . Simply saying ban is not imposed will take it nowhere. You are hiding behind these groups .In India there will be no end to hurt sentiments . Stand up comedian says something everybody is hurt , then there is vandalism. Where are we heading ? The Court wondered.

The petition before Supreme Court had said that after Victory Cenema announced its plan to screen the film in Bangluru , Karnataka Rakshana Vedike ( KRV ) President TA Narayana Gowda allegedly threatened to ” set theaters on fire ” if any film of Hassan is released in the State.

Around the same time a social media postexplicitly called for a repeat of the 1991 anti-Tamil riots and warned of violence if the film were to be released in the State. No cases were registered despite widespread public outcry over the tweet and the alleged threats ,the petition said. On the bais of the petition the SC had last week issued notice to the State of Karnataka.

The Supreme Court at that time also transferred acse  related to the screening of Thug Life filed by Kamal Hassan’s production house Raaj Kamal Films , from the Karnataka High Court to itself. The Karnataka High Court while haring the petition had criticised Hassan for his remarks and urged him to apologise to settle the matter.However , Hassan had refused to apologise saying that he had not said anything with malicious intent. Senior advocate Satish Parasaran represented the Production House in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Nuli representing Krataka Sahitya Parshad argued that language is a very sensitive subject that Hassan should not have made such ” irresponsible ” statement. … The movie should be screened subject to apology by the actor,” Nuli said.

To which the court replied , ” There is no question of apology …you confront his statement with your own research. Counter him . Instead of creating such a situation , you file a defamation suit.  You cannot take law in to your hands. You must make a statement that you will not object the release in any unlawful manner.” the Court said.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling it is unlikely that the film will be screened in Karnataka , because the disributor has reservations. Venkatesh kamalakar , who had acqired the Karnataka distribution rights under VR Films , said he will not release the film in Karnataka.

” We had taken the distribution rights for the film but could not release it because of the controversy and threat of violence. ” It is already two weeks since the  film has been released and  is under performing everywhere. Collections are falling and multiplexes are not enthusiastic. They are now offering 30 percent of what we originally expected.”.

If the production house wants to distribute the film through another distributer they can do so but they can do it only they settle the issue with us he added.

The post After a Lull the Supreme Court upholds Free Speech appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

The Supreme Court on 23 May 2025 set aside two First Information Reports ( FIR s ) registered against Vinod Bihari Lal , the Vice- Chancellor of Prayagraj- based Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences ( SHUATS ) alleging illegal religious conversions.

In the FIRs registered in July 2018 , the U.P. Police alleged that Lal and one David Dutta formed gang for committing economic offences involving fraud and cheating for personal  and material gain by forging documents. The police also alleged that Lal misused Rs.34.5 crore received from foreign sources to find illegal religious conversions. The FIRs were registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities ( Prevention ) Act 1986 and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2020.

The police investigated and submitted a chargesheet pursuent to which a trial court issued non-bailable arrest warrants against the two in February 2023.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in their order said that the chargesheet prepared against Lal and another accused was a mere reproduction of the FIR. The rules were thrown out of the window as a mechanically drawn preprepared gang chart was ” rubber stamped ” by the competent authority without following the mandate under the Gangster Act that laid down process of consultation followed by satisfaction of senior police officials and district authorities.

Finding that nothing of this was done before registering the FIR against Lal in 2018 the SC bench pointed out : ” Resultantly , the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities entrusted with the solem duty of safeguarding the life and liberty , treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. “

The bench further said that a perusal of the case files reveals that no investigation was  carried out by the police and the chargesheet , a reproduction of the FIR , concluded that the accused are guilty without furnishing any documentary evidence.

” The contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency , as it discloses nothing beyond what was already stated in the subject FIR. We strongly disaprove of this practice and cast into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offenceo be ‘ proved’ , the order said.

The judgement authored by Justice Pardiwala further said that a mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding and approving authorities respectively is impermissible , as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens …we would like to reiterate that the recommending , forwarding , and approving authority are not mere rubber-stamping  tentities.

The order reminded the investigating agency of its job to conduct an impartial investigation and leave it to the trial court to determine the guilt or the innocence of the accused. Senior advocate Sidharth Dave , who appeared for Lal pointed out that the FIR under Gangster Act was based on three base FIRs registered in 2017 and while a gang requires more than one person the co-; accused Dutta is not named in any FIR.

In this context the Supreme Court order said : ” This selective approach raises serious doubts about the bonafides of the investigating agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken under the Act of 1986. ” Dave also questioned the ” mechanical preparation of the gang-chart , highlighting how at every stage , the U.P. Gangster Rules 2021 stood violated.

The bench further said that “:Upon perusal of the material on record , more particularly the gang-chart , it is abundantly clear that the said gang -chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his / her signature on a pre-printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non–application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rule 16 and 17 of 2021 Rules … Such a safeguard is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of law and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect the rights and liliberties of individuals.”

The investigation by the police only ignites ” conjectures and surmises ” without making out a prima facie case and therefore the Bench concluded that ” continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harrassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of the process of law.”

The Supreme Court had earlier on 16 May 2025 stayed criminal proceedings before trial court  in Uttar Pradesh over five cases lodged against the Vice-Chancellor of the Sam Higginbottom University and others for alleged illegal conversion of Hindus to Christianity.

Senior lawyer Mukta Gupta appearing for one of the accused , had pointed out that testimony of none of the alleged victims of conversion , who were lured into Christianity was recorded by the state police.

In the last four years 835 cases have been registered and a total of 1, 682 people have been arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2020. So far 124 people named in complaints have been let off after their involvement could not be proved. The law so far has only resulted in harrassment of ordinary people , according to social observers.

The post Stop Persecution in the name of Religious Conversion : Supreme Court warns U.P.Police appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

By Joseph Maliakan

In a major victory for the secular forces in the country the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that no Waqf property will be denotified and no appointment will be made to the Central Waqf Council or the State Waqf Boards until the matter is taken up on the next date of hearing on 5 May.
The order was issued by a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India ( CJI ) Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V.Viswanathan on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf ( Amendment ) Act, 2025.
The court also granted the Union Government one weeks time to file it’s response to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of thevcontroversial Amendment to the Waqf law which witnessed fiearce opposition in both houses of parliament.
On Wednesday’s hearing the Supreme Court scrutinized some of the key provisions of the amendment like the derecognition of the waqf- by – user category of waqf properties , the inclusion of non- Muslims in Waqf administrative bodies like the Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards and the power granted to the State to change the status of disputed waqf properties.
The petitioners have contended that WAQFS, including their creation, management and administration , CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRAL ASPECT OF THE PRACTICE OF ISLAM AND ARE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.
However , the Union Goverment has defended the amendment arguing it is intended to bring in greater transparency and accountability in the management Waqf properties. The law was notified by the Union Government after it received the assent of President Droupati Murmu on 5 April 2025. The Lok Sabha passed the Amendment Bill with a majority of 56 votes while in the Rajya sabha it was passed with a margin of 33 votes.
Giving the stay order the CJI said ” Normally , it is rare to stay a statute , but we are apprehensive that the situation could drastically change .”
Appearing on behalf the Union Goverment Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that a stay on the would statute would be a ‘ harsh step’ .However, the Chief Justice proposed a three point interim order to ” balance equities ” on all sides in the case.
Firstly , properties already declared waqf by the courts need not, for the time being be denotified or treated as non- waqf properties . These would include properties categorised as ‘ waqf-by-user ‘ or waqf by long usage without formal documentation or registration , waqf by declaration or otherwise.
Secondly the CJI suggested that the designated government officer could continue to look into whether a property was waqf or government , but a connected provison by freesing the use of the property in the meanwhile as waqf ( a property dedicated to Allah for charitable or religious purposes under Isam ) could be stayed.
Thirdly the Chief Justice proposed giving the go ahead to the appointment of non- Muslims as ex officio members in the Central Waqf Council and waqf Boards , provided the other members were Muslims.
The Supreme Court had on Wednesday taken strong note of an analogy drawn by the union in support of the inclusion of n on- Muslims in Waqf Boards and the argument that by that logic , a bench of Hindu judges should not be hearing pleas related to Waqf.
” Are you suggesting that minorities including Muslims , should also be included in boards managing Hindu religious institutions ? Please state that openly,” CJI Khanna asked. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the provisions and said if the objection to the presence of n on-Muslims in the statutory Boards is accepted ,then the present bench would also not be able to hear the matter , addig ” Then your Lordships cannot hear this matter if we go by that logic”.
The CJI replied ” No ,sorry Mr. Mehta, we are not talking just about adjudication . When we sit here we lose our religion . We are absolutely secular. For us , one side or the other is the same.”
The All India ShiaPersonalbLaw Board ( AISPLB ) General Secretary Maulana Yasoob Abbas , following SC order expressed hope in the Supreme Court and said the Court’s observations while hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Waqf Amendment Act 2025 have raised the faith in the judiciary.
Stressing the importance of resolving issues within the constitutional framework , Maulana Abbas urged people to maintain unity and brotherhood , and to ensure that peace in the country is not disrupted. ” If the judiciary does not deliver justice , then where will people go ? We are trying to resolve all matters within the framework of the Constitution.” he added.
Congress leader Pramod Tewari welcoming the initial Supreme Court order on the Waqf Amendment Act said the questions raised by the Supreme Court are the same issues the Congress Party raised on the matter in the Joint Parliamentary Committee .

The post Supreme Court stays Waqf Amendment Act appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

By Joseph Maliakan

Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University arrested by the Haryana police on 18 May on
blatantly trumped up charges was granted bail by the Supreme Court on 21 May . While the bail order is
welcome the Supreme Court instead of questioning the arrest and prosecution of the renowned
academic by the police not only issued a gag order against him and directed the Director General of
Haryana police to institute a Special Investigation Team ( SIT) comprising senior IPS officers , who do not
belong to Haryana or Delhi , to investigate and understand the ‘ TRUE ‘ meaning of the post, to “
holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of of
some of the expressions used in the two posts.”

In this context one fails to understand under what logic the ‘learned judges’ have reached the conclusion
that Indian Police Service ( IPS ) officers who are generally known for high handed behaviour are
equipped to analyse the post of a professor of political science of an established University! Instead of
judging the fairness of the FIR registered against the professor and the steps taken by the prosecution
the judges themselves have turned prosecutors in the instant case.

That apart the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Kotiswar
Singh also ordered Professor Ali Khan to surrender his passport and prohibited him from writing or
talking about the present Indo-Pak conflict, Operation Sindoor or the case against him.

Article 19 (1 ) (a ) secures to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression . This clause should be
read with clause ( 2 ) which provides that the said right shall not prevent the operation of a law relating
to the matters specified therein. It enables the Legislature to impose restrictions on the right to free
speech under the following heads : ( 1 ) Security of State ( 2 ) Friendly relations with foreign States ( 3 )
Public Order ( 4 ) Decency or Morality ( 5 ) Contempt of Court ( 6 ) Defamation ( 7 ) Incitement to an
Offence and ( 8 ) Sovereignty and Integrity of India.

Imposition of precensorship on publication is , therefore , unless justified under clause (2) , violative of
freedom of speech and expression. In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi ( AIR 1950 SC 129 ) an order under
section 7 ( 1 ) (c) of East Punjab Safety Act , 1950 directing the editor and publisher of a newspaper ” to
submit for scrutiny , in duplicate , before publication , till further orders , all communal matters and
news and views about PAKISTAN , including photographs and cartoons “, was struck down by the
Supreme Court , observing :
There can be little doubt that the imposition of precensorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty
of the press which is an essential part of freedom of speech and expression declared by Article 19 ( 1 )
(a).The article applies to every citizen including professor Ali Khan.
Professor Khan’s post on 8 May said the optics of women officers , Colonel Sofia Querreshi and Wing
Commnander Vymoka Singh , conducting the media briefing was important but would amount to
hypocrisy if not backed by tangible change on the ground , referring to bulldozing of Muslim homes

andb mob lynching of Muslims. This statement the Chairperson of the Haryana Women’s Commission
alleged ” disparaged women officers in the armed forces and promoted communal disharmony “.
A number of sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita including section 152 ( acts endagering the
sovereinty , unity and integrity of the India) were invoked by the Haryana police while arresting
Professor Ali Khan.
In his post professor Khan praised the Army’s restraint, warned against warmongering , analysed the
strategic shifts in geopolitics between India and Pakistan , criticised dehumanisation, and called for
moral introspection by invoking the teachings of the Gita ,the Prophet and Imam Ali.
The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s convictions and opinions freely
by word of mouth , writing, printing, pictures or any other mode . A democratic government attaches
great importance to this freedom .It is the Courts’ duty to safeguard this freedom under even trying
circumstances.
In Romesh Thappar v .State of Madras ( AIR 1950 SC124) , Patanjili Sastri, C.J.observed : ” Freedom of
speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without the political
discussion no public education , so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular
government is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might invoke risks of abuse. But the framers of the
Constitution may well have reflected … that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their
luxuriant growth than by pruning them away , to injure the vigour of those yeilding the proper fruits.”
Unfortunately the Supreme Court , it seems has even before the investigation and trial has come to the
conclusion that professor Ali Khan is guilty . The bench characterised the professor’s post as ” dog
whistling “. The professor could have used ” neutral language ” that would not have ” hurt sentiments”
the bench observed. Is the Supreme Court ‘s more concern about free speech or opinions of politically
affiliated people opposing freedom of speech and liberty ?

The post Supreme Court Spupresses Free Speech appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

By Joseph Maliakan

Though the Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have repeatedly held that freedom of expression under Article 19 (1 ) (a) of the Constitution is a fundamental right and cannot be suppressed the Income Tax department of the Union government does not think so.

In Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950) the Supreme Court had ruled that the press has a significant role to play in informing the public and promoting democratic values.Therefore , any attempt to curtail the freedom of the press would violate the right to freedom of expression.

However, asserting that ” journalism does not serve any public purpose ” the Income Tax  authorities on 27 January 2025 refused to extend the philanthropic status to The Reporters ‘ Collective , an association of journalists which has been consistently publishing reports critical of the Union government headed by Narender Modi.

A report ” Inside Modi  government’s War Room to Whitewash Global Indices ” published very recently said the Modi government had been lobying to change methodologies to pump up India’s ranking in global indices.

The Repoters’ Collective has been operating in India registered as a non profit from July 2021. The revocation of the non profit status means that the group would no longer be exempt from paying income tax.The group will have to pay tax on all donations it receives . Donors to the group also will not be entitled to tax rebate because the group will be treated as a commercial organisation.

Donations received by organisations registered under section 12 AB of the Income Tax Act is not taken as normal taxable income, and the amount given by donors also gets an exemption in income tax. Now that the IT department has cancelled the non-profit status of the Repoters’ Collective , not only future donations but also past donations too can be taxed.

Under section 115TD accumulations an institution has made before the cancellation can also be taxed . And when registration as a non-profit is cancelled , tax at maximum marginal rate , which can vary between 30 to 42 percent , depending on the income will be levied.

In January 2024 TRC had reported that in 2014 Prime Minister Narendra Modi had tried to hold ” backdoor negotiations with the Finance Commission to cut tax funds allocated to the states ” It also did reports on women’s safety , environmental issues and the ethnic conflict in Manipur.The TRC also carried investigative reports on the Union Government’s Electoral Bonds Scheme and on the murky business operations of the Adani group.

Several opposition leaders have condemned the misuse of the IT department to supress the criticism of the government. Congress leader P.Chidambaram tweeted ” One more building block of freedom was knocked down when the Income Tax Department cancelled non-profit status of The Repoters’ Collective ” Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala tweeted ” the facist Modi government is inimical to independent media and hates free press . The pliant,  subservient media of today is a poor commentary on the brick by brick designed obliteration of democracy .”Former TMC MP , Jawhar Sircar said the Prime Minister ” unleashed Income Tax hounds to terrorise the media that exposes his corruption and highhandedness”.

In June 2024 the IT department cancelled the tax exemption status of  Aman Biradari , an NGO headed by human right activist Harsh Mander and cancelled it’s registration under section 12 AB charitable of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Section 2(15 ) of the Income Tax Act defines ” charitable purpose ” as including ” relief of the poor , education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest and advancement of any other object of general public utility.”

Basically seven kinds of activity are considered charitable for availing tax exemption. The first six are per se charitable.The seventh , residual kind , is the advancement of ‘ any other object of public utility.’  It is the residual category that is relevant in the Repoters’ Collective’s case.

The Act does not clarify what is ” general public utility .” It means that the activity has a worthy purpose and an element of public character.It must relate to a sufficiently large section of the public The starting point to decide whether a trust or institution has a charitable purpose is to examine the objectives with which the trust or institution has been set up.

Are the activities to be carried out on a non-profit no loss basis ? Do the activities have a worthy purpose ? Will the activities benefit the public at large? If the answers are in the affirmative , the activities should be considered to be of general public utility .

The TRC’s main objectives are education and other objects of general public utility.Other objectives would be publish news , carry out research , promote and carry out journalism  and conduct training and educational activities .These are non-profitable activities since they are conducted on a non-profit , no-loss basis.

Public utility is implicit in philanthro- journalism The primary role of responsible journalism is to build an informed citizenry and act as a ‘ watchdog’ in a democracy . Responsible journalism must be essentially considered as advancing “general public utility.”

However , the Commissioner’s order revoking TRC’s non- profit status nowhere records that the association is undertaking commercial activities for consideration.The Commissioner has very casually denied registration by claiming that journalism does not have public utility.This therefore is a clear case of  arbitrary exercise of power without proper application of mind.

On February 10 , the Delhi High Court hearing a writ petition submitted by the Repoters’ Collective challenging the Income Tax Commissioner’s order directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to resolve the issue expeditiously.

The post Weponasing Tax Law to supress Freedom of the Press appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

By Joseph Maliakan

Therefore , the local civil court was legally and constitutionally bound to reject the Hindu groups claim
that a Hindu temple existed where the Sambhal Jama Masjid stood. However , various Hindu groups
have been filing petitions in different courts claiming many Mosques in the country was built on sites of
razed Hindu Temples . And courts have been too willing to order to survey of Mosques to look for Hindu
temples .
In fact, the Hindu groups have prepared a list of more than 3000 mosques which have been built after
demolition of temples. And in future we can expect the Hindu groups to file more petitions in courts
across the country.
There is already a dispute over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi . There is also a dispute over the
Eidgah Masjid in Mathura, both in Uttar Pradesh. In adjoining Madhya Pradesh , there is yet another
dispute over the Kamal -Maula Masjid in Dhar.

As if these were not enough , on 27 November , a civil court in Ajmer issued notices to the Ajmer Dargah
Committee, the Union Minisstry of Minority Affairs and the Archeological Survey of India after a petition
was filed by Vishnu Gupta , national president of Hindu Sena , claiming that the Dargah was originally a
Shiva temple.
Commenting on the delepments with regard to the Ajmer Dargah, Syed Sarwar Chisthy, Secretary of the
Anjuman Syed Zadgan , the representative body of hereditary khadims ( caretakers) of the Dargah told
the Wire " The Dargah is a symbol of communal harmony , diversity and plularism. It promotes unity and
diversity . Along with this , it is also a very big islamic pilgrimage for people right from Afghanistan to
Indonesia. It has crores of followers. This is not a joke where we will keep tolerating this ."
Kalki is the final avtar or incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. Hindus believe that there are four stages
of time.The stage of time we are in is called the Kali Yuga. In this stage of time people are very bad .To
restore Dharma in the world , Kalki will come to Earth , and will destroy the bad things and kill the bad
people. People will change then , and become good people and a nlew stage of life will begin, called the
Satya Yuga or the first stage of life! So we still can hope for peace!
And according to the complaint by Vishnu Shanker Jain not only the Sambhal Jama Masjid built on the
ruins of the Harihar temple , " It is believed the Kalki Avtar is to take place at Sambhal." The Shrimand
Bhagwat Purana describes in detail the incarnations of Lord Vishnu. There is a description of Lord Kalki in
the second chapter of the 12th wing of the same Purana inbwhich it is said that Lord Kalki will be born as
a son in the house of an ascetic Brahminnamed Vishnu Yasha at a place called Shambhala . Lord Kalki will
destroy the sinners from the world by riding on a horse or vehicle named Devadatta and re- establish
religion.
Ends….

The post Sambhal Mosque Violence : There is Method in the Madness appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

By Joseph Maliakan

Even as the country is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of India , the Ministry of Law and Justice in a blatant violation of the basic features of the Constitution on 20th December 2024 issued a  notification amending Rule 93 of the Election Rule 1961 . The rule which gave  all citizens the right to srutinise documents related to elections conducted by the Election Commission of India was a guarantee for holding ” free and fair ” elections.

The Rule 93 of the  Election Rule 1961 was provided to ensure a high degree of transperancy and accoutaability on the part of the Election Commission in the conduct of elections. Amidst large scale criticism of unfair conduct by the Election Commission in the conduct elections , it was actually in the interest of the Election Commission to retain Rule 93.

But ironically the amendment to Rule 93 of Election Rules 1961 came on a recomendation from the Election Commission , which wanted restrictions on the types election related documents open to public scrutiny. While the original rule stipulated all documents related to elections, except the identity of the voter will be open to scrutiny by the public the amendment says that only documents specified by the Election Commission will be available for scrutiny.

This has naturaly led to the suspision that the conduct of the Election Commission has been suspect on many counts and ocasions and it has somethings to hide. One fails to understand the logic behind a rule which says that the functioning of an institution will be judged by the rules laid down by the institution itself , without even notifying the stake holders.

The Election Commission’s recomendation is not only suspect , it is also unconstitutional and undemocratic. In the scheme of the Indian Constitution the Parliamnet is Supreme and the institutions under the Constitution including the Executive cannot violate Acts of the Parliment. Any student of law knows that the present notification is in  violation of Right to Information Act.

The amendment was made obviously without proper study following a 5th December judgemnet by the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing Election Commission to provide recordspertaining to a polling booth in the recently held Assembly Elections in Haryana to advocate Mehmood Pracha.

Advocate Pracha had filed the petition seeking access to videography, CCTV footage and copies of forms 17- C Pat I and II of the Assembly election .The High Court has directed the EC to provide the documents to the advocate within six weeks , that is before 15 January 2025.

A number of commentators have pointed out that the notification amending Rule 93 has been issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice as a reaction to the Punjab and High Court direction to the Election Commission. High Courts being Constitutional Courts no notification by the State or Union government can nullify a High Court order. Under the circumstances one fails to understand the hurry in which the Ministry of Law and Justice acted in this case. Our bureaucrats are living in a fools paradise if they believe that a Ministry notification can undo a High Court order.

Apart from the fact that the notification is unconstitutional there is also the question of undermining the multiparty system by the Election Commission by resorting to making recomendations affecting the election process the country which is being under the radar of various stake holders.

Hotherto , whenever any change conteplated the Election Commission used to hold consultations with the stake holders, particularly the recognised national parties. Following present notification almost every  political party in  the country haveopposed move.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on 23 December described the amendment to the Election Rule was a grave threat to ” freeand fair ” elections and the NDA government led by the BJP benton ” killing transparency” in elections.

The Congress Party has through a petition in the Supreme Court challenged the amenmentto the Election Rules 1961 restraing access to election related documents to the public . The Election Commission cannot be allowed to unilaterally suggest amendments to Election rules without any consultation and thereforeettion  the same should be set aside , the petition said.

The complaints against electoral malpractices indulged in with full knowledge of the Election Commission is in the increase .In the byelection to the Rampur assembly Constituency in Uttar Pradesh majority of Muslim voters were prevented from voting by the local administration and the Election Commission remained a silent spectator.For the first time in a Muslim majority area the Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) won literally hands down.

Further , according to a study made by the Assocition of Democratic Rights ( ADR ) in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections out of 543 constituencies in 538 constituencies there was discepency between the votes polled and the votes counted .  Despite repeated requests the Election Commission has not given any explanation for the discepency.

The Electronic Voting Machines ( EVM s ) , are reliable , both the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court of India have held. But how come in many istances in recent times there have been diferences between the votes polled and votes counted. The EC owes an explanation to the voters. Amendments restricting public scrutiny of election documents will only make elections a farce.

Ends…..

The post Election Commission : An Appendage of the Ruling Party appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Rejecting a challenge to the insertion of the words ” socialist ” and ” secular ” in the Preamble to the
Constitution of India , a Supreme Court Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India , Sanjiv Khanna and
Justice Sanjay Kumar on Monday, 25 November 2024, on the eve of the 75 th anniversary of the
adoption of the constitution, ruled that both Socialism and Secularism are part of the basic structure of
the Indian Constitution.
The original Preamble adopted on 26 November 1949 declared India a sovereign, democratic republic .
The Constituent Assembly conciously resolved not to use the socialist or secular in the constitution
because both concepts were yet to be defined in the Indian context.
When the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950 the Preamble stated:
WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens :
JUSTICE, social , economic and political ;
LIBERTY of thought , expression , belief , faith and worship ;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity ;
and to protect among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation ;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949 , do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT
AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION .
During the Constituent Assembly debates attempts were made by various members to include the
concepts of Socialism and Secularism in the Preamble to the constitution. However , following intense
debates Constituent Assembly resolved not to include both these concepts in the Preamble to the
Constitution.

These words were inserted in the Preamble through the infamous 42 nd Amendment to the Constituion
during the Internal Emergency in 1976 , which greatly expanded the powers of the Union government.
The 42 nd amendment as far as the Preamble is concerned stated that ” for the words “SOVERIEGN
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ” the words SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ” shall be
substituted . Though subsequent amendments to the Constitution, 43rd and 44th undid many changes
brought through the 42nd amendment , the amendment to the Preamble , the insertion of the words
socialist and secular was not touched.

Forty four years after the insertion of the words ” socialist ” and ” secular” in the Preamble in July 2020 ,
Dr. Balram Singh , a Supreme Court advocate filed a pertition challenging the inclusion of the words
socialist and secular in the Preamble of the constitution.Similar petitions were also filed by former Law
Minister ,Subramaniam Swamy and advocate Aswani Kumar Upadhyay. They argued that the word
secular was conciously excluded from the Preamble by the framers of the Constitution and the concept
of socialism curtailed the freedom of the Union and state governments while framing economic policies.

The Supreme Court, in a seven page ruling rejected these arguements saying that ” the flaws and
weaknesses in the arguements are obvious and manifest .” When the Constitution was being drafted ,
the meaning of the word secular was ” considered imprecise ” as it was interpreted as opposed to
religion, the judgement pointed out.
However, with the passage of time ” India has developed its own interpretation of secularism , wherein
the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith. ” the court
said
The ideals espoused in the Preamble , fraternity, equality , individual dignity and liberty among others “
reflect this secular ethos , the order said. The concept of socialism also has evolved to have a unique
meaning in India. Socialism refers to the principle of economic and social justice , where in the State
ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances and does not
necessarily put restrictions on the private sector which has “flourished , expanded and grown over the
years , contributing significantly to the upliftment of the marginalised and under privileged sections in
different ways “
The judgement further clarfied that the ” aditions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded
legislations or policies pursued by elected governments , provided such actions did not infringe upon
fundamental and constitutional rights or the BASIC STRUCTURE of the Constitution.” Therefore, the
court held that there was no justification for challenging the amendment inserting socialist and secular
in the Preamble of the Constitution.

The court further observed that the Constitution is a ‘living document ‘ subject to the power of
amendment of the Parliament. This amending power of the Parliament extends to the Preamble also.

Socialism , in the Indian context primarily means a Welfare State that provides equality of opportunity
irrespective of race, religion or gender and at the same does not prevent the private sector from
operating . As for secularism , over time India has evolved its own brand of secularism . The State the
neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith the judgement said.

As for socialism the less said the better.Inequalities are on the increase. While the number of billioners
in India is increasing unemployement is also increasing. There is also no respite from farmer suicides. In
the World poverty Index also India’s slide is very alarming.

While every citizen should welcome the judgement , the civil society will do well to ponder how secular
and socialistic the Union Government and the State governments and other institutions have been in
their behaviour . January 2023 witnessed the Prime Minister of India undertaking Pooja in Ayodhya. And
just hardlly a month before his retirement Chief Justice of India conducted Ganapathi Pooja at his official residence with the Prime Minister in attendence . Religious persecution is also increasing. If this is our secularism only God alone can save us !

The post Socialism and Secularism are Basic to the Constitution: SC appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

Rejecting a challenge to the insertion of the words ” socialist ” and ” secular ” in the Preamble to the Constitution of India , a Supreme Court Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India , Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar on Monday,  25 November 2024, on the eve of the 75 th anniversary of the adoption of the constitution, ruled that both Socialism and Secularism are part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

The original Preamble adopted on 26 November 1949 declared India a sovereign, democratic republic . The Constituent Assembly conciously resolved not to use the socialist or secular in the constitution because both concepts were yet to be defined in the Indian context.

When the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950 the Preamble stated:

WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens :

JUSTICE, social , economic and political ;

LIBERTY of thought , expression , belief , faith and worship ;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity ;

and to protect among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation ;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949 , do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION .

During the Constituent Assembly debates attempts were made by various members to include the concepts of Socialism and Secularism in the Preamble to the constitution. However , following intense debates Constituent Assembly resolved not to include both  these concepts in the Preamble to the Constitution.

These words were inserted in the Preamble through the infamous 42 nd Amendment to the Constituion during the Internal Emergency in 1976 , which greatly expanded the powers of the Union government.

The 42 nd amendment as far as the Preamble is concerned stated that ” for the words “SOVERIEGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ” the words SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST  SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ” shall be substituted . Though subsequent amendments to the Constitution, 43rd and 44th undid many changes brought through the 42nd amendment , the amendment to the Preamble , the insertion of the words socialist and secular was not touched.

Forty four years after the insertion of the words ” socialist ” and ” secular” in the Preamble in July 2020 , Dr. Balram Singh , a Supreme Court advocate filed a pertition challenging the inclusion of the words socialist and secular in the Preamble of the constitution.Similar petitions were also filed by former Law Minister ,Subramaniam Swamy and advocate Aswani Kumar Upadhyay. They argued that the word secular was conciously excluded from the Preamble by the framers of the Constitution  and the concept of socialism curtailed the freedom of the Union and state governments while framing economic policies.

The Supreme Court, in a seven page ruling rejected these arguements saying that ” the flaws and weaknesses in the arguements are obvious and manifest .” When the Constitution was being drafted , the meaning of the word secular was ” considered imprecise ” as it was interpreted as opposed to religion, the judgement pointed out.

However, with the passage of time ” India has developed its own interpretation of secularism , wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith. ” the court said

The ideals espoused in the Preamble , fraternity, equality , individual dignity and liberty among others ”  reflect this secular ethos , the order said. The concept of socialism also has evolved to have a unique meaning in India. Socialism refers to the principle of economic and social justice , where in the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or  social circumstances and does not necessarily put restrictions on the private sector which has   “flourished , expanded and grown over the years , contributing significantly to the upliftment of the marginalised and under privileged sections in different ways “

The judgement further clarfied that the ” aditions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected governments , provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the BASIC STRUCTURE of the Constitution.” Therefore, the court held that there was no justification for challenging the amendment inserting socialist and secular in the Preamble of the Constitution.

The court further observed that the Constitution is a ‘living document ‘ subject to the power of amendment of the Parliament. This amending power of the Parliament extends to the Preamble also .

Socialism , in the Indian context primarily means a Welfare State that provides equality of opportunity irrespective of race, religion or gender and at the same does not prevent the private sector from operating . As for secularism , over time  India has evolved its own brand of secularism . The State the neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith the judgement said.

While every citizen should welcome the judgement , the civil society will do well to ponder how secular and  socialistic  the Union Government and the State governments and other institutions have been in their behaviour . January 2023 witnessed the Prime Minister of India undertaking Pooja in Ayodhya. And just hardlly a month before his retirement Chief Justice of India conducted Ganapathi Pooja at his official residence with the Prime Minister in attendence . Religious persecution is also increasing. If this is our secularism only God alone can save us !

As for socialism the less said the better.Inequalities are on the increase. While the number of billioners in India is increasing unemployement is also increasing. There is also no respite from farmer suicides. In the World poverty Index also India’s slide is very alarming.

The post Socialism and Secularism are Basic to the Constitution: SC appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Joseph Maliakan

The ruling of the nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of India presided by the outgoing Chief Justice of India D.Y.Chandrachud on 5th November 2024 that not all private property can be considered ” material resources of the community ” under the Constitution will have grave negative consequences in India’s endovour towards building a Welfare State.
The Supreme Court ruling that property serving individual needs cannot be appropriated by the state solely for welfare distribution has come at a time when India is faced with extreme levels of inequality , with the top 1 percent of the population controlling a huge share of the country’s income and wealth.
In 2022-2022, the top 1 percent of India’s population earned 22.6 percent of the country’s national income . The top 1 percent also owned 40.1 percent of the country’s wealth, which is the highest since 1961. The Indian government spends very little on public health care and has promoted a commercial health care system. This means that decent healthcare is only available to only the moneyed.
While poverty has decreased , many people who have escaped poverty are at the risk of slipping back into poverty. The infant mortality rate in some of the poorest states in India is higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa.
According to the World Inequality Report 2022′ India is amoung the most unequal countries in the world , with the top 10 percent and 1 percent of the population holding 57 percent and 22 percent of the national income , respectively. The share of the bottom 50 percent has reduced to a mere 13 percent.
Viewed from the perspective of Article 39 (b) of , Constitution ( Part IV ) Directive Principles of State Policy which states that ” The State shall, in particular , direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of these community are so distributed as best to serve common good ” the Indian State has failed in its duty in promoting economic and social equality.
Supreme Court rulings so far had held that Article 39 (b) of the Indian Constitution granted states sweeping powers to acquire private resources for the comon good. The question before the Supreme Court in the latest case was whether private properties fell under definition of ” material resources of the community” as stated in Article 39 (b).
The 7 -2, majority judgement authored by the outgoing Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has categorically clarified that property serving individual needs cannot be appropriated by by the state solely for welfare distribution under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution.

The nine judge bench delivered three separate judgements in the case with the Chief Justice writing the majority judgement, with six judges Justices, Hrishikesh Roy, JB Padiwala, Manoj Misra , Rajesh Bindal , Satsh Chandra Sharma,and Augustine George Masih endorsing it.
Justice Sudhanshu Dulia in his dissenting judgement endorsed Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer’s minority view in a seven judge bench ruling in the 1977 Ranganath Reddy verses State of Karnataka case which said ” material resources of the community in Article 39 (b) included privately owned property.”
Justice B.V.Nagarathna disagreed with the interpretation of Article 39 (b) .She wrote as separate judgements but concurred with the majority view on the substansive issues.” Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a ” material resources of the community merely because it meets the qualifier of material needs ” she wrote.
Though in 1977 the Supreme Court in the Ranganatha Reddy case by a 4: 3 majority held that private property did not fall within the ambit of ” material resources of the community ” it was Justice Krishna Iyer’s contrary minority view which held sway in the years to come.
Article 39 (b) was later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1983 when the Court upheld the nationalisation of coal mines relying on Justice Krishna Iyer’s ruling . The SC held that the provision ” takes within its stride the transformation of wealth from private ownership in to public ownership and is not confined to that is already public owned.”
In the 1977 ruling Justice Krishna Iyer had said , ” both private and public resources form part of ” material resources of a community ” under Article 39 (b) .Excluding ownership of private resources would undermine the very purpose of redistribution.
Justice Iyer had further pointed out that ” material resources included all the national wealth , not just public possessions.” Everything of value or use in the material world is a material resource , and the individual being a member of the community , his resources are a part of those of the community.”
Endorsing Justice Iyer’s opinion Justice Dulia said ” There should no confusion that the expression ” material resources of the community ” used in Article 39 (b) includes privately owned resources.”
The Supreme Court gave the present ruling acting on a challenge to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act by property owners following a 1986 amendment. In 1986a new chapter was added to allow for the acquisition of properties by the by the state for preservation purposes.

The addition declared that the amendments in the housing law intended to give effect to Article 39 (b) of the Constitution , allowing the state to make policies for controlling , owning , and redistributing a community’s material resources for the public good.

The post Goodbye to A Welfare State appeared first on The Gulf Indians.