Home Blog Page 94

Delhi Riots bail hearing: Why the accused persons’ liberty arguments may not overcome UAPA’s strict prima facie bar and how Delhi Police’s conspiracy case still holds in law

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Delhi Riots bail hearing: Why the accused persons’ liberty arguments may not overcome UAPA’s strict prima facie bar and how Delhi Police’s conspiracy case still holds in law

The Supreme Court’s ongoing consideration of bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case marks a crucial intersection of individual liberty and collective security.

On December 9, the accused (barring Umar Khalid who has moved an interim bail for his sister’s wedding in the trial court) concluded their rejoinder arguments in the batch of bail petitions arising from the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy FIR registered by the Delhi Police under the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria heard detailed submissions from senior counsel appearing for the accused, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju is scheduled to argue for the Delhi Police.

The defence has continuously highlighted (i) their lack of direct involvement in acts of violence, (ii) their lengthy incarceration as undertrials, (iii) their purported trial delay, and (iv) the description of their actions as lawful protest rather than terrorism. However, the Delhi Police have presented the Court with a 389-page affidavit claiming “irrefutable documentary and technical evidence” of a planned “regime change operation” that targeted non Muslims and planned nationwide communal riots.

The Delhi High Court’s comprehensive ruling on September 2, 2025, denying bail to these same defendants, in which the court has already thoroughly examined both delay and conspiracy, must be taken into consideration when evaluating its counter arguments.

The UAPA bail framework: A higher threshold

The starting point is Section 43D(5) UAPA, which states that if the court determines after reviewing the case diary or chargesheet that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true,” the person accused of offenses under Chapters IV and VI will not be released on bail.

Following NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and later Gurwinder Singh, the Delhi High Court has already distilled the key points in the common judgment dated September 2, 2025, denying bail for these accused.

The Court does not hold a mini-trial during the bail phase. It examines the prosecution’s evidence holistically rather individually. Assuming the prosecution’s evidence is trustworthy unless completely ludicrous, it documents a conclusion based on broad probabilities that is are the accusations prima facie true?

The defence’s response mostly cites K.A. Najeeb and other rulings to support its claim that extended detention and postponement justify granting bail to the accused. However, the Supreme Court has also made it clear in later rulings that “mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be invoked as a cause to grant bail” under the UAPA and that delay by itself cannot negate the strictures of Section 43D(5).

To put it another way, a prosecution’s prima facie weakness may be strengthened by delay and prolonged detention, but they cannot take the place of the court’s requirement that the accusations be deemed insufficient even on a prima facie reading.

The accused’s reply arguments must be evaluated in light of this.

Sharjeel Imam’s ‘Speech only’ defence

In defence of Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave argues that the Imam has already obtained bail in the direct “speech FIRs” in which his contentious speeches at Jamia, AMU, Asansol, and other locations are directly challenged. None of the 750 riot FIRs pertaining to actual violence and killings name him. He did not specifically ask individuals to pick up firearms, according to the trial court itself. He has been detained for almost six years and it is disproportionate to keep him in custody for nonviolent but “unpalatable” statements. The prosecution emphasises “gravity,” yet if the case had really been so serious, NIA would have taken over instead. Delhi Police’s Special Cell is still conducting an investigation under UAPA.

Despite their seeming persuasiveness, these arguments are susceptible to legal criticism when compared to the statutory structure of conspiracy based UAPA offences.

(i) Separate conspiracy FIR vs. speech FIRs

The separate conspiracy FIR, where it is alleged that speeches served as nodal acts within a larger design to mobilize, radicalize, and coordinate protest sites and road blockades in a manner calculated to trigger communal conflagration during a politically sensitive period, cannot be automatically diluted by bail in “speech FIRs.”

With numerous actors and digital trails purportedly connecting speeches, WhatsApp groups, finance, and protest logistics, the High Court has previously handled the bigger conspiracy case as a separate factual matrix. The Court must determine if this entire sequence, taken at face value, shows Imam’s speeches as part of a planned scheme rather than as sporadic outbursts of disapproval at the prima facie stage. 

(ii) “Not in any riot FIR” is not conclusive in a conspiracy case

Dave’s insistence that Imam is not charged in any FIR involving actual violence ignores a fundamental tenet of conspiracy law, which is that conspiratorial responsibility does not require physical presence at the crime site. Even if someone is far away when the clear crimes are carried out, they might still be a part of a terrorist plot if their previous actions or communications are said to have advanced the plan.

Therefore, the claim that “if my speeches caused riots, I would have been prosecuted in those FIRs” is more akin to a trial defense than a knockout at the bail stage. The Court must determine whether the prosecution’s evidence, if uncontested, could plausibly support the claim that the speeches were meant to be a part of a larger scheme at the 43D(5) stage.

(iii) NIA’s non involvement is not a bail filter

It is also debatable if the lack of NIA entrustment under the National Investigation Agency Act somehow lessens the seriousness of the issue. Section 10 of the NIA Act makes it clear that nothing in the Act restricts the State’s ability to look into and prosecute UAPA offences. Section 6 of the Act only gives the Center the option to direct NIA to examine scheduled offences.

Consequently, the implementation of Section 43D(5) is constitutionally unaffected by NIA’s lack of engagement. It cannot, by itself, turn an otherwise prima facie UAPA case into one in which the bail ban is lifted.

(iv) Long incarceration vs. gravity and conspiracy

The grievance regarding a six year undertrial time has significant merit. However, Najeeb and related precedents take care to emphasise that such relief is extraordinary and typically associated with an almost impossible trial outcome.

According to the High Court’s own assessment, the case’s complexity stems from the size of the alleged conspiracy, the numerous defendants, the amount of digital evidence, and the hundreds of witnesses. Arguments on charges started in September 2024, while the Delhi Police continued to produce supplemental charge sheets until 2023. In a 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court further emphasised that Section 43D(5) cannot be overridden by delay alone, particularly in cases where the State can legitimately refer to the intricacy and conduct of the defence.

Given this, Imam’s argument that the term of imprisonment should take precedence over the accusations of conspiracy may not be entirely compatible with the body of existing UAPA bail precedent. 

Protest funding and the civil disobedience analogy

For Shifa ur Rehman, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid describes his client’s involvement as a civilian sympathetic to the CAA-NRC protests, with the “worst allegation” being that ₹8 lakh was received and utilized to support a protest site by erecting shelters, helping people in inclement weather, etc. No FIR has been filed against him in Jamia or Delhi, and he has not engaged in any violence, speech, or WhatsApp group membership. He argues that disobedience of the law does not equivalent to violence by citing the civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi.

This framing is appealing as a moral argument. However, the crucial question in a UAPA bail hearing is not whether funding for protests can ever be legal rather, it is whether the prosecution’s evidence, taken at face value, demonstrates that such funding and logistical support were part of a plan to blockade, paralyze, and ultimately incite violence in this particular factual matrix.

According to reports, the Delhi Police affidavit links various protest locations’ financial transactions and logistical plans to a larger scheme to incite disturbances during the US President’s visit. The comparison to Gandhi’s civil disobedience may be legally inappropriate if such material is in fact on file, civil disobedience is open, public, and non-violent, whereas the prosecution’s case involves a concealed, networked mobilisation intended to incite communal unrest.

The Court is not in a position to definitively decide between the conspiracy and peaceful protest narratives at the 43D(5) stage. Its job is to determine if the latter is prima facie supported by the evidence if it is, the statutory bar is applied even if there are no earlier criminal precedents.

Alibi and delay in trial: The Meeran Haider submissions

For Meeran Haider, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal makes two main arguments:

Alibi: There are train tickets and proof that he was absent owing to his mother’s illness, and he was not in Delhi on the dates of the meetings where the plot is said to have been conceived.

Delay: the prosecution took more than three years from the filing of the first complaint (March 2020) to the filing of the final chargesheet (June 2023), the accused cannot be held accountable for the time between September 2023 and September 2024, when the prosecution was still unsure whether the investigation was complete.

The issue with the alibi is legal position once more. After complete evidence, cross-examination, and potentially expert analysis of CDRs and travel records, an alibi case is usually tried. The Supreme Court has warned in Watali that bail courts should consider whether the State’s story, which is backed up by statements and documents, is generally credible on its face rather than conducting in-depth analyses or selecting between conflicting interpretations.

If the Delhi Police evidence placed Haider in a wider group that participated in planning, communications or resource mobilisation, even if he disputes precise dates, this contest is better suited to trial than to a UAPA bail hearing.

The record on delay is more complex than the defence claims. In a related bail denial (for another accused), the Delhi High Court explicitly stated that a certain accused who had obtained bail was accountable for postponing the charge’s arguments, which harmed co-accused who were still detained. The picture that appears is one of a complicated case where defence strategy, additional chargesheets, and investigative complexity all contribute to the delay.

It could be a bit exaggerated to characterize delay as a one-sided State failure in these situations. The Delhi Police’s stronger argument is that, although the period of detention is unfortunate, it is due to the scope and character of the alleged conspiracy rather than any one institutional indifference that would allow the Section 43D(5) bar to be overturned.

Call data records, CCTV and the Shadab Ahmed argument

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that (i) Shadab Ahmed was not present at the crime scene during the riots based on call data records (CDRs) and the lack of CCTV evidence (ii) Oral testimony led the State to reconsider its position 1.5 years later (iii) The exculpatory CDRs were improperly taken into consideration by both the trial court and the High Court.

Once more, these are matters of appreciating the evidence. Strong exculpatory CDRs could significantly bolster the bail plea in a typical IPC case. However, in a UAPA conspiracy case, the alleged planning meetings, digital communications, and cash transfers that make up the conspiracy are all considered important scenes of crime in addition to the actual location of the violence.

The question is more complex than “was he caught on CCTV with a stone” if the chargesheet identifies Ahmed’s involvement in planning, coordination, morale-boosting, or propaganda. and whether his purported pre-riot actions, when combined with others, fall under the purview of UAPA Sections 15, 18, or 20. The Court must consider the State’s evidence as a whole and refrain from dissecting it individually in accordance with Watali.

From the standpoint of Delhi Police, the CDR based argument seems to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the High Court’s evaluation of the prima facie case, which the statute framework purposefully makes challenging at the bail stage.

“Not a menace to society” : The plea of Mohd Saleem Khan

Advocate Gautam Khazanchi for Mohd Saleem Khan reportedly argued that Khan is not a “menace to society” and has clearly defined a limited position, hence he should be released on bail. 

It makes sense that this pitch is human centric. However, the standard under UAPA differs substantially from the general CrPC bail inquiry, which weighs threat to society, possibility of absconding, and tampering. In addition to standard bail considerations, Section 43D(5) adds a more stringent filter, if there are substantial grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie genuine, the accused “shall not be released on bail.”

Therefore, if the alleged acts meet the prima facie level for UAPA offenses when considered in the context of a wider conspiracy, even a person with few alleged acts, pristine past, and a low future risk profile may be denied bail. This section is the statutory expression of the Delhi Police’s belief that terror related conspiracies are qualitatively different from ordinary criminality and require ex ante restraint (prevent the harm).

The Delhi Police case at the bail stage

Drawing comparisons to recent events in Bangladesh and Nepal, the Delhi Police have projected the riots as planned rather than spontaneous in their affidavit and submissions, arguing that speeches and protest logistics were used to divide society along communal lines and effect a regime change through orchestrated violence.

Additionally, they have described the accused as “anti-nationals, not intellectuals.” This is a strong rhetorical choice, but at the bail stage, it ultimately comes down to whether the documents, chats, CDRs, witness statements, and financial records show a cogent, deliberate design connecting the accused to the alleged terror acts.

Legally, the Delhi Police’s view is supported by three essential points: 

Existing High Court ruling on a prima facie case: The Watali test was already employed by the Delhi High Court in its 133 page ruling, which concluded that there are good reasons to think the charges are first accurate. That is the exact order that is being contested. The Supreme Court would essentially have to disagree with this initial assessment while adhering to the same Section 43D(5) restrictions in order to grant bail. 

Scale and complexity as a reason for the delay: A large portion of the time is explained by the several chargesheets, hundreds of witnesses, and countless accused. Additionally, the record indicates that certain delays can be attributed to defense strategy rather than just the State. The claim that extended detention alone warrants bail seems exaggerated in such a situation.

Conspiracy at the center of the matter: The defence’s arguments consistently emphasize the lack of weapons, CCTV footage, FIRs, or direct aggression. However, this is exactly the goal of a broader conspiracy prosecution, which aims to criminalize those who plan, organize, and intensify disruption while others carry it out. The statutory framework of UAPA just questions whether the police’s perspective on the documents is reasonably believable, whether they finally prevail at trial is a concern for the future.

Conclusion

The Delhi riots conspiracy accused’s reply arguments effectively highlight important civil liberty issues, including as six years in detention, overlapping speech charges, and the dangers of classifying dissent as terrorism. They are worthy of careful thought.

However, many of these submissions seem to drive the Supreme Court toward a merits re-appraisal that the bail structure is intended to avoid when seen solely through the prism of Section 43D(5) UAPA and the Delhi High Court’s earlier rulings. Typical trial questions that are not usually decisive at the prima facie bail stage include alibi, speech interpretation, the qualitative nature of protest funding, and the weight of CDRs versus oral testimony.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will ultimately have ramifications that go well beyond the Delhi riots case. It would indicate the extent to which constitutional courts are prepared to challenge the structural ban on bail imposed by UAPA with Najeeb style liberty grounds. For the time being, a close examination of the defence arguments from yesterday’s hearing indicates that, although they are persuasive verbally, they might not be able to significantly undermine the prima facie satisfaction that now supports the Delhi Police’s case.

Did your dad forget his first salary account that could still be holding unclaimed money? Here is how you can help your elders and yourself

Anurag
-
0
Did your dad forget his first salary account that could still be holding unclaimed money? Here is how you can help your elders and yourself

On 10th December, Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a reminder that crores of rupees belonging to ordinary Indians remain forgotten in old bank accounts, insurance policies, mutual fund folios and dividend ledgers. He revealed that banks alone are sitting on Rs 78,000 crore of unclaimed deposits, while insurers hold nearly Rs 14,000 crore in unpaid proceeds. Mutual funds and unclaimed dividends add thousands of crores more.

Calling the numbers startling, PM Modi said that the money represents decades of hard-earned family savings that slipped through the cracks of paperwork, relocations or memories fading over time.

To correct this, the Government has launched the nationwide initiative “आपकी पूंजी, आपका अधिकार” or “Your Money, Your Right” in October 2025. The initiative is built on the 3A framework of Awareness, Accessibility and Action. In two months, facilitation camps were held in 477 districts, from urban centres to remote rural belts. Regulators including RBI, IRDAI, SEBI, PFRDA and IEPFA are now working together to help citizens trace forgotten assets. Around Rs 2,000 crore has already been returned, and officials say this is only the beginning.

For many families, especially senior citizens, the campaign can mean rediscovering a long-lost deposit or an old policy their parents once purchased.

RBI’s UDGAM portal – finding forgotten bank deposits

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) launched the UDGAM portal in August 2023. It is a centralised platform to help citizens locate unclaimed bank deposits lying across different banks. The RBI had noticed a steady rise in dormant accounts over the years, and many families remained unaware that deposits belonging to their parents or grandparents had been transferred to the Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. UDGAM solves this by allowing anyone to search multiple banks from a single window instead of approaching each institution individually.

Source: RBI

The portal has steadily expanded its coverage and now includes almost the entire banking sector. Once a user registers with a mobile number and basic details, they can check if an account linked to their name shows up as unclaimed. If it does, the portal directs them to the concerned bank so they can either revive the account or file a claim. For many families, UDGAM has become the easiest way to ensure earlier savings do not remain forgotten simply because documentation was misplaced or bank branches were relocated.

IRDAI’s Bima Bharosa portal – reclaiming unclaimed insurance money

Insurance is the sector where people most commonly forget to claim what is owed to them. IRDAI says over Rs 25,000 crore remains unclaimed because policyholders moved homes, lost papers or their nominees were never told that a policy existed. These unclaimed amounts arise from death benefits, maturity payouts, refunds, survival benefits or settlement amounts that remained unpaid for more than 12 months.

Source: IRDAI

The Bima Bharosa portal centralises this search across all life, general and health insurers. With basic details such as name, PAN, date of birth or policy number, families can check if an insurer is holding unpaid benefits in their names.

If a match is found, the claimant must contact the insurer with KYC, bank details and supporting documents. In the case of death claims, nominees or legal heirs need to submit the usual proofs including death certificates and succession documents. The portal also proved useful for NRIs, who can complete the process digitally with self-attested overseas proofs.

Bima Bharosa has simplified a process that once required visiting multiple insurers and has ensured that genuine beneficiaries do not lose access to money simply because memories or records faded over time.

SEBI’s MITRA portal – tracing inactive or unclaimed mutual fund folios

SEBI’s MITRA portal is integrated with MF Central. It was created to help investors track inactive or forgotten mutual fund folios. A folio becomes inactive when no investor-initiated transaction takes place for at least 10 years, even though units still exist.

Source: MF Central

Many families lost track of these investments because they shifted cities, changed email IDs, or never updated their contact information with the fund house. Over time, these folios slip quietly into the unclaimed category.

MITRA brings together data from RTAs such as CAMS and KFin Technologies and allows investors to verify whether any such folios exist in their name. After entering an OTP, PAN and other identity parameters, users can access their dormant investments and begin the process of reclaiming them.

Once identified, investors can update KYC, provide bank details and request redemption or revival of holdings. Since mutual fund investments are often made during earlier phases of one’s career, MITRA has helped many households rediscover small but meaningful amounts that had silently grown over the years.

IEPFA portal – recovering unclaimed dividends and forgotten shares

The IEPFA portal deals with one of the biggest pools of idle wealth in India. More than one billion unclaimed shares and thousands of crores in dividends are currently parked with the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority because investors did not encash dividends for seven years in a row or because companies could not reach them. Many of these shares belong to investors who bought stocks decades ago and later forgot about them as companies merged, restructured or changed registrars.

Source: IEPF

Under Section 124 of the Companies Act, investors or legal heirs can apply to reclaim these assets through the IEPF-5 mechanism. The process involves filing the online form, submitting identity and ownership proofs, and sending an indemnity bond and supporting documents to the company’s nodal officer. Once verified, the IEPFA releases the shares or dividends electronically.

Recent reforms such as allowing self-attested documents, waiving succession certificates for claims up to Rs 5 lakh and holding Niveshak Shivir camps across major cities have made the process more accessible. A new integrated digital platform is also in the works, promising real-time tracking and automated verification. For many families, this can mean restoring long-forgotten investments that earlier seemed impossible to trace.

A chance to restore what belongs to you

The appeal made by PM Modi is simple. Do not let your family’s savings go unnoticed. Old salary accounts, forgotten insurance policies, units purchased decades ago or dividends never encashed may still be lying untouched.

The Government’s facilitation camps and these four regulator-backed portals have finally made it possible to find and reclaim that money without navigating a maze of paperwork.

If your parents ever mentioned an account they could not close, or if you suspect an old policy or investment may exist somewhere, this is the moment to check. Your money is your right. For the first time, tools exist that genuinely make it possible to get it back. Let your money find its way home.

Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote chori’ drama in parliament: Lies, conspiracies, and a script for Western media

Jinit Jain
-
0
Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote chori’ drama in parliament: Lies, conspiracies, and a script for Western media

Rahul Gandhi has mastered a curious political art: losing spectacularly and still claiming moral victory. Every time voters reject the Gandhi family’s claim to the throne, he emerges not with introspection but with allegations of “vote chori”.

This week in Parliament, he repeated the same tired line: that the government has supposedly changed the law to provide “immunity” to the Election Commission of India (EC), and that key institutional safeguards have been dismantled. In Gandhi’s worldview, if India doesn’t make him Prime Minister, democracy must surely be under attack.

On Tuesday in the Lower House, amid debate over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Rahul Gandhi emphatically called “vote chori” the “biggest anti-national act.” He accused the EC of colluding with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological affiliate Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) of orchestrating a systematic capture of India’s democratic institutions, from the EC itself to investigative agencies, the judiciary, and bureaucracies.

He warned that this was not just a procedural matter but a crisis for the idea of India. “When you destroy the vote,” Rahul declared, “you destroy the fabric of this country.” He insisted that he had already placed “proof” before Parliament showing how the EC was colluding with those in power to shape elections, and pledged that if justice isn’t done, laws would be changed retrospectively.

Thus began his familiar script: grievance dressed as outrage; defeat recast as martyrdom.

Rahul Gandhi claims CJI was removed from the selection panel for the Election Commissioner

Speaking in the Lower House, Gandhi alleged that the Centre removed the CJI from the selection panel for the Election Commissioner to elect the CEC of their liking. But what Gandhi conveniently ignores to mention that this has been largely the norm to elect CECs during decades of Congress rule. Is he now suggesting that all CECs appointed during previous Congress governments were puppets?

Now, after the reforms, a committee makes the decision while Rahul Gandhi himself is a member of that committee. But somehow, this is more dangerous even though it doesn’t effectively change the way the CEC has been selected for decades? This is not ignorance. This is deceit.

“Government wants to destroy CCTV footage after 45 days”: Gandhi

Another preposterous argument floated by Rahul Gandhi was why the EC stored data only for 45 days.

Well, data retention has limits, everywhere. Each booth has a CCTV system. Do we store terabytes forever to satisfy Rahul Gandhi’s conspiracy theories? Even courts and financial institutions don’t hoard camera footage indefinitely.

Maybe Rahul should check his own phone gallery. Does he store every expired selfie till the end of time? Or is he “destroying evidence”? This is sensationalism dressed as concern.

“EC got immunity to do anything”: Gandhi

Election Commissioners can still be prosecuted, but through proper legal and Parliamentary mechanisms.This protection exists to prevent political retaliation, especially when Gandhi himself threatens ‘we will change the law retroactively’ if he ever returns to power. So who exactly sounds like a danger to institutions here?

The dynasty doctrine: Democracy means Gandhi wins

For Rahul Gandhi, elections are “free and fair” only when the Family wins. The moment mandates go against him, the script flips: EVMs become demonic, the Election Commission becomes compromised, and the Constitution suddenly needs “saving”.

We have seen this hypocrisy on loop. When Congress wins a municipality or scrapes a state government, it is hailed as proof that democracy thrives. When they lose a national election, the same democracy has “died.”

And yet, one wonders where this newfound concern for electoral sanctity was hiding during the decades when Congress ruled by intimidation and manipulation. This is the same party that imposed the Emergency (India), the darkest assault on democratic rights, where the Election Commission was expected to function like a courtier in the royal durbar.

Booth capturing, ballot stuffing, and political vendetta were once the very backbone of Congress’s electoral culture. History, of course, is an inconvenient guest in Rahul Gandhi’s selective activism.

EVM = Evil Voting Machine only when it blocks a Gandhi

His favorite villain remains the EVM, the “Evil Voting Machine”, but only when it blocks a Gandhi’s path to power. These machines were perfectly legitimate when Congress won Karnataka, Telangana, or formed coalitions elsewhere. They become sinister only when BJP registers sweeping victories. It’s almost as if the morality of technology depends on whether it delivers a seat for Wayanad’s latest resident.

Attacking institutions is the new ‘politics of love’

Rahul Gandhi claims he is defending institutions, but every institution he cannot control magically becomes biased or enslaved to the government.

According to him, the Supreme Court lacks independence, the EC dances to the ruling party’s tune, investigative agencies are “misused,” and even universities and V-C appointments are subject to ideological captures.

He suggests that under an RSS-BJP project, every institution, from elections to education, is being brought under a single ideological umbrella. The only institutions he praises are foreign-funded NGOs and narrative factories that echo his talking points. His speeches sound less like national leadership and more like an intern’s homework report for Western handlers.

From repeated failures to repeated fiction

Let’s be brutally honest: this is not a movement for democracy. This is compensation for electoral bankruptcy, wrapped in designer indignation. Rahul Gandhi is the only politician who can lose two Lok Sabha seats, barely retain one later, preside over Congress’s worst performance in history, and still claim the nation has been robbed. Instead of winning trust, he invents excuses. Instead of offering solutions, he manufactures paranoia. The slogan is simple: If we don’t win, it must be rigged.

What truly unsettles Rahul Gandhi is not EVMs, laws, or institutions. It is that India has decisively outgrown the culture of dynasty entitlement. For the first time, governance is being measured by delivery, not surnames. People see results, not royal propaganda. And that reality threatens the very foundation of Congress, the belief that ruling India is the Gandhi family’s birthright.

In the end, Rahul Gandhi’s raging theatrics expose only one thing: his frustration that Indians no longer bow to dynasties. Democracy does not owe him power. The people have spoken, again and again. It is Rahul Gandhi who refuses to listen. His shouts of “vote chori” are not a warning to India, they are a confession that the dynasty has lost its magic, and India has finally moved on.

Supreme Court allows SC certificate for girl based on mother’s caste, despite ‘inter-caste’ marriage of parents: Why this is a problematic precedent

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Supreme Court allows SC certificate for girl based on mother’s caste, despite ‘inter-caste’ marriage of parents: Why this is a problematic precedent

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant, rather bizarre, intervention in a case concerning a caste-certificate issuance for a girl born to an inter-caste marriage. On 8th December 2025, the apex court allowed issuance of a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate for a minor girl from Puducherry, based solely on her mother’s “Adi Dravida” caste, overriding the father’s non-SC status.

On Monday, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi refused to entertain a plea challenging a Madras High Court order which directed the issuance of an SC caste certificate to the Puducherry girl based on her mother’s caste to ensure that her academic career does not suffer without it. The Supreme Court upheld the high court’s order, while leaving the broader legal questions unresolved, although the bench admitted that its decision would spark a debate.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court order, even as it is yet to adjudicate a bunch of petitions challenging the norm of children inheriting their father’s caste.

“We are keeping the question of law open….With changing times, why should a caste certificate be not issued based on the mother’s caste?” the bench said.

With the ruling allowing SC caste certificate issuance for children of a non-SC father and an SC mother, the Supreme Court has essentially set a precedent wherein children born in the marriage of a Scheduled Caste (SC) woman and an upper caste (UC) man and brought up in an upper caste family setting would be entitled to an SC certificate.

In the present case, the mother, belonging to the Hindu Adi Dravida community, sought SC caste certificates from the Tehsildar for her three children, two daughters and a son. The SC woman argued that her non-SC husband has been residing with her parents, who belong to the Adi Dravida community.

Notably, the ‘Adi Dravida’ caste is classified as a Scheduled Caste under presidential notification dated 5th March 1964 and 17th February 2002. These notifications state that an individual’s eligibility to obtain an SC caste certificate depends primarily on the father’s caste and residential status in the state or union territory’s jurisdiction.

In accordance with the standard guidelines from the Union Home Ministry, the local officials rejected the woman’s application. Consequently, the woman moved the Madras High Court, which, in an interim order, directed the authorities to issue the SC certificate for the minor girl specifically, saying that denying the certificate to the girl would cause her academic hardship.

Ultimately, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Puducherry administration’s appeal against the Madras High Court order and directed authorities to issue SC certificate for the SC woman’s daughter based on the mother’s caste alone.

The Supreme Court contradicted its own previous rulings on the caste certificate issuance criteria

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling marks a subtle but significant departure, rather, contradiction, from its previous ruling in a similar case wherein it decided that a father’s caste was the presumptive determinant of a child’s caste status.

In the 2003 Punit Rai vs Dinesh Chaudhary case, a three-judge bench had ruled that in the absence of any statutory override, a child’s caste under Hindu law is inherited from the father. The court held that paternal lineage is followed for caste purposes and that the maternal lineage does not automatically confer the same status.

However, in the 2012 ‘Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs State of Gujarat’ case, the Supreme Court took a rather flexible stance, stating that the caste of children born in inter-caste or in tribal and non-tribal marriages cannot be determined only by their father’s caste. The bench comprising justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai ruled that while it may be presumed that the child belongs to the father’s caste, it is not conclusive or irrebuttable.

“…by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe,” the court stated.

Excerpt taken from the 2012 ‘Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs State of Gujarat’ ruling. (Source: India Kanoon)

While in the 2012 ruling, the court took a fact-specific stance instead of issuing a blanket rule, in the current case involving a girl from Puducherry, the court bypassed the “father’s caste is child’s caste” presumption without inquiry. Unlike the 2012 case, the bench in the present case did not require or conduct an evidentiary probe into the girl’s upbringing or social treatment.

The bench directly approved the issuance of a certificate based on the SC mother’s caste, citing “changing times” and academic needs. The court did not explicitly apply the rebuttable presumption framework. Although the court did not directly comment on the mother’s argument that her non-SC husband has been residing with his in-laws, the court, in a way validated that the point that if husband lives with wife’s parents after marriage instead of the wife moving into husband’s house, then the caste of children could be inherited from the mother even if they may have not essentially faced caste-based discrimination or deprivation.

The court elevated maternal lineage over traditional paternal determinant in the caste of children solely over the claim that “the girl’s academic future would be impacted negatively in the absence of an SC caste certificate.”

This raises the question of whether a caste certificate can be used as a means for better academic or job-related prospects by children born in inter-caste marriages where the father is non-SC or upper caste, even if the children have lived in an upper caste or non-discriminative environment most of their lives.

While the 2012 judgment already allowed flexibility, the 2025 ruling’s endorsement of maternal caste issuance, that too, without rigorous rebuttal, hints that with “changing times”, the Supreme Court is favouring a doctrinal pivot. However, this could trigger challenges to the paternal-lineage-for-caste tradition in reservation policies.

Even though the Supreme Court’s ruling in the present case grants immediate relief to the girl, it sets a precedent posing a risk to the integrity of reservation quotas. Reservations for SC/ST communities are mandated to address caste-based injustices and discrimination faced by the community members. The reservation benefits were tied to the father’s caste to ensure that only children demonstrably embedded in marginalised or disadvantaged communities qualify for quota benefits and to prevent dilution of the creamy layer.

If the court decides to allow maternal inheritance of caste without a thorough social inquiry, would it not be opening doors for several other inter-caste couples where the mother is SC, to claim caste-based benefits for their children, despite there not being genuine grounds like social discrimination or deprivation in jobs, etc? There have already been numerous cases wherein people forged fake caste certificates to avail caste benefits meant for reserved groups for jobs or college admissions. In some cases, it even turned out that individuals availing caste benefits for themselves and their children converted to another religion and yet continued to claim caste reservation benefits.

Opening up the maternal caste lineage window, without addressing the question of law, the court risks opening up doors for misuse of caste quotas and benefits.

There is also another problematic aspect to this case. If the caste of children can be based solely on the mother’s caste, or the caste of either parent, as per convenience, then what has been the point of the government and even the judiciary promoting inter-caste marriages?

The ‘Jamai Tola’ menace in Jharkhand, and how the Supreme Court ruling endorsing maternal caste lineage could legitimise caste quota misuse

The implicit legitimisation of maternal caste lineage may have alarming implications across the country, especially in border and tribal regions. It has been seen how non-indigenous and non-Hindus, including Muslim immigrants and Bangladeshi illegal settlers, in areas like Jharkhand’s Santhal Pargana division and West Bengal’s Jangal Mahal area, have systematically been misusing Scheduled Tribe (ST) benefits through marriages to tribal women. They are claiming ST caste status for their children by invoking the tribal mother’s caste.

Last year, it was reported that Muslims in Jharkhand were marrying tribal women to buy land and contest elections in ST-reserved constituencies. These marriages after conversion to Islam are performed to contest elections. The term ‘Jamai Tola’ has been in common use in tribal areas in Santhal Pargana, referring to localities where non-ST males have married ST women and got ownership of land as ‘gift’ or donations by convincing the bride’s family. The marriages also aim to purchase land. The Jamai Tolas are essentially using marriage with ST women for electoral and financial benefits while also altering the demography of the tribal regions.

In October 2024, Asha Lakra, a member of the Scheduled Tribes Commission, submitted a 32-page report to the President, Jharkhand Governor and the Union Home Minister, highlighting the menace of Bangladeshi illegal infiltrators debt-trapping tribal families and then marrying their daughters in exchange for releasing them from the liability.

The report stated that Bangladeshi Muslim illegals marry non-Muslim tribal women, bring them into politics to grab power, land, valid documents like ration cards and Aadhaar cards. The situation has been particularly alarming in Jharkhand’s Santhal Pargana and Sahibganj, where there has been a massive influx of Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators.

“In Sahibganj, tribal families are being entrapped by getting them into a debt trap by giving loans of Rs 5000, which gradually end up with a debt of over Rs 50,000 within a few months. In case of non-payment, Bangladeshi infiltrators demand that tribal families marry off their daughters to them against the debt. The Bangladeshi infiltrators are also grabbing tribal land through donation deeds (daan patra) obtained from the notary,” Asha Lakra said.

Bangladeshi illegals lure tribals with small loans that soon balloon into unpayable sums under a calculated strategy to eventually coerce marriage with their ST daughters as payment. The court validating maternal caste lineage for children would, in such marriages, allow children who, in reality, would be Muslim but ST on paper to secure reservations in education, jobs, and land rights, diluting benefits meant for genuine tribals, in a blatant erosion of tribal rights.

Notably, under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (SPT) Act, local tribals cannot sell their land to anyone, and thus, the Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators devised a loophole, Daan Patra. The Bangladeshi illegals forge fake documents and make tribals give them ‘Daan Patra’ or donation deeds for their land. This land is often misused for illegal activities.

A non-tribal contesting elections or purchasing land under the cover of a marriage to an ST woman or a non-SC/ST man availing reserved caste benefits defeats the very objectives of reservation. Neither a non-backward caste woman marrying a backward caste male, nor a non-backward caste male marrying a backward caste woman, nor subsequent recognition by the backward community as its member, should enable non-backward caste individuals to claim reservations.

With specific alterations, this pattern might be replicated across the country if maternal caste lineage is prioritised for reservation even in intercaste marriages, based on vague interventions citing ‘changing times’ or ‘academic imperative’. In tribal areas where Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators are debt-trapping tribals for marriage with tribal girls, the Supreme Court ruling could inadvertently end up rewarding infiltration and loophole misuse, turning affirmative action into a weapon for demographic change rather than social justice or upliftment.

Several sections of converted Christians, and Muslims have already been demanding reservations, and the Supreme Court ruling allowing children born in inter-caste marriages where only the woman belongs to SC or ST group to obtain caste certificate and avail benefits, would encourage such marriages and misuse of reservation quotas. These concerns need to be addressed by the judiciary and the Central government.

27% properties on Umeed portal with less than 1% registration from Bengal: Why Waqf Boards failed to meet deadline upheld by SC, despite centre’s extensive help

Rukma Rathore
-
0
27% properties on Umeed portal with less than 1% registration from Bengal: Why Waqf Boards failed to meet deadline upheld by SC, despite centre’s extensive help

The “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025” were announced by the Modi government on 3rd July. Earlier on 8th April, a digital framework under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was implemented for the management of Waqf properties through a centralised platform. The objective was to digitise records, enhance oversight, expedite audits and introduce transparency through different IDs.

Nevertheless, only a little over a quarter of the properties have found their place on the website, even after the six-month period granted by the centre. According to data, just 2.16 lakh of the 8 lakh Waqf properties have been registered on the Umeed website as the window closed on 6th December in line with the Umeed Act, 1995. The platform was inaugurated by the Minister for Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, on 6th June.

The Ministry of Minority Affairs informed, “5,17,040 Waqf properties were initiated on the portal. 2,16,905 properties were approved by the designated approvers. 2,13,941 properties have been submitted by makers and remain in the pipeline as of the deadline. 10,869 properties stood rejected during verification.”

The data suggested that Karnataka registered the most properties (81%) at 52,917. Jammu & Kashmir came second with 25,046 (77%) assets. Punjab recorded 24,969 (90%), and Gujarat listed 24,133 (61%) holdings. Uttar Pradesh was able to start the registration procedure for most properties at 86,345, as Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala followed with 62,939, 58,328 and 42,772, respectively.

Only 789 (5%) Shia Waqf Board filings have been processed in Uttar Pradesh compared to 12,982 (11%) Sunni Waqf Board registrations. It is the sole state with distinct Waqf Boards for the two faiths, aside from Bihar. 11,391 properties were uploaded by Shia and Sunni Waqf boards in Bihar, as officials confirmed 100% completion of the registration process.

Out of 36,700 Waqf properties, 17,971 (48%) had been registered in Maharashtra, and the number was 40,000 from 51,000 properties in Telangana.

Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland did not share details on the portal, while 681 properties from Assam, 393 from Manipur and 13 from Meghalaya had been published. Goa and Ladakh likewise reported no uploads.

West Bengal is among the states with the lowest performance and registered only 716 assets out of 80,480 (0.89%). The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC or TMC) government had been refusing to enforce the Waqf (Amendment) Act for months until recently, when it issued instructions to share details about these assets to the online platform.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee previously declared, “We won’t follow the act and have opposed it in the state legislative assembly. The state government has filed a case in the Supreme Court. The case is still on, and I won’t allow anybody to touch the Waqf properties,” at a rally in the Malda district.

Waqf was also backed by the party’s Lok Sabha MP Kalyan Banerjee, who branded it a “core belief” and an “integral part” of Islam, during a discussion on the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024. The party even fuelled protests to appease its Muslim vote bank in the state.

Notably, the nation is home to 8.8 lakh Waqf properties. Uttar Pradesh leads with 2.4 lakh assets next to West Bengal (80,480), Punjab (75,511), Tamil Nadu (66,092) and Karnataka (65,242). The properties had to be registered in three steps: mutawallis completed the first phase, Waqf Board officials executed the second, and Waqf Board CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) accomplished the third.

Ministry of Minority Affairs played a crucial role in aiding every step of the process

The Ministry of Minority Affairs conveyed that it held ongoing training sessions and workshops with state/UT (Union Territory) Waqf Boards and Minority Departments to support this extensive national exercise. Additionally, a two-day Master Trainer Workshop was organised in Delhi to provide state/UT officials and Waqf Boards with practical instruction for the uploading procedure.

Seven zonal meetings were conducted countrywide, and senior technical and administrative teams were assigned to various states. The ministry office also set up a dedicated helpline for technical assistance and prompt resolution of any problems that arose during the process.

Secretary Dr Chandra Shekhar Kumar attended more than 20 review sessions since the portal’s debut, constantly directing, inspiring and keeping an eye on states and UTs to guarantee the timely and accurate posting of current Waqf property records.

The ministry lauded, “The conclusion of this phase marks a significant milestone in bringing transparency, efficiency, and unified digital management to Waqf properties across India under the Umeed framework.”

It also highlighted that “in the final count, the momentum significantly accelerated as the deadline approached. Many review meetings, training workshops, and high-level interventions, even at the secretary level, injected renewed pace into the process, making the upload surge in the last hours.”

Supreme Court upheld the centre’s deadline

On 1st December, the Supreme Court had declined to extend the deadline for updating the information of registered Waqf properties, including “Waqf by user,” on the Umeed site in a significant victory for the centre. The petitioners claimed that technological issues prevented them from submitting the details on the platform, and it was also difficult to locate the Waqf property mutawallis (caretakers) who needed to update the information on the website.

The decision was pronounced by a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih. “Approach the tribunal. Let them decide on a case-by-case basis. We can’t rewrite the Waqf Act,” the court directed and asked, “The statute already provides a remedy. Avail it. Why should we interfere?”

The bench emphasised that it cannot intervene when parliament has predetermined a particular procedure to settle disagreements pertaining to the registration procedure. “If the time freezes (in the portal), you cannot be held responsible. If at all the tribunal allows you, your six months will be counted, and your application will be considered. You do not need permission. If difficulty arises, you can always file an application before us,” it remarked. The verdict triggered an abrupt increase in uploads.

No extension for Waqf registration

Now that the portal is closed, mutawallis who neglected to register their properties have to apply to the Waqf tribunal to request a six-month extension. The tribunal then must review each case before awarding more time, leading to a new round of paperwork. Kiren Rijiju also confirmed that the registration date would not be postponed.

He did, however, mention that those who tried but were unable to complete the registration would not face any consequences and could appeal to their state’s waqf tribunals.

Rijiju mentioned, “This is not an extension of the uploading deadline. Mutawallis who are unable to complete the registration process by 11:59:59 pm. on 6th December can approach the Waqf tribunal, which has the legal authority to grant an extension. I have repeatedly emphasised that any change in the legally mandated timeline is not possible, as it is bound by the law passed by parliament and upheld by the Supreme Court.”

He further stressed, “The Supreme Court was clear on its instructions that the date cannot be extended after the six-month deadline, but the tribunal has the authority to extend it further by up to six months. We try our best to give the maximum relief to our people, but some things are bound by law. Since the parliament has passed the Waqf Amendment Act, we cannot change the law.”

However, the minister assured that the centre would not apply any penalties or take stern action for the following three months, as a humanitarian and facilitating measure.

AIMPLB, Waqf Boards raise complaints

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) spokesperson SQR Ilyas voiced, “After SC refused to extend the deadline of the portal, mutawallis across the country rushed to upload waqf properties. However, reports have been pouring in about technical glitches and that the portal is repeatedly crashing, slowing down and at times stopping entirely.” He further claimed that “it is almost impossible to upload details of lakhs of Waqf properties within such a short period.”

Furthermore, the board sent a letter to the Minister of State for Minority Affairs, George Kurian, requesting an urgent meeting to address the technological problems and requesting additional time.

The board’s general secretary, Maulana Muhammad Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi, stated in the letter delivered by email and post that the upload timeframe was too short “due to the portal’s slow speed and other technical problems.” He alleged, “Though the board and various religious community organisations held workshops across the country and set up help desks, the sheer volume of work remains overwhelming.”

Syed Ali Zaidi, the Chairman of the Shia Central Waqf Board, mentioned that around 7,800 Waqf properties in Uttar Pradesh are recorded with the Shia Waqf Board. He stated that the portal is not operating effectively, and it would require three to six months to list all the necessary data, reported Dainik Bhaskar. Zeeshan Rizvi, the board’s CEO, insisted that only two or three properties and occasionally four can be uploaded on Umeed each day.

Waqf Boards and mutawallis of the properties similarly complained about multiple problems, including the portal glitching and crashing, the inability to locate documentation regarding properties that date back hundreds of years and the disparity in measurements utilised to measure land in distinct states.

On the other hand, officials from the Waqf Board announced that they are going to start filing demands for an extension to upload paperwork and register properties on the portal to Waqf tribunals in their respective states. A Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board member warned, “The tribunals in states where registrations are low will face a flurry of applications seeking extensions for the process.”

According to senior advocate Shariq Abbasi, properties that were not uploaded would have to be submitted to the tribunal. He added that the matter could be taken to the high court and even the apex court if the tribunal’s decision is not in Waqf’s favour. However, if no relief is obtained afterwards, the holdings might be subjected to government intervention.

Officials refute claims, outline facts

However, akin to the manner in which the aforementioned ministry indicated its support throughout the entire process, officials also reiterated the same. An officer noted, “We have deployed all resources, including technical staff, to handle the rush. If the Umeed portal has successfully handled over one lakh uploads in just the past 100 hours, how can its functionality be questioned on grounds of hanging or malfunctioning?”

He pointed out that for “nearly four months there were few uploads and now the sudden surge has created an unusually heavy load, prompting complaints that stem more from delayed action than from any flaw in the portal itself.”

The Umeed portal served as an extension of the efforts to address the nefarious practices within the Waqf Boards, which have encountered numerous allegations of corruption, misuse of authority and illegal occupation of public and private lands, among other concerns.

However, the reality is apparent. The Waqf Boards failed to register their properties on the portal. They were preoccupied with protesting the Waqf Amendment Act, driven by the insidious remarks of “secular parties,” leftist-liberal lobby and other Muslim leaders. The Supreme Court was also approched in an attempt to overturn the law passed by the Indian Parliament.

Nevertheless, the protests did not manage to exert pressure on the Modi government and the judiciary adhered to its constitutional responsibilities. As a result, the Waqf Boards did not obtain any relief from either side. The time allocated to them was voluntarily squandered either in agitating or refusing to comply with the law, despite a willing government ready to assist them at every stage to simply and aid the process.

Now, as their methods did not produce the expected outcomes, the boards had no alternative but to register their properties. However, this sudden influx just before the deadline impacted the portal. If the boards had commenced to fill their assets since June, this issue would not have arisen and any minor challenges that surfaced would have been resolved by the effective system established by the government.

Therefore, if anyone is to be held accountable for the present issues, it is the Waqf Boards that presently desire special consideration from the centre. Their actions have not only created additional issues for themselves but have also increased the workload for officials and administration as well.

Anti-Hindu DMK gathers INDI bloc partners to target Justice GR Swaminathan of Madras HC who gave Thiruparankundram order: How the ‘secular liberals’ attacks judiciary when orders are not in their favor

Anurag
-
0
Anti-Hindu DMK gathers INDI bloc partners to target Justice GR Swaminathan of Madras HC who gave Thiruparankundram order: How the ‘secular liberals’ attacks judiciary when orders are not in their favor

The traditional Karthigal Deepam ritual at Thiruparankundram is a practice older than political parties. It is even older than several structures on the hill. However, the Hindu traditional practice required the intervention of the Madras High Court just because the DMK government refused to allow the ceremonial lamp to be lit at the hilltop Deepathoon rejecting Dargah’s objections. It was a straightforward question of religious practice in Tamil Nadu. However, what happened after the court allowed the ceremony to happen at the hilltop has spiralled into a confrontation that touches the very core of India’s constitutional balance.

The order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court said that the Deepam must indeed be lit at the traditional location. It should have been a routine administrative compliance but has turned into a full-blown standoff between the justice system and the state government.

Despite the clear order, the administration not only failed to carry it out but mounted a series of objections, procedural delays and barricading measures that actively prevented devotees from performing the ritual. A contempt petition had to be filed, and even after the court reiterated its instructions, the state refused to carry them out.

The conflict dramatically escalated when the judiciary had to call for CISF protection to ensure that Hindu devotees could simply light a lamp. In a democratic setup, a court calling central security forces to protect Hindus is unimaginable but it happened in the DMK-ruled state. The issue is no longer a mere question of religious custom. It is a confrontation between an elected government and the judiciary it is constitutionally bound to respect.

What has further intensified the controversy is the fact that Members of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the INDI Alliance have now submitted an impeachment notice against Justice Swaminathan himself. The judge’s crime, if it can be called that, was that he enforced a centuries-old tradition and insisted on compliance with judicial orders. The move has raised unprecedented concerns about political retribution against the judiciary and appears to confirm fears that certain opposition parties are willing to punish judges who refused to toe their ideological line.

Notably, since the BJP-led NDA came to power for the third time in the centre, the opposition parties have become more restless and aggressive, consistently seeking methods to put strain on the constitutional and communal fabric of the country.

INDI bloc impeachment plan and the threat it poses to judicial independence

It did not take time for the administrative defiance to turn into political drama. MPs from the INDI Alliance have filed an impeachment motion against Justice GR Swaminathan. Their sights are trained on a judge whose only act was to uphold the law and protect a ritual from arbitrary interference.

In constitutional terms, impeachment is intended to be an extraordinary measure used only in cases of grave misconduct. In the present case, there is neither misconduct nor any impropriety. The impeachment plan thus appears to be a punitive response against a judge who refused to accommodate political pressure and insisted on judicial compliance.

The implications of the step taken by the INDI Bloc are severe. If political parties begin to deploy impeachment as a weapon to punish judges who deliver rulings they dislike, judicial independence itself becomes endangered. The threat alone can have a chilling effect on future benches. It is a method of intimidation dressed in the form of a constitutional provision.

This impeachment effort does not exist in isolation. It sits atop decades of historical precedent where opposition parties, chiefly Congress and DMK-aligned groups, have deployed pressure, coercion or retribution against the judiciary whenever rulings conflicted with their political interests. The Madurai Deepam episode is simply the latest flashpoint that illuminates a disturbing pattern.

A historical pattern of judicial intimidation resurfaced

In 1973, the Congress government superseded judges and appointed Justice AN Ray as Chief Justice over the heads of three senior judges who had ruled against the Kerala government in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It is known as one of the darkest episodes in India’s judicial history.

The government repeated the act in 1977 by superseding Justice HR Khanna, whose courageous dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case asserted that the right to life could not be suspended even during the Emergency. When MH Beg was appointed as CJI superseding Justice HR Khanna, he resigned from his post. These events were not isolated accidents but ideologically driven manoeuvres that compromised judicial independence.

During the Emergency, the judiciary suffered further erosion when as many as 21 High Court judges were transferred without consent. These transfers were widely seen as efforts to discipline those who had shown independence and to reward those viewed as “committed” to the Indira Gandhi-led government’s agenda.

Then in 2018, several opposition parties attempted to impeach then CJI Dipak Misra over the Justice Loya case. The motion was rejected by the Rajya Sabha Chairperson for lack of merit. However, the purpose was clear, that is, to intimidate the judiciary at a moment when politically sensitive cases were before the court.

In 2023, TMC-affiliated lawyers physically blockaded the courtroom of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and prevented him from conducting hearings after his ruling favoured the BJP. Derogatory posters were plastered across Kolkata calling him a “disgrace.”

Then in 2024, the opposition launched yet another attack on the judiciary by moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav over his remarks at a VHP event. Signed by 55 MPs, the proposal accused him of “hate speech” and “communal bias”, conveniently ignoring that judges across the ideological aisle routinely make far more provocative statements without consequence.

The history is clear. The move to impeach Justice Swaminathan fits a well-established template. Once again, a judge who issued a ruling that displeased the political class finds himself at the receiving end of a coordinated offensive.

Court orders ignored as the standoff deepened – How the case intensified

The first major rupture occurred when the HR&CE department, controlled by the DMK government, refused permission for the Deepam to be lit at the hilltop. Devotees, forced into litigation, secured a clear High Court order that upheld the ritual’s continuity. The matter should have ended there.

However, the government treated the matter not as a civil question but as an adversarial battle. The state filed objections and raised procedural hurdles that delayed implementation of the High Court’s order. The administration insisted that the ritual posed some “undefined communal danger” just because there is an Islamic structure on the hill. The argument is untenable and reflected hostility not to tension but to Hindu worship itself.

When the first order was defied, the petitioners approached the court again through a contempt petition. The court repeated its instruction. However, the state failed to comply again. Officials on the ground erected barricades to prevent devotees from reaching the site and continued to maintain a posture of institutional defiance.

What made the matter worse was that the state decided to challenge not only the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court but also the single-judge order before a Division Bench. Multiple appeals were based not on administrative feasibility but on a strategy of delay and resistance.

When the High Court called the CISF to directly intervene and protect devotees going to light the lamp, the state stopped the CISF at the foot of the hill. The confrontation between the devotees and state police turned violent. Devotees were stopped and pushed by the very state that was supposed to help in honouring the High Court’s directions.

DMK’s ideological hostility towards Hindu rituals expresses itself in governance

To fully understand the blow-up in Madurai, it is necessary to locate it within the DMK’s long-standing ideological posture. The party leadership has repeatedly displayed overt hostility towards Hindu practices and beliefs. Udhayanidhi Stalin’s infamous declaration that Sanatan Dharma must be eradicated like dengue or malaria was not a spontaneous slip but a written speech reviewed beforehand and delivered publicly.

A Raja extended the analogy to HIV and leprosy while referring to Hindu devotees in derogatory terms. Neither faced disciplinary action; both remain influential voices within the party.

These patterns of speech have parallel expressions in administrative decisions. During the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha, the Tamil Nadu government attempted to block livestreams of the ceremony across the state. Devotees watching the event inside a Chennai temple were booked under criminal charges, a move later struck down by the Supreme Court, which called the state’s conduct “atrocious.”

What happened at Thiruparankundram is thus not an aberration born of administrative confusion. It is part of a continuum in which Hindu rituals, symbols and practices are treated with suspicion or disdain, and where state machinery acts as an instrument to contain or curtail expressions of Hindu devotion.

A national moment of reckoning for judicial independence

The Karthigal Deepam ritual case now reflects a much larger national problem. On one side, there is the judiciary, which simply upheld an old ritual and protected devotees. On the other side, there is a government that ignored court orders, blocked the ritual and then supported moves to impeach the judge who insisted on compliance.

This is no longer about the lamp on a hill. It raises serious concerns about judicial independence, especially if impeachment is used to pressure judges. If such actions continue, future judges may hesitate to rule against powerful governments. It will weaken the basic promise of equal protection under the law. The DMK, with its decision to stop the ritual, has revealed a deeper attempt to undermine constitutional values.

Netflix about to own Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and more with Warner Bros takeover, Paramount launches hostile bid: Entertainment war explained

Divya Bharti
-
0
Netflix about to own Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and more with Warner Bros takeover, Paramount launches hostile bid: Entertainment war explained

Netflix and Paramount Skydance have launched one of Hollywood’s biggest and most intense battles to buy Warner Bros Discovery. This showdown will decide who takes control of some of the entertainment industry’s most valuable assets, including HBO, CNN, DC Comics, and Warner Bros Studios.

The race to acquire Warner Bros Discovery started quietly but soon turned into an openly competitive fight. This takeover will shape the future of major film and TV properties that have huge fan bases worldwide. Both Netflix and Paramount Skydance are determined to win, making this a defining moment in the entertainment business.

Warner Bros Discovery’s journey so far

Warner Bros Discovery’s story has been one of constant change. Over the past 20 years, the company’s parent firms have gone through three big reorganisations, responding to shifts in the media world and the trend of larger companies merging. These changes have set the stage for the current battle.

The latest chapter began in early September when Paramount Skydance first reached out about joining forces with Warner Bros Discovery. Although these talks started in secret, discussions between Paramount’s CEO David Ellison and Warner Bros Discovery’s head David Zaslav stretched for months. The talks slowly heated up as both sides explored possibilities.

Negotiations and rejections

Paramount kept trying to find a way to make the deal work. They sent several proposals and adjusted their offers based on Warner Bros Discovery’s concerns, according to a detailed securities filing. But Warner Bros Discovery rejected many of these offers. The growing differences eventually led to a sharp breakdown in talks by early December.

This fallout pushed Paramount to switch tactics. Instead of negotiating quietly, they launched a hostile takeover bid directly aimed at Warner Bros Discovery’s shareholders. This is a more aggressive and public move, signalling how serious Paramount is about winning the deal.

Why Paramount went hostile

Paramount provided a clear explanation for moving to a hostile bid. Even though there was a positive meeting in late November where top executives explored future roles in a merged company, the relationship between the two sides quickly went cold.

Paramount said Warner Bros Discovery delayed signing a “clean team” agreement, which would have allowed Paramount to view sensitive company information essential for their analysis. Without this, Paramount’s legal team warned that the delays would put them at a disadvantage.

Adding to the tension, Warner Bros Discovery’s Chairman Emeritus John Malone publicly supported Netflix’s role in the takeover and claimed that Paramount’s offer disrupted Warner Bros Discovery’s strategic plans. This public backing showed the board was leaning toward Netflix, which made Paramount feel the process was no longer fair.

On 3rd December, Zaslav called Ellison to say the Warner Bros Discovery board worried about the financial guarantee from the Ellison family. They thought this could make it harder to get regulatory approval. Paramount argued that strong financial backers, including sovereign wealth funds, had already committed, but the board remained unconvinced.

On 4th December, Ellison sent messages asking for a chance to discuss a revised offer, describing it as an “honour” to partner with Warner Bros Discovery. However, these messages went unanswered. By midday, Paramount raised its bid to $30 per share, a massive $108.4 billion valuation and told Warner Bros Discovery that this was not its highest offer. But that evening, Warner Bros Discovery appeared to enter exclusive talks with Netflix about selling its studios and streaming business.

Paramount’s bold strategy

After Netflix’s announcement, Paramount bypassed Warner Bros Discovery’s management and took its offer directly to the shareholders. Paramount’s hostile takeover bid has been open for 20 business days and can be extended. The all-cash offer is financially backed by the Ellison family, Jared Kushner’s investment firm Affinity Partners, and several Middle Eastern state-linked funds.

To avoid delays linked to national security review boards, Paramount removed some investors like China’s Tencent from its group and limited the control foreign investors would have. This strategy aims to help the deal avoid strict government scrutiny.

David Ellison said their goal is to fight for the best value for shareholders of both companies. Warner Bros Discovery responded by saying its board has maintained a fair and open process with all bidders, and that the bids themselves tell the story.

The Warner Bros Discovery board now has 10 days to respond to Paramount’s hostile bid, and its decision will shape how this fight unfolds.

Netflix’s early move and political reaction

While Paramount was trying to bring back talks, Netflix had already made its own proposal to buy Warner Bros Discovery. Netflix, as the world’s largest streaming service, is preparing for what could be one of the toughest antitrust reviews ever faced by a media deal.

US President Donald Trump has been watching closely. While he praised Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos for his work and expressed respect, Trump also raised concerns about putting HBO’s popular content under Netflix’s control, hinting it could create too much market power. Trump signalled that he might get involved in the review process.

On the day Paramount revealed its shareholder bid, Trump used his social platform to criticise Paramount for running an interview featuring conservative Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, showing the complex political currents tied to the deal.

For Netflix, the political environment is tricky. Sarandos has had friendly ties with Trump ever since a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago in late 2024, but parts of Trump’s base want the Department of Justice to block the Netflix deal. Conservative figures like Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz have also criticised the merger, renewing concerns similar to those voiced during the AT&T and Time Warner merger review years earlier.

Despite the challenges, Netflix is confident. Sarandos called Paramount’s hostile bid “completely expected” and said he believes Netflix can successfully close its deal with Warner Bros Discovery. Netflix is even offering a record $5.8 billion breakup fee to Warner Bros Discovery, payable if the deal fails due to regulatory problems.

What the winner will change in Hollywood

If Paramount Skydance wins, it would become the most powerful player at the box office, surpassing Disney in the US and Canada. This deal would bring the entire Warner Bros library, including DC superheroes and HBO’s award-winning shows, the entire Harry Potter movies, games, series and theme parks globally into Paramount’s content vault. This would dramatically boost Paramount+ with access to some of the entertainment world’s biggest brand names in the last 20 years.

On the other hand, if Netflix succeeds, it would combine the largest global streaming platform with one of the most respected entertainment libraries in the world. This would strengthen Netflix’s lead in the streaming wars as traditional cable TV keeps losing viewers and audiences are split across many platforms.

HBO, currently under the Warner Bros banner, owns some of the most critically acclaimed and popular TV shows in the last decade, including Game of Thrones series and its spinoffs, Last Of Us, Westworld, and rights for the Harry Potter TV series, which is currently at the filming stage.

Currently, Netflix holds around 8% of the US TV streaming market, while HBO Max and other services face strong competition from fast-growing digital platforms. Meanwhile, YouTube, owned by Alphabet, remains the leader with nearly 13% viewership in the US. YouTube’s mix of user videos, music, ads, and live shows, with almost 2.9 billion users worldwide, sets a tough standard for Netflix and Paramount to meet.

The debt load that comes with Warner Bros Discovery  

Buying Warner Bros Discovery means taking on a heavy debt burden of about $35 billion, mostly from its 2022 merger between WarnerMedia and Discovery. This big debt has limited the company’s ability to invest in new projects and slowed growth in some areas.

Paramount would take on about $30 billion of this debt, while Netflix would assume around $10 billion. The difference reflects each company’s plans to restructure and finance the business after the purchase. Paramount is relying on financial support from the Ellison family and institutional investors, while Netflix is counting on its solid market value and global subscriber base.

Share price reflects the battle

Since news of Paramount’s interest became public in September, Warner Bros Discovery’s stock has more than doubled, showing how much investors are focused on this battle. The stock even rose more than 4% after details about the sale process were revealed.

With so much at stake, the decision by Warner Bros Discovery’s board in the next 10 days on Paramount’s offer will be critical in shaping the future of Hollywood’s entertainment giants.

Retweeting a crime, forced conversions excluded from ’emotional harm’ clause: How Karnataka’s draconian hate speech bill is engineered against Hindus

Anurag
-
0
Retweeting a crime, forced conversions excluded from ’emotional harm’ clause: How Karnataka’s draconian hate speech bill is engineered against Hindus

On 8th December, the Siddaramaiah government tabled the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025. The Bill was accompanied by the usual rhetoric about “dignity”, “equality” and “protection for all communities”. However, the text of the Bill reveals something entirely different.

This Bill is not a framework meant to create peace. It is a legal instrument crafted with surgical precision to ensure that the Hindu voice, which is already pushed into a defensive corner by decades of selective secularism, becomes even easier to police, prosecute and silence.

Every clause of the Bill mimics an earlier version of Congress’ censorship legacy. From Nehru’s First Amendment to Indira Gandhi’s Emergency to UPA’s Section 66A, the party has always invoked harmony while crafting new tools to suffocate dissent.

For the first time, a state government has attempted to criminalise emotion, penalise forwarding, and empower feelings over facts. In a society where one community’s feelings are routinely weaponised to shut down Hindu festivals, Hindu speech and Hindu mobilisation, the direction of the blow is obvious even before implementation begins.

A definition of “harm” so vague that Hindu speech becomes criminal by default

The Bill defines “harm” as emotional, psychological, social or economic. This definition is not accidental but deliberate. In the current ecosystem, Hindu speech is constantly branded “hate-filled”, “divisive”, “majoritarian”, “Islamophobic”, “casteist” or “anti-minority” by activists, evangelists, political commentators and the cottage industry of grievance-manufacturers who thrive on policing Hindu expression.

The Karnataka government has anchored criminal liability to subjective “emotional or psychological injury” and created a legal weapon that is custom-built for selective enforcement. Because of the language of the Bill, a Hindu questioning aggressive proselytisation can be accused of causing “emotional harm”. A Hindu pointing out patterns of communal violence can be said to have inflicted “psychological injury”. A Hindu criticising exclusive doctrines or religious supremacism can be prosecuted for creating “social harm”.

Notably, all of this happens already in public discourse. What this Bill will do is to institutionalise it by giving these accusations the force of criminal law. A term like “emotional harm” would never survive constitutional scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgment where the Court struck down Section 66A precisely because vague, subjective categories cannot be grounds for restriction.

However, the Karnataka government has now attempted to resurrect the ghost of 66A, but in a far more aggressive and expansive form. Hindus, who face the majority of FIRs filed for “hurt sentiments” across India, will inevitably become the primary targets under a framework where every feeling becomes an FIR.

Imagine a person sitting in New Delhi makes a comment about Islam or Christianity which is well within the descriptions of the religious texts of the respective religions. However, someone sitting in Karnataka feels the statement hurt his or her emotions or psychology. The feeling of “hurt” will allow that person to file an FIR against the person sitting in New Delhi and it will become a serious threat to freedom of speech and expression.

Even without this new Bill in place, such “hurt sentiments” have proven disastrous for Hindus. Take the example of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson, Nupur Sharma, who is still living under threats to her life. Her personal as well as political life has been ruined just because some “sentiments” were hurt. Now imagine what will happen if the Karnataka government manages to make the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025 a reality.

Criminalising thought, dissent and even forwarding content ensures that Hindus online become the softest targets

The Bill criminalises “unknowing assistance” which is easily the most chilling provision. That term sounds technical until you realise the implications. In practical terms, it means that a person who forwards a WhatsApp message, shares a news report or retweets satirical commentary can be prosecuted if someone claims that the content inflicted emotional or psychological harm.

It will not matter if the person who forwards or reshared the content intended to hurt, whether the content was factual, whether the expression was legitimate political critique, or whether the person sharing it understood its implications. The mere act of forwarding becomes a potential crime.

This single provision turns the Bill into a digital weapon of mass destruction aimed at the majority. In recent years, FIRs related to online speech have overwhelmingly targeted Hindus who questioned conversion rackets, Islamic extremism, demographic aggression or violent street mobilisation. This Bill makes that process effortless.

Empowering the most aggressive elements ensures Hindu festivals and public expressions remain permanently vulnerable

The Bill also has the provision that gives the District Magistrates sweeping authority to restrict gatherings, processions, public events and even the use of loudspeakers if any community claims “apprehension”. Whenever Hindus celebrate Ramanavmi, Hanuman Jayanti or Ganesh festivals, certain groups can come forward and raise “apprehensions”. Instead of ensuring law and order, the administration will only have to ban the procession or revoke the permission.

The wording ensures that the more volatile a group is, the more power it gains. A group that threatens to resort to violence automatically becomes a community whose “apprehensions” must be respected. On the other hand, a peaceful Hindu procession will become unlawful because someone else threatens lawlessness if the procession is taken out.

Congress’ model of “peace” has always meant quieting Hindus to avoid upsetting its favoured vote banks. This Bill finally codifies that model in statutory language, making Hindu festivals and gatherings dependent on the tolerance of those least inclined to tolerate them.

The selective exemption for proselytisation exposes the Bill’s true political intentions

Among all the provisions of this Bill, none is as revealing as the exemption quietly inserted which protects the “bona fide interpretation and espousing of religious tenets”, including proselytisation. In any genuinely secular framework, either every religious assertion is protected or every religious assertion is subject to scrutiny. Karnataka’s Bill deliberately avoids this neutrality. At a time when aggressive conversion campaigns have been repeatedly exposed in rural Karnataka, often involving inducement, deceit, social fragmentation and foreign funding, the government has chosen not only to ignore these concerns but to grant missionaries a legal shield. In short, this bill gives free hand to missionaries to run conversion rackets without any fear of the law.

This exemption is a confession. If proselytisation caused no emotional or social disruption, the government would not need to protect it explicitly. The exemption exists precisely because the drafters know it routinely causes distress within Hindu families and communities. Instead of acknowledging that harm, the Bill silences Hindu resistance while protecting the very activity that creates the “disharmony” it claims to address.

A state protected from accountability while the Hindu citizen is exposed to limitless criminal liability

The Bill also provides blanket immunity to government officials for acts done “in good faith”. Combined with the vague definitions of harm, offence and intention, this immunity creates a framework where the state can act with maximal force and minimal scrutiny.

By shielding the government machinery while criminalising ordinary citizens for undefined emotional injury, the Bill effectively removes all checks on selective policing. A police officer who books a Hindu for a satirical post faces no consequences. An officer who restricts a Hindu procession due to the “apprehension” of another community is protected.

The state can punish without fear, but the citizen must speak, forward, think and celebrate with fear in every breath. Such asymmetry does not create law and order, it creates a hierarchy of power where the state and its favoured constituencies stand at the top and the Hindu citizen stands permanently exposed.

A constitutional failure on every front, crafted to evade scrutiny and survive through selective enforcement

If the Bill faces scrutiny under any sincere constitutional test, it will fail miserably. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that restrictions on speech must be precise, narrowly defined and directly linked to incitement of violence. Karnataka’s Bill disregards all three principles. Criminal liability based on “emotional harm” or “psychological injury” has no place in Article 19(2), which protects expression unless it poses a genuine threat to public order or security. Here, the threat is not violence but sentiment, not action but interpretation.

The Bill also produces an overwhelming chilling effect. When an individual knows that disagreement, satire, criticism or even forwarding content can be reframed as a criminal act, the rational response is silence. A democracy built on fear is no democracy at all. Yet this chilling effect is not a flaw in the Bill, it is the very purpose of the Bill. Congress does not need mass arrests. It needs hesitation. It needs the majority to doubt themselves. It needs Hindus to think twice before criticising policies, questioning conversions, condemning extremism or asserting cultural identity. Silence, once internalised, requires no policing.

Even if the Bill is eventually struck down in court, the damage will already be done. Many past laws have been abused for years before being declared unconstitutional. Selective prosecution, self-censorship and administrative bias will leave deep scars long before any judicial remedy arrives.

Congress’ long ideological commitment to suppressing Hindu assertion shapes every line of this Bill

This Bill did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the natural continuation of Congress’ ideological instinct to control Hindu assertion while appearing morally elevated. Nehru’s First Amendment in 1951 curtailed freedom of speech to accommodate “reasonable restrictions” that have since been weaponised against Hindus. Indira Gandhi’s Emergency suspended civil liberties altogether. The UPA’s Section 66A was used disproportionately to target Hindu social media users who questioned the government’s policies or exposed communal violence patterns.

The Karnataka Hate Speech Bill is the latest expression of the same impulse. It is no coincidence that the communities who riot at the slightest perceived slight are already empowered, while the community that does not riot becomes the easiest to silence. Harmony, under Congress, has always meant the quieting of Hindu voices to preserve the comfort of its vote banks. With this Bill, the party has simply found a new legal vocabulary to justify the old political instinct.

A threat that will not stop at Karnataka but spread to any state where Congress gains influence

If Karnataka succeeds in implementing this Bill, it will become the template for states that have long shown hostility towards Hindu festivals and free expression. Tamil Nadu already imposes unreasonable restrictions on Hindu processions while tolerating inflammatory rhetoric from radical groups. Once a model for “sentiment-based policing” is established, it will be replicated wherever the political incentives align.

Congress has understood something crucial. It does not need to control national law to control national discourse. A state-level model of selective policing can silence the majority across linguistic and geographical boundaries.

Conclusion

Karnataka’s Hate Speech Bill is a masterclass in political inversion. It claims to maintain peace while empowering those who threaten it. It claims to protect minorities while shielding missionary activity and punishing Hindu resistance. It claims to uphold dignity while criminalising emotional discomfort. It claims to combat hate while institutionalising prejudice against Hindus under the guise of protecting “vulnerable groups”.

Hindus do not riot over memes. They do not burn cities over cartoons. They do not demand blasphemy laws. They do not weaponise their sentiments for political leverage. And that is precisely why this Bill targets them. The community that behaves responsibly becomes the easiest to police. The community that refuses to express fear becomes the easiest to intimidate.

Actor Dileep acquitted after 9-year legal battle in abduction and assault case: All you need to know

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Actor Dileep acquitted after 9-year legal battle in abduction and assault case: All you need to know

A Sessions Court in Kerala on Monday (8th December) acquitted Malayalam actor Dileep in the 2017 actress assault case, saying the prosecution was unable to prove that he played any role in a criminal conspiracy behind the attack. The verdict was delivered by Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese at 11 am.

Along with this, the court convicted six others for offences including criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement, assault with the intention to outrage modesty, abduction, attempt to disrobe and gang rape.

The accused who have been convicted include Pulsar Suni (A1), Martin Antony (A2), B Manikandan (A3), VP Vijeesh (A4), H Saleem (A5), and C Pradeep (A6). The court has convicted all of them under sections 120B, 340, 354, 366, 354B, and 376D of the Indian Penal Code. Their quantum of punishment will be announced on 12th December.

Soon after the verdict, Dileep thanked everyone who stood by him during the past nine years and claimed the case was built on a “criminal conspiracy” against him. He alleged that his former wife, actor Manju Warrier, first made the allegations, which were later “implemented” by a senior police officer and his team by creating a false story using the prime accused.

Dileep said the police used media and social media to damage his reputation and life. “They joined hands with the prime accused and his jailmates to cook up a story against me. They also planted this story in the media. But everything fell apart in court. They tried to destroy my entire life, but the truth has won,” he said.

The Kerala government soon responded that it would challenge the acquittal in a higher court. Minister of Law P Rajeev met Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and instructed the prosecution to initiate the process for filing an appeal. Party leaders, including MV Govindan, said they would continue standing with the survivor and support her fight for justice.

Background of the case 

On the night of 17th February 2017, a leading Malayalam actress was abducted and sexually assaulted inside her car while travelling in Kochi. The attack lasted for almost two hours. The accused also allegedly recorded videos of the assault to blackmail the survivor later.

The police named Sunil N.S., popularly known as Pulsar Suni, as the prime accused. The prosecution contended that Dileep, who was Accused No. 8, had hatched a conspiracy with Suni and others to commit the crime out of personal hostility towards the survivor.

As many as 12 persons were initially booked in the case. Of them, two – Pratheesh Chacko and Raju Joseph – were discharged later, while another accused, Vishnu, became approver. The remaining accused included Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijeesh V.P., Salim H (Vadival Salim), Pradeep, Charly Thomas and Sanil Kumar (Mesthiri Sanil).

He was arrested in July 2017, based on the claim that Pulsar Suni had written to him from prison hinting at his involvement. Dileep was in jail for about 80 days before the High Court gave him bail. Pulsar Suni spent more than seven-and-a-half years in custody, which is extremely unusual, before he received bail from the Supreme Court in September 2024 on the grounds that the trial was taking too long.

How the case moved forward over the years

The police filed the first chargesheet in April 2017. Later that year, they filed a supplementary chargesheet naming more accused and adding further details about the conspiracy.

On 21st June, 2017, Manju Warrier gave a crucial testimony to the police, stating that the survivor had confided in her about the relationship between Dileep and Kavya Madhavan which is a detail which, according to the survivor, had triggered resentment in Dileep.

In 2018, Dileep had filed a plea before the High Court seeking a CBI investigation in the case, alleging that the Kerala Police was biased. This was dismissed, observing that the accused cannot demand which agency should investigate the case against him. An appeal against this was filed this year, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench, noting that the trial was heading towards a conclusion. 

In 2021, further investigation was ordered after filmmaker Balachandra Kumar said that Dileep possessed visuals of the assault. Another case was also registered, saying a conspiracy to harm investigation officers. 

In 2022, allegations of illegal access to the memory card kept in court custody led to a High Court-ordered fact-finding probe and new guidelines on handling sexually explicit evidence.

A long trial with hundreds of witnesses

The trial became one of the longest-running cases in Kerala’s recent history. A total of 261 witnesses were examined, including many well-known personalities from the Malayalam film industry. However, several of them turned hostile in court, weakening the prosecution’s case.

The investigation officer alone was questioned for 109 days. The court accepted 834 documents as evidence and also examined two defence witnesses. During the course of the trial, two important witnesses, former MLA PT Thomas and director Balachandra Kumar, passed away.

Ten accused, including Pulsar Suni, faced trial on charges such as criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, sexual assault, gang rape, destroying evidence, and other offences under the IPC and IT Act. Dileep had an additional charge linked to the destruction of evidence. However, after reviewing the entire evidence, the court concluded that the conspiracy angle involving Dileep was not convincingly proven.

Major Buddhist complex found in Baramulla: Read about the breakthrough and how Modi govt is working to revive the cultural and historical heritage of Kashmir

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Major Buddhist complex found in Baramulla: Read about the breakthrough and how Modi govt is working to revive the cultural and historical heritage of Kashmir

A prominent archaeological discovery that holds the potential to redefine the cultural and historical contexts has transpired in Jammu & Kashmir. Large architectural remnants of a pivotal Buddhist complex from the Kushan era have been unearthed by archaeologists in Zehanpora in the Baramulla area of north Kashmir.

The project is a joint effort between the Jammu & Kashmir Department of Archives, Archaeology and Museums (DAAM), Centre of Central Asian Studies (CCAS) and the University of Kashmir. Their goal is to enhance knowledge of the cultural and religious backdrop of ancient Kashmir. The digging started in early November and is halted due to winter but is anticipated to continue for years.

The results are set to add important narratives to the region’s archaeological map, according to project director Dr Mohammad Ajmal Shah. It is the first massive collaborative exercise to receive formal sanction under the Archaeological Survey of India standards in the union territory.

So far, the excavations have revealed a stupa, structural walls, pottery and copper objects. The items have endured for centuries despite severe weather and topographical difficulties. They stood as a testament to sophisticated architectural expertise as well as construction quality and comprehensive urban planning.

Moreover, layers of stone foundations, carved pieces, ceramic pieces and structural alignments started to show up as excavation proceeded. It suggested a once-active monastery centre that might have been a key spot along earlier routes connecting Kashmir with Central Asia.

High-resolution mapping, ground-penetrating radar research, drone documentation, digital archiving and similar methods have been employed in the process to ensure a methodical and scientific recovery of the site.

Modern machinery uncover ancient origins

The mission commenced after a number of sizable mounds that were long considered to be the remains of ancient stupas were identified during intensive preliminary surveys, which lasted several months and included drone imagery, mapping and ground verification. According to first observations, these mounds were not natural formations but rather the remains of old man-made structures, most likely stupas, monastic cells and other elements of a mighty Buddhist establishment.

Meanwhile, Dr Shah made a vital progress in 2023 when he located an old photograph in a French museum collection depicting three stupas in Baramulla. It suggested a historical link between the place and Kashmir’s Buddhist tradition. The mounds matched substantial remnants of a stupa complex and related construction. It was also determined by later fieldwork, which indicated a booming early-historic Buddhist town.

Image via thebizreporter.com

Director of DAAM, KK Sidha expressed, “This joint excavation marks a landmark initiative in archaeological research in Jammu & Kashmir. The discoveries at Zehanpora will enrich local as well as wider understanding of our cultural heritage.”

Deeper excavation, scientific analysis and the creation of a conservation strategy that could aid museum exhibits, scholarly research alongside heritage-tourism projects are the main priorities. To foster archaeological site protection, officials even plan to involve the local community through outreach and awareness campaigns.

The initiative took place after DAAM and CCAS signed a crucial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 31st October to improve archaeological research, documentation and heritage management in Jammu and Kashmir. Joint excavations, artefact preservation, 3D documentation and promotion of tourism were covered by the document.

Baramulla Deputy Commissioner Minga Sherpa stated that the team has taken a “meticulous and scientific approach,” and further highlighted, “Baramulla has historically been a key corridor for trade and cultural exchange. The findings here will offer valuable insights into Kashmir’s past.”

The site is also close to the historical towns of Kanispur (ancient Kanishkapura) and Ushkur (Huvishkapura). They are conceived to be found by Kushan emperors Kanishka and Huvishka. During the Kushan period (1st-3rd century CE), Kanispur, Ushkur and Zehanpora constituted a trinity of political, religious and cultural activity, according to Kalhana’s Rajatarangini.

Significance of the findings

The excavation would eventually provide greater insights into how societies lived, traded, worshipped and interacted throughout that time. Interestingly, a similar discovery was made on the right bank of the Chenab River in Akhnoor’s Ambaran hamlet. Now, the latest finding pointed to a large and interconnected Buddhist civilisation that covered Jammu and Kashmir.

These excavations shed light on the extraordinary sociocultural sophistication of ancient Kashmir. The region was recorded to be situated at the intersection of trade routes connecting the Himalayan realm, Central Asia and the plains of the country.

Image via kashmirahead.com

The material culture that has been found thus far points to a prosperous community with robust creative traditions and potential ties to the wider Gandhara and Central Asian Buddhist domains, as per reports. The size of the community and its cultural makeup are likely to alter the perception of the valley’s place in the religious and economic networks of the former state, once archaeologists go into the second stage of their research. It would also grant information about the socio-religious life, architectural styles and settlement structure of ancient Kashmir.

Cultural and heritage revival in Kashmir under the Modi government

Earlier this year, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had announced that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is dedicated to revitalising Kashmir’s historical and cultural legacy and “reclaim what has been lost.” He was speaking at the launch of a book named “Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh Through the Ages: A Visual Narrative of Continuities and Linkages,” in January.

Shah noted that Kashmir has always been and will always be an integral part of India. “There were attempts to separate Kashmir from India in the past but time itself has nullified those efforts,” he added, emphasising that no legal provision could ever break the connection.

The minister underlined that while most nations have defined their borders through geopolitics, India’s borders reflect its combination of cultural unity and geo-cultural expansiveness. He highlighted how the book beautifully depicted the relationship between Buddhism, Shaivism, Kashmir and Ladakh. The validity of the statement has been affirmed by the excavations at the heritage sites in Kashmir.

The centre has honoured its promise and facilitated the revival of several ancient religious sites in the valley, which are historically relevant to the true identity and culture of Kashmir.

Resurrection of the sacred legacy

On the first day of Chaitra Navratri in 2023, Amit Shah virtually inaugurated Mata Sharda Devi temple, which is situated in Teetwal village in the Kupwara district of North Kashmir, in the presence of other dignitaries. It was built by Seva Sharda Samiti Kashmir and Sri Sringeri Math. Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is only 500 meters away from the location.

Shah mentioned, “Ravinder Pandita (head of Save Sharda committee) has asked for a Kartarpur-style corridor for Sharda yatra and the government of India will surely make attempts in this direction, there is no doubt in that.” The original Sharada Peeth was constructed many centuries ago and lies inside PoK’s Neelum valley.

On 28th May, a Shivling was reinstalled in the ancient Jogeshwari Shiva temple in Rainawari of Srinagar, following a 35 year-gap. This Shivling was desecrated and thrown into the river by terrorists in Kashmir in 1990. It had been found by authorities at that point, but could not be kept in the temple for very long and was stored at the police station.

The Rainawari Kashmir Pandit Committee reclaimed the Shivling from the cops on the Special Magistrate of Srinagar’s order but the original one remained missing. Yet, the developments represented the renewal of the valley’s age-old culture and history under the Modi rule.

Iconic temples restored

The renowned Hindu temple of Goddess Uma Bhagwati reopened on 14th July 2024, after 34 years. It is situated in the Shangus neighbourhood of the Anantnag district in Brari Aangan. Nityanand Rai, the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, attended the event. The temple was vandalised following the terrorist epidemic in the valley in the late 1980s.

Its restoration work was concluded before the inauguration took place. An idol of Goddess Uma Bhagwati was put in the sanctum sanctorum during the ritual while religious hymns were sang. The idol arrived from Rajasthan.

The government of Jammu and Kashmir likewise made the decision to restore the iconic Martand Sun Temple in Anantnag, a prominent Hindu holy site, on 27th March of that year. It also directed to install a statue of King Lalitaditya, who oversaw the temple’s construction.

Additionally, a “kalash” from Ayodhya was erected at the Ram Temple, which is on the precinct of the Sun Temple, in front of pilgrims from Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, alongside locals. The “kalash” was one of many delivered to certain Ram temples in the country. Additionally, Manoj Sinha, the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, visited the Martand Sun Temple to partake in Mahayagya and offer prayers.

The temple is believed to have been constructed in the eighth century AD but between 1389 and 1413, there were multiple efforts to demolish it. It was demolished at the behest of Muslim king Sikandar Shah Miri, also known as Sikandar Butshikan (Idol-breaker). The moniker was given to him by mediaeval Islamists due to his tendency to attack and destroy Hindu temples.

Conclusion

The recent discovery of the Buddhist complex further highlights the genuine history of the valley long before foreign religions and tyrannical rulers invaded the land of Kashmir. Hence, the government has been leading efforts to re-introduce the true past of the valley and dispel the forced obscurity left by radical elements that have worked hard to wipe out Kashmir’s civilisational roots in Indic faiths and cultures.

1...939495...7,597Page 94 of 7,597