When Courts Echo Majoritarianism and Citizens Carry the Idea of India – 2 Articles

❈ ❈ ❈

India’s Courts Are Echoing the Intolerance of its Ruling Party, its Affiliates and State They Are Remaking in Their Image

Samar Halarnkar

On 19 January 2025, a Mumbai sessions court judge hearing the anticipatory bail pleas of nine Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) students did not ask why the police had invoked a raft of absurd charges—rioting, unlawful assembly, promoting enmity, acting against “national integration”—against young people who had merely commemorated the death anniversary of G N Saibaba. Instead, he scolded them like errant children and warned them that their careers were effectively over.

Saibaba, a disabled former Delhi University professor, spent a decade in prison for crimes he never committed. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court eventually acquitted him, rebuking the State for its insistence on keeping him incarcerated. The students’ “crime” was to gather in October 2025 to remember a man who had been legally exonerated after being persecuted, his health destroyed in prison.

“You have a criminal record,” additional sessions judge Manoj B Oza told the nine students. “Now your record is with the police—not just here but everywhere in the country. You know that you have made a blunder so early before your career starts (sic). Your career is ruined.”

The police case itself arose from a complaint by TISS—once a crucible of critical scholarship on inequality and injustice, now refashioned in the restrictive creed of India’s ruling dispensation. Instead of questioning the State’s overreach, Oza amplified it, as so many in positions of power now tend to do. “How many of you are from outside Maharashtra?” said Oza. “You came to study in Maharashtra for all this? Your fathers know about the case?”

If Oza’s patriarchal tirade sounded extraordinary in ignoring the authoritarian overreach of the police, it was only the latest example of New India’s twisted jurisprudence, which criminalises protest and dissent, makes criminals of victims of hate crimes, protects criminals who commit hate crimes, and punishes officers or judges who try to uphold the law.

India’s criminal-justice system has steadily turned the presumption of innocence and constitutional freedoms of speech, opinion and protest on their head. In their place now stands a duties-over-rights, conformist and exclusionary orthodoxy, drawn from the ideology of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), its affiliates, and the State they are remaking in their image.

A rare acknowledgement of the majoritarian drift of the higher judiciary came last week from Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who spoke at length at the State’s “striking intrusion” into judicial independence. “A constitutional court cannot say that because a view is subscribed to by the majority it will endorse it,” said Justice Bhuyan. “If one person’s view is found to be constitutionally valid, the court has to uphold it”.

“The judiciary neither has the purse nor the sword,” said Justice Bhuyan. “All it has is the faith reposed in it by the people. If that faith is breached, nothing will be left of the judiciary.” Yet, that is indeed the faith that is being breached. More judges and judgments now echo the country’s majoritarian turn. This judicial collaboration is not unfolding in isolation: It is one of many institutions enabling the death of dissent and democracy.

The week that went by revealed many examples, beginning with Kashmir, where the original template to stifle dissent was created. The latest authoritarian milestone was set as police illegally summoned four Kashmiri reporters for routine stories that reported the police profiling of Imams in local mosques. Three of those reporters were from powerful national newspapers, who offered belated and tepid support—unsurprising in a country where the mainstream media are either government cheerleaders or treat it with deference. As Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu’s diplomatic affairs editor, put it: “Kafka2026: Police detaining people for writing about police detaining people.”

To continue with the week that was, in Uttar Pradesh, Muslims were arrested for offering prayers in an empty house. A school for tribal children was demolished because it was a Muslim man who built it on his own land. In the same state, the Allahabad High Court transferred chief judicial magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer, three days after he ordered criminal proceedings against police officers who shot a Muslim protester dead—an unmistakable warning to the dwindling number of judges who still take their oath of fidelity to the Constitution seriously.

Emboldened, encouraged and empowered by support and rhetoric from the highest echelons of government and the diffidence of the justice system to intervene, Hindu vigilante violence continued with impunity.

• A pastor in Odisha was forced to eat cow dung and chant Jai Shri Ram
• A Muslim was lynched in Odisha after he was discovered to be Muslim
• A Muslim was lynched in Jharkhand while legally transporting cattle
• Muslim homes, shops and a mosque were set ablaze in Tripura
• Threats were issued to Kashmiri shawl salesmen in Haryana, UP, Uttarakhand, Delhi, and many were forced to chant Jai Shri Ram

The thuggery by Hindutva’s stormtroopers is primed, as always, from the top. In electoral speeches in Assam and West Bengal—both states with large Muslim populations—the Prime Minister vowed to roust “infiltrators”, a common dog-whistle for Muslims. Referring to the demolition of their homes, and notices questioning voting rights and citizenship, Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said of Miyas (a pejorative for Bengali-speaking Muslims), “We are giving them trouble… we will do some utpaat (mischief) but within the ambit of the law.” A day later, Sarma said that both he and the BJP were “here to harass Miya Muslims”.

Unsurprisingly, with the courts standing aside and radicalisation spreading, hate speech witnessed an inexorable rise, with 1,289 speeches in 2025, or 98%, targeted at Muslims, either explicitly in 1,156 cases or alongside Christians in 133 cases, according to the latest edition of Hate Speech Events in India, an increase of nearly 12% from 1,147 instances recorded in 2024. As many as 88% of hate speech incidents were reported in states governed by the BJP, either directly or with coalition partners, and in BJP-administered union territories, rising 25% over 2024.

Sarma’s counterpart in Uttarakhand, Pushkar Singh Dhami, whom the Hate Speech Events report called the “most prolific hate speech actor” of 2025 for 71 speeches with Islamophobic content and mainstreaming conspiracy theories against Muslims, said if “threats to Uttarakhand’s future” were called hate speech, he accepted the title.

BJP social media handles, particularly in Assam, used AI-generated images and videos (here, here, here and here) to reinforce and amplify divisive tropes, Islamophobia and cast Opposition leaders as Muslim lovers.

This was an image issued by the BJP in West Bengal:

With the country’s largest political party propagating virulent Islamophobia, and the government openly suppressing dissent and protest, democratic expression not in tune with right-wing ideology is a fraught endeavour, however mild. For instance, expressions of solidarity with Palestine, which India recognises and expresses solidarity with, are openly criminalised in not just BJP states but even those run by the Opposition, as Article 14 has reported. Bangladesh, a country once closely aligned with India, is now hostile, largely because the word “Bangladeshi” has been weaponised to delegitimise Indian Muslims and corral Hindu votes. The Election Commission aligns with the ruling party, and the ruling party borrows the Election Commission’s authority.

Whether in Weimar Germany, in Erdoğan’s Türkiye, in Orbán’s Hungary, in the Emergency era and now Modi’s India, and the US, the land of the once-free and brave, experience has taught the world that the collapse of institutions is a powerful enabler and indicator of democratic recession. It is not surprising that students are told their careers are over for organising a protest, or that the Supreme Court keeps an Umar Khalid or Sharjeel Imam in prison for no good reason—except to lean into the prevailing wind.

(Samar Halarnkar is the founding editor of Article 14. Courtesy: Article 14.com, a joint effort between lawyers, journalists, and academics that provides intensive research and reportage, data and varied perspectives on issues necessary to safeguard democracy and the rule of law.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Mohammad Deepak Kumar, Shaila Negi, and the Idea of India

Kaushik Raj

In recent times, scrolling social media does not only lead you to news articles, celebrity updates, updates from friends, but also to content that is illegal and morally reprehensible. I don’t think any of us can claim that we have not come across videos of vigilante groups harassing poor Muslims on camera.

Excuses can vary. Sometimes they demand Muslims to change the name of their shops in a way that establishes their religion. Sometimes they demand to see their identity cards. Many of us might have witnessed these illegal campaigns physically as well.

There are two sets of Hindus who see these kinds of content or witness these kinds of incidents. First, those who agree with this. Second, those who feel bad seeing this but choose to stay silent because they think these vigilante groups have the power and they cannot do anything against them. Fear rings in and fingers move fast to scroll. If they are witnessing this in a market, maybe they will stop, see the harassment of the Muslim vendor/shopkeeper, feel bad, disgusted, angry, but move on.

Deepak Kumar belonged to neither of these two groups of Hindus. He belonged to a rare third group. He chose to intervene and protect a Muslim shopkeeper from harassment in Kotdwar, Uttarakhand. He knew that the mob was directly or indirectly associated with those in power in Uttarakhand today. But that didn’t stop him from resisting it.

“What’s your name?” the mob asked him.

“My name is Mohammad Deepak,” he replied confidently.

This one line is reverberating across the nation as a symbol of defiance against years of mob vigilantism in India.

Ironically this incident took place on Republic Day when Deepak witnessed a mob barging into a 30-year-old shop named ‘Baba School Dress and Clothing’. In a video that is viral now, the members of the mob can be seen asking Wakeel Ahmad, the owner of the shop, to change the shop’s name. They also threatened that they will change the shop’s name themselves next time. It would be foolish to assume that all the Hindu shopkeepers and customers in the market agreed with this treatment of Wakeel Ahmad.

If the local Hindus had any problem with the shop’s name, they would have objected in the last 30 years. It would be safe to assume that many of them belonged to the second group who didn’t intervene due to fear of the vigilante mob.

But Deepak, along with his friends such as Vijay Rawat, not only intervened but humiliated the mob and forced them to go back.

The fear of the second group of Hindus is not completely unfounded. After Deepak’s defiance, a mob of Bajrang Dal surrounded his home on January 31 and threatened him. Pauri Garhwal police informed in a press release that an FIR has been registered against Deepak, and others under Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 191(1) (rioting), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (breach of peace). The FIR has been filed on the complaint of Kamal Pal, alleging that Deepak, Vijay, and their friends abused and attacked.

It was illegal for Germans to protect jews in the Nazi Germany. That does not change the fact that it was the right thing to do.

On the other hand, an FIR has been filed against the mob which surrounded Deepak’s home on January 31, but it doesn’t name anyone despite video evidence of people openly threatening Deepak and raising anti-Muslim slogans. FIR has been filed against 30-40 unknown people under Sections 191(2) (rioting), 121(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 196(2) (promoting enmity between different groups), 352 (breach of peace). According to the FIR, the mob disturbed communal harmony and peace.

Another FIR has been registered on the complaint of Wakeel Ahmad (owner of Baba School Dress and Clothing) against the mob which entered his shop and threatened him to change the name of his shop. This FIR has been registered under sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 333 (house-trespass), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (breach of peace).

When the mob surrounded Deepak’s home, they addressed him as “Mohammad”. “Mohammad, come out,” they shouted. Similarly, they addressed Vijay as “Vijay Katua”. Last year when another Hindu woman, Shaila Negi, stood up against a mob harassing Muslims in Nainital, she was attacked with the same kind of comments. The reason is simple. In their distorted idea of India, Hindus are not supposed to stand with Muslims. When atheist Hindus speak against hatred, they are easily branded as anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim. Similarly, it’s easier to delegitimise the resistance of Hindus associated with opposition parties.

But it is the resistance of common god-worshipping Hindus like Deepak and Shaila Negi that rattles the majoritarian forces the most. That completely goes against their narrative in which they claim that they are doing all these anti-Muslim acts for the welfare of devout Hindus, and that all devout Hindus agree with their actions.

Deepak is himself a devotee of Lord Hanuman, god on whose name Bajrang Dal has kept their name. There are posters of Lord Hanuman in his gym. He used to post photos of Hanuman on his Instagram saying “Jai Siya Ram”. It is precisely why his act of resistance is impactful because it directly combats the narrative of groups like Bajrang Dal establishing that this is how Hanuman devotees are supposed to behave, that they are supposed to stand with humanity and love people of all religions. It successfully contradicts the idea of Hinduism of these vigilante groups. Muslims can’t do this. Atheist Hindus can’t.

It is precisely why Gandhi, a devout Hindu who stood with Muslims, was the biggest danger for majoritarian forces and they took his life.

Their frustration is also because for the last 11 years, they have invested a lot of effort and money to convince ordinary Hindus that Muslims are their enemies. Yet, all it took for Deepak to demolish their 24×7 propaganda was a simple act of courage.

Deepak later explained why he said his name is Mohammad Deepak. He said that he wanted to establish that as an Indian he does not agree with these acts because India belongs to all religions. Majoritarian groups can’t tolerate the fact that devout Hindus chose to stand with Muslims and not with a Hindu vigilante group. So, they must have some association with Muslims. They can’t stand any Hindu belonging to the third group. They are rattled that seeing this act, more Hindus might transfer from the second group to the third, and start resisting them on streets. So, they must be defamed and silenced. They must be proven anti-Hindu.

A Hanuman bhakt Deepak emerging from the crowd and saying it loudly that his religion does not teach hatred, but only love, goes a long way in an environment where majoritarian groups are committing anti-Muslim acts in the name of Hinduism. That’s why it becomes important for the state to punish people like Deepak.

Deepak’s act of defiance is already part of pop-culture. His AI generated images with heroic background songs are viral on social media. His words immortalised through posters and videos. There are short skits being made in which some people are shown harassing a Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim shopkeeper says “Chale jaao nahi toh Mohammad Deepak aa jaayega” (Go back or Mohammad Deepak will come). Rahul Gandhi, India’s leader of opposition, has posted on social media in Deepak’s support.

On Deepak’s Instagram video after the incident in which he says he is a human first, there are over 1 lakh comments, majority of them in his support.

What does this heroisation of Deepak show? For Hindus, Deepak did what they wanted to do all these years but could not. All the Hindus who saw anti-Muslim harassment on social media, on streets, but could not do anything other than expressing anger privately, finally see themselves in Deepak. It’s as if Deepak alone has not spoken, they all have spoken with him. Not spoken, but cried and shouted.

For Muslims, Deepak is precious. It was hard for them to move on seeing everyday violence against them. Every poor Muslim vendor/shopkeeper being harassed by the vigilante groups was looking at the crowd for a Deepak who would stand with him. They are going to hold on to this Deepak for long. It came after a long wait.

Deepak has answered the disappointment of Muslims facing everyday violence as well as the guilt of Hindus who could not do anything.

For peace-loving Indians, Deepak’s act opened a vocal space for the idea of India, one where Hindus and Muslims coexist peacefully, articulating an emotion that had been simmering for a long time against the rise of hateful majoritarian mobs.

[Kaushik Raj is a Delhi-based poet. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]