Owaisi slams ‘pant utaaro' Aadhaar checks at UP eateries ahead of Kanwar Yatra: ‘This filth must stop'
Referring to recent reports of men being forced to remove their pants to 'prove their religion' along the Delhi-Dehradun highway, Owaisi said that areas like Baghonwali, Sarwat, and Bajheri near the Muzaffar Nagar bypass have seen peaceful pilgrimages for over a decade, but things have drastically changed.
'There are hotels in those villages that have been operating peacefully for years,' he said. 'Why is it that 10–11 years ago, there were no such incidents, and now people are being pulled out, asked for Aadhaar cards, and even forced to strip if they fail to show one? Who are these vigilantes? Is the government running the state, or have these groups taken over?'
In his sharp criticism, Owaisi asked what authority these individuals had to storm into hotels and question staff. 'Who gave you the right to enter a hotel and ask someone their name or demand their Aadhaar card? Are you the police? Are you the law? Are you the government?' he said, referencing a Supreme Court order prohibiting such harassment, which he said is still in force.
'They went to the hotel and asked for the Aadhaar card of the owner. When they didn't get it, they said, 'pant utaaro' — 'take off your pants'. Kya hai yeh gandagi? — 'What kind of filth is this?' This filth must stop. If the police won't act, these people will keep behaving like they're the superior government. Our demand is simple: follow the rule of law,' Owaisi said. Vigilantes force eatery staff to 'prove' religion
His remarks come in the backdrop of reports from Muzaffarnagar where followers of controversial seer Swamy Yashveer Maharaj allegedly forced roadside eatery workers and hotel staff to prove their religion by lowering their pants.
The vigilante group, reportedly part of a self-styled outfit called the Bharatiya Sanatan Suraksha Dal, has been accused of repeatedly targeting establishments run by minority communities during the ongoing Kanwar Yatra.
The Supreme Court, on July 22 last year, issued an interim order staying the Uttar Pradesh government's directive that mandated shopkeepers along Kanwar Yatra routes to display their names. The court clarified that owners are only required to mention the type of food served at their establishments.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the state's order had no legal basis and described it as a 'camouflage order.'
The order came in response to a directive issued by Muzaffarnagar Police last year, which required all eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners on signboards.
The Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government later expanded this directive statewide, with the governments of Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh adopting similar measures.
However, the move drew strong criticism not only from the Opposition but also from several NDA allies, including the Janata Dal (United) and the Rashtriya Lok Dal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Experts flag lack of law on custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu
The custodial death of a 29-year-old temple watchman, Ajith Kumar on June 29 has rekindled the conversation on police violence in Tamil Nadu. India reported 73 deaths in police custody across the country in 2022, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data. AIADMK members and others pay tribute to Ajithkumar who died in custody, in Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu, on Wednesday (PTI) In this list, the state of Gujarat has the highest number of custodial deaths at 14 followed by Maharashtra (11) while Tamil Nadu is sixth with five deaths. However, for the same year, according to data collated by Tamil Nadu based People's Watch, a human rights NGO which represents several families of victims of custodial deaths, there were 11 custodial deaths in 2022 which included a 17-year-old boy. In the years of 2018-2019, out of the 136 custodial deaths reported in India, 11 were from Tamil Nadu. Gujarat (13) followed by Uttar Pradesh (12) topped the list, according to information based on NCRB furnished in the Lok Sabha in 2023 to a question by Thol Thirumavalavan, MP, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), an ally of the DMK. The following year, in 2019-2020, out of 112 deaths in India, 12 were from Tamil Nadu–rising to become the state with the second highest custodial deaths along with Gujarat (12) when Madhya Pradesh was on top. According to the activists and opposition in Tamil Nadu, there have been 24 custodial deaths since the DMK formed the government in 2021. However, according to the reply in the Lok Sabha, Tamil Nadu's custodial deaths have come down from 2020-2023 reporting 13 deaths during the three years. 'The fundamental problem is that we do not have a law to report custodial torture,' said Aseervadhan, state coordinator, People's Watch, Tamil Nadu based NGO. 'And when cases are reported, it's usually the low ranked personnel such as inspector or sub-inspector who will be arrested. But, if the custodial torture is committed by an IPS officer, he is protected.' The activist was referring to the case of Balveer Singh, an IPS officer in the rank of an assistant superintendent of police who is accused of knocking out the teeth of the 10 suspects in Ambasamudram in Tirunelveli district in 2023. The case is being heard by a judicial magistrate. The government suspended him in 2023 but reinstated him in a few months. Tamil Nadu does not have institutional measures to prevent custodial torture — such as one in the Kerala Police Act 2011 which mandates any police officer who witnesses torture or corruption must report it without fear of reprisal. The issue of police brutality is back in spotlight in Tamil Nadu after a temple watchman, Ajith Kumar, was picked up by the police on suspicion of theft, though he wasn't even an accused, on June 27 in the Sivaganga district. Though no FIR was registered and he wasn't taken into custody, he was beaten by police in the temple where he worked. When police took him to a hospital two days later, he was declared as 'brought dead'. Reading the injuries inflicted on Kumar, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court on July 1 said that, 'Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this many injuries to a person.' Another staff in the temple secretary recorded a video of Ajith kneeling down while a policeman beat him with a stick. Five policemen have been arrested on charges of murder. They picked up Ajith after receiving a complaint from a woman that she had given her car keys to him to park the car after which gold jewellery from her bag inside the car was missing. While the court has ordered a judicial probe and chief minister M K Stalin transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a look at the status of other major custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu. Jayaraj and Bennicks, Thoothukudi, 2020 Ajith's death marks five years since father and son P Jayaraj (59) and J Bennicks (31) were tortured to death inside a police station in Thoothukudi district in June 2020. The brutality inflicted on the father and son shook the country. The trial in the case has been underway for the last three years in the Additional District and Sessions Court- 1 in Madurai district. 'The last update was on June 23 when the bench dismissed a bail petition filed by the suspended police inspector S Sridhar,' Jayaraj's son-in-law Vinod said. The family has been tirelessly tracking court proceedings. 'It's been five years since they died but we think about them every day. We will be patient and fight until the policemen accused in the case are punished.' The CBI is currently handling the case. The father and son were arrested on June 19, 2020 and lodged in Kovilpatti sub-jail for keeping their mobile phone shop in the main market of Sathankulam town open during a curfew imposed during coronavirus lockdown. A policewoman is the only eyewitness in the case, and she told Judicial magistrate M S Barathidasan, who investigated the incident, that both Jayaraj and Bennicks were beaten through the night on June 19 and blood stains on the lathis and a table were visible. The current opposition AIADMK was governing Tamil Nadu then. Whether Tamil Nadu has been under the DMK or AIADMK rule, police excess in the state has been a constant indicating a systemic crisis. 'The challenge generally in custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu is that higher officials in the police usually try to cover it up. Like in Ajith's case, they try to give the family money to silence them,' says Aseervathan, state coordinator, People's Watch. 'But, a new challenge is that now even ruling government politicians get involved whether it is the DMK or AIADMK and keep the family under their control so that they don't file complaints.' V Vignesh, Chennai, 2022 The policemen involved in the custodial death of a Dalit youngster V Vignesh (25) in Chennai have been charged for murder based on the post mortem report, chief minister M K Stalin informed the Tamil Nadu assembly in May 2022, a month after he died. The post mortem report of Vignesh confirmed that he had 13 injuries which included several contusions on his head, eyebrows, cheeks, limbs, an abrasion on his gluteal region and a fracture in his right leg. CCTV footage from the night he died on April 18 came to light in which Vignesh can be seen running away from the police and of them chasing and catching hold of him. 'CB-CID has completed its investigation and trial began last month at a Chennai court,' said Aseervathan. Thangamani, Tiruvannamalai, 2022 Thangamani (only first name) a 48-year-old man, died in custody in Tiruvannamalai. His post mortem report revealed that he had several contusions in various parts of his body in not more than six hours before his death and a laceration of his tongue. Police arrested Thangamani on April 26, 2022 on the charge of selling arrack (a country liquor). On April 27, Thangamani was admitted to the hospital where he died the same night around 8.30. This case too has been transferred to CB-CID and the chief minister said that a detailed enquiry would be conducted. 'But, no chargesheet has been filed yet in the case,' said Aseervathan. Gokul Sri, Chengalpattu, 2023 A 17-year-old child in conflict with Gokul Sri was beaten to death inside a government observation home in Chengalpattu December 2022. The boy had been booked for theft and died on the day he was admitted to the home and enquiries and post-mortem revealed that the staff had beaten him based on a complaint filed by his mother. Six staff were arrested in January 2023 on charges of murder. An all-party meeting was held in Chengalpattu demanding an inspection to be conducted on all Observation Homes by a retired judge of the High Court. In April, 2024 a government order was issued that a one-mad committee of justice (retired) K Chandru will go into the working of homes under the Juvenile Justice Act in Tamil Nadu to improve their efficiency. '96 injuries were found in the post mortem. CB-CID which is probing the case have not filed a chargesheet yet,' said Aseervadhan.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Express View on Karnataka's draft bill on fake news: Don't make it law
Several elements go into making legislation 'bad in law': Vague provisions and definitions that invite misuse; arrogation of power to government authorities without necessary checks and guardrails; difficulties of enforcement or possibilities of selective enforcement and, most importantly, legitimate concerns about infringement on fundamental rights and violation of due process. The Karnataka Mis-Information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill fulfils these criteria, and more. It constitutes an 'Authority' — headed by the state Information & Broadcasting Minister and made up mostly of lawmakers and officials selected by the government — that is all but certain to act as a censor. It is a bill of bad faith — it enables an exercise of arbitrary power under the garb of rooting out falsehood. It is an overzealous government addressing a complex issue through the bluntest of instruments. India has approximately 700 million smartphone users, and Karnataka is among the states with the highest internet penetration. Can the proposed Authority mine and analyse the vast amounts of data on social media while ensuring that no citizen's right to free speech is violated? More importantly, even if it could, should it? 'Fake news' is defined by the Bill as false or inaccurate reporting, editing that distorts facts and purely fabricated content. Misinformation is 'knowingly' or 'recklessly' spreading falsehoods, with exceptions for religious sermons, satire, and 'artistic expression'. Evidently, the government of Karnataka, not satisfied with setting itself up as the arbiter of Truth, seeks to define Art as well. It also wishes to prosecute what it deems as going against 'feminism' and 'Sanatan Dharma'. The Bill compounds the sin of loosely worded and vague provisions with harsh punishment: Offenders face fines up to Rs 10 lakh, seven years' imprisonment or both. It flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shreya Singhal (2013) case and the Bombay High Court verdict on the Centre's IT Rules in 2024, both of which warned against the dangers of ill-defined legal provisions encroaching on free speech. India already has laws on defamation and for protecting 'hurt sentiments', which are often weaponised by governments to curb fundamental freedoms. Karnataka's capital is a hub of innovation, and of a start-up culture that has the potential to propel the state's and the country's economy forward. The government must recognise that innovation and censorship do not go together. Fifty years after the Emergency, the lesson on the dangers of state excess and overreach should have been internalised by Congress governments, including in Karnataka. As Justice Gautam Patel noted in the Bombay HC's 2024 verdict, 'Every attempt to whittle down a fundamental right must be resisted root and branch.' Misinformation and fake news are indeed problems of the present and future. Addressing them requires digital literacy, which involves going to schools to ensure that the next generation is equipped to sift fact from falsehood. Such programmes require finesse, time and the right intent. Not a draconian law — the Bill needs to be binned.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Bihar voter roll revision: Why having to prove you are an Indian citizenship is a nightmare
The Election Commission of India's decision to ask for proof of citizenship from voters as part of a special intensive revision of the voter rolls in Bihar has once again shone a light on how difficult it is to prove citizenship in India. As part of the exercise, individuals whose names are not on the 2003 voter list will need to prove that they are Indian citizens. According to India's citizenship law, depending on the year in which one was born, this may require providing proof that one was born in India, as well as proof that one or both of one's parents were born in India as well. The citizenship proof requirement has been criticised by opposition parties in Bihar and the rest of India for its potential for voter exclusion. Bihar is part of a trend. Citizenship has been a major theme of the past decade in Indian politics. An exercise in 2019 to update the National Register of Citizens in Assam required residents to prove citizenship. In that same year, the Bharatiya Janata Party's manifesto included a promise to draw up a National Register of Citizens across the country. This is concerning since proving citizenship can be an onerous task in India. There is no one single single document that proves Indian citizen, for example. According to legal experts that Scroll spoke with, the Indian state's failure to provide easy and universal access to foundational documents creates a precarious system where citizenship can be questioned at any time, turning a fundamental right into a burden, especially for the country's most marginalised. What the law says Only foreign nationals who take up Indian citizenship are granted actual citizenship certificates. People actually born Indian do not have any such document. Thus, if asked to prove her citizenship, an Indian who is citizen by birth would have to produce a complex set of papers. For those born before 1987, proof of birth within India will be required. Those born after will need three sets of documents: proof of their birth in India, proof of their parent's citizenship and proof of their relationship with their parent. The commonly held idea that identity documents prove citizenship is not true in law. The Supreme Court and different High Courts have over the years held that documents such as Aadhaar card, voter identity card, permanent account card and a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Secretary, as well as ownership of a bank account or property are not evidence of citizenship. Red tape labyrinth This legal framework for proving citizenship would provide a challenge for most Indians. The biggest obstacle is that India has a massive documentation deficit. 'Prior to 1987, there aren't very good birth records maintained, especially in rural India,' said Rupali Samuel, an advocate at the Supreme Court who works on citizenship issues. 'Many births also happen at home. In a state like Bihar, you have a lot of remote village areas and adivasi communities where rural birth is not well documented.' Darshana Mitra, an assistant professor of law at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, pointed out that access to documents is often intertwined with class and privilege. 'The availability of documents becomes a function of literacy rate,' said Mitra, who is also co-founder and director of Parichay, a collaborative legal aid clinic that works on citizenship deprivation and statelessness in Assam. 'If you don't go to school and then don't go on to hold formal employment, you lose out on two levels of documents.' Naming maze Even when documents exist, they are often riddled with inconsistencies. 'In India, culturally, we don't name babies at birth,' Samuel noted. 'The name can be given after a ritual later on. So a lot of birth certificates are blank or they may not have the names of one or both parents.' This problem is compounded by the complexities of names in India. Latin spellings for Indian names are often not standardised, leading to wide variations. Furthermore, many Indian communities do keep surnames. 'Enumerators may unilaterally add suffixes like Kumar, Muhammad, Islam, Begum or Bai to give people two names,' Samuel said. This creates discrepancies across documents issued at different points in a person's life, which could be used to cast doubts on their citizenship. For those born after 1987, the challenge multiplies. 'Even a birth certificate is not enough because then you need to prove your parent's citizenship also,' said Samuel. 'The minute you start linking it to the status of your parents, a question mark can be raised on anyone's status along the line.' This creates a cascading burden of every-changing documentary proof that disproportionately harms the most vulnerable. 'We're generally not good with documents,' said Shahrukh Alam, an advocate at the Supreme Court. 'The state demands too many of them from people who don't have them, who can't get them made and who have no access to those kinds of resources.' Hurting Indians This has a real human cost explained Aashish Yadav, a PhD Candidate and research assistant at the Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness at Melbourne Law School. 'People who suffer are those who are poor, who are marginalised, who have documents but may not have the time or a day off to get a document updated and meet new requirements,' he said. He added that this was widely documented during the National Register of Citizens-preparation exercise in Assam. Specific communities face unique hurdles. 'Migrant workers whose children are born in other parts of the country may not have access to those records or even speak the local language in which the documents are issued,' said Samuel. 'Transgender individuals, often ostracised by their families, may have documents with different names.' Mitra pointed out, based on her experience working in Assam, the predicament of women from marginalised communities whose births were not registered, who did not enter formal education and did not inherit any property from their paternal families. 'Such women have no connection with their parents in any documents,' she said. The absence of any guidelines on what qualifies as definitive proof of citizenship puts immense discretion in the hands of low level bureaucrats, said Yadav. 'There are no fixed goal posts,' he said. 'By design, the demands of the officials will change from region to region, community to community and person to person, without following due process and upholding fundamental rights of persons. This ambiguity creates fertile ground for profiling. 'Most likely, those who are Bengali Muslims will be looked at with suspicion,' warned Samuel. 'When you are looking at them with suspicion, then any issue they have with the documents becomes a reason to question their citizenship status.' Indeed, as Scroll has extensively reported, most of the alleged foreigners being pushed out in anti-immigrant drives in Assam and the rest of India are Bengali Muslims on suspicion of being Bangladeshis. Rethinking citizenship Given these deep-seated problems, is a single, definitive citizenship document the solution? Experts Scroll spoke with were sceptical. They argued that the problem isn't administrative, but political. Alam said that the experience with Aadhar and the yet-to-be-notified National Register of Citizens in Assam showed that the problem is not document-centric. 'It's about catching people out,' she said. 'You yourself create a particular documentary threshold and a few years later, if you think that's not enough of a net, you say, 'Well, this is not enough, I want something else'.' Yadav echoed this concern, pointing out that any such exercise, however well-intentioned, would inevitably lead to exclusion. 'Even the most benevolent rollout of a citizenship document now would still lead to people being found not eligible,' he said. 'This has been observed in many countries where such bureaucratic exercises have created statelessness.' There is no data in the public domain, as Alam pointed out, to suggest that non-citizens are voting in large numbers. The push for documentation appears to be driven by a political project of exclusion rather than an administrative need for clarity, she said. Experts suggested that instead of focusing on retrospective citizenship verification exercises, India needs to first invest in its social infrastructure. Mitra argued that the state, which has failed to provide universal access to documentation, cannot then penalise citizens for not possessing it. 'The state creates 'illegal immigrants' by refusing to recognise their citizenship,' she said. The solution, she suggested, lies in guaranteeing effective social services. 'If the state can guarantee social services from birth, like 100% birth registration and school enrolment, everyone will have the necessary documents.'
