top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

HC denies shield to anti-CEC protesters

Court says it will intervene if specific illegalities are brought to its notice Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to pass blanket orders against police detentions of people protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while assuring that it would take action if specific illegalities are brought before it. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sagar Devre, who alleged that Mumbai police illegally detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators,...

HC denies shield to anti-CEC protesters

Court says it will intervene if specific illegalities are brought to its notice Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to pass blanket orders against police detentions of people protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while assuring that it would take action if specific illegalities are brought before it. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sagar Devre, who alleged that Mumbai police illegally detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, including women and students, who took out marches in solidarity with agitations in the national capital over the weekend. Advocate Manish Tomar, representing the petitioner, urged the court to issue an interim order restraining the police from making further detentions during peaceful demonstrations. A division bench, however, declined the plea for a general stay on police action.
Court’s Assurance "We cannot pass a blanket order saying no person shall be detained. You point out if there is any such instance, we will take care. We will not permit anything wrong," the court observed. Additional Government Pleader Manish Upadhye sought time to seek instructions from the concerned authorities on the claims made in the petition. Accepting the request, the high court adjourned the matter and posted the plea for further hearing on October 19. Devre's plea sought protection of the fundamental rights of citizens, peaceful demonstrators, lawyers and others in connection with the protests in the national capital against the CEC. Terming it as an issue involving the fundamental right of people, the PIL said it was filed to protect a simple freedom of every Mumbai resident citizens – to walk freely on the city roads, to stand peacefully with others, or to stay in one’s home “without being lifted and carried away” by the police without an individual reason. It mentioned how students were allegedly picked up from their homes in connection with protest cases dating back to July 2026, which the petition said had already been quashed by the Supreme Court. Making it clear that the challenge was not against the police’s legal authority to regulate public assemblies or the political positions taken by protesters, the petitioner claimed it was to question the practice of detaining people without individualised, lawful and recorded reasons, or using previously quashed cases and past detentions against them. Invoking Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, the plea argued that coercive action based merely on a person's association, appearance on a list, previous detention or presence in a public place would amount to arbitrary state action. It further contended that a quashed FIR could not be used as a continuing basis for hostile discriminatory treatment as a ‘permanent mark’ against a citizen since "a quashed FIR is no FIR at all”. The PIL seeks the court's declaration as 'unconstitutional' the sweeping detention of peaceful demonstrators, pedestrians and others without lawful individual justification. It seeks an independent inquiry into the alleged police excesses, preservation of CCTV footage, police records, a verified list of the detenus and framing of standard operating procedures to govern policing action during mass-protests. Long detentions The petitioner contended that the detentions went beyond the demonstrators to include bystanders and passers-by, among them women, a mother with a child and a senior citizen. Among those detained included Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Arun Gandhi, his daughter Kasturi, actor Imran Khan, activists Feroze Mithiborwala, S. L. Guddi, scores of youth and students, though they were released after several hours of detention by various police stations.

Lingua Pragmatica

Correspondent
Mar 19, 2025
3 min read

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page