PUDR flags threat to free political speech, urges release of Andhra civil rights leaders

By A Representative

The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) has condemned the arrest of Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) vice-president Kranthi Chaitanya and fellow activist Mohan Krishna, who were taken into custody on January 9 and remanded the next day. The duo has been booked over allegedly “provocative banners” displayed ahead of a civil liberties conference in Tirupati.

According to the FIR, filed on a complaint by the president of the Sanatana Dharma Protection Committee, the banners amounted to offences ranging from promoting enmity between religious groups to criminal conspiracy, breach of peace, obscenity and insulting the Constitution and national symbols. The police invoked multiple provisions, including Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the new clause that replaces sedition.

One banner cited in the complaint announced the “Civil Liberties Union-20th State Conference, Tirupati, January 10–11, 2026” and called for action against “Hindu extremists who are killing rationalists and democrats.” It carried photographs of assassinated rationalists and journalists Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M.M. Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh. PUDR said the banner highlighted documented violence against dissenters. Investigations in each of these assassinations have linked suspects to Hindutva organisations, including the Sanatan Sanstha. PUDR also noted that persons accused in the Gauri Lankesh and Kalburgi cases who are out on bail were publicly felicitated in Karnataka in February 2025 as “Hindu Tigers.” One of the accused, Shrikant Pangarkar, contested a civic election in Jalna, Maharashtra, on January 15, 2026.

The rights group said the FIR deliberately recasts a political demand—accountability for murders of democrats—as communal provocation. It criticised the additional use of national honour laws triggered by a satirical alteration of the Lion Capital emblem on one of the banners, which replaced lions with bull faces and modified “Satyameva Jayate” to “Satyameva Parajayate” (Defeat of Truth). PUDR argued that the Constitution protects criticism and satire when there is no incitement to violence.

Pointing to judicial precedents, PUDR recalled that cartoonist Aseem Trivedi faced prosecution under sedition laws in 2012 for similar representations of national symbols, before the Bombay High Court ruled that offensive or humourless depictions do not justify curtailing expression without intent to cause disorder (click here). It cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India that speech can be restricted only when it incites violence, not merely when it offends (). More recent Supreme Court rulings have reiterated that speech must be judged by the standards of “reasonable persons,” not those who are easily offended or oversensitive, including in cases available here and here.

PUDR said the use of Section 152 BNS, which it describes as broader and vaguer than the sedition clause it replaces, reflects how the law is likely to be deployed to curb dissent. It added that civil liberties organisations face mounting pressure, citing the Bhima Koregaon arrests as an example.

The statement noted APCLC’s decades-long record since its founding in 1974, including exposing extrajudicial killings and playing a key role in a 2009 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment requiring murder FIRs against police personnel involved in encounter deaths. The organisation’s advocacy, PUDR said, has come at great cost, including multiple activist murders in the 2000s and recurrent arrests and raids.

PUDR said the FIR invokes non-bailable offences carrying a minimum seven-year sentence and warned that the arrests deepen the erosion of democratic freedoms. “These arrests are wholly unjustified and contribute to the rapid erosion of democratic freedoms essential for sustaining a democracy,” it said.

The organisation demanded the immediate and unconditional release of Kranthi Chaitanya and Mohan Krishna.

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.

Search This Blog