Gujarat police SOP sparks questions over communal profiling

By Shabnam Hashmi* 

The Gujarat government must be held accountable for what appears to be a deeply disturbing instance of state-sponsored communal profiling.

Ahmedabad resident Sahal Qureshi recently shared with me an official document, which I translated with the help of AI before forwarding it to several media organisations and political leaders. 

I have also chosen to make it public because this demands widespread attention and urgent public debate. This is not a moment for silence or perfunctory statements. Political parties, particularly the opposition, as well as civil society organisations, must treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves.

The document is an operational Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), along with a "Roadmap," issued by the State Intelligence Bureau of the Gujarat Police on June 1, 2026, for a newly constituted statewide Anti-Radicalisation Cell (ARC).

If authentic, this SOP raises profoundly troubling constitutional and democratic concerns. Under the guise of "national security," it appears to institutionalise communal profiling and expand state surveillance in ways that disproportionately target the Muslim community.

Among its most alarming features is the manner in which it identifies routine religious practices and personal choices as indicators of so-called "radicalisation." Under its section on "Detection," it reportedly lists maintaining a beard, wearing a niqab, using common Arabic greetings, or observing itikaf during Ramadan as behavioural markers warranting police attention. These are ordinary expressions of faith, protected by the Constitution, not evidence of criminal intent.

The document also reportedly instructs police personnel to monitor individuals who leave educational institutions or employment citing "Islamic duty," and those expressing strong opinions about global events affecting Muslims. It effectively treats personal choices and political dissent as grounds for suspicion.

Equally disturbing is the scale of surveillance envisaged. The SOP reportedly calls for detailed dossiers on individuals, monitoring of digital activity, including the use of encrypted messaging platforms such as Signal or VPNs, scrutiny of financial transactions, and mapping of maulanas teaching in madrasas. Such measures point towards intrusive and indiscriminate surveillance rather than evidence-based policing.

The document further envisages close coordination with the Special Operations Group (SOG) and prison authorities, while referring to legal provisions under laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). If these extraordinary powers are deployed on the basis of vague and discriminatory indicators, the consequences for civil liberties could be devastating.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the SOP is that it does not define "radicalisation" anywhere. This omission gives enormous discretion to the authorities, allowing entirely lawful conduct to become grounds for suspicion. Downloading an encrypted application, using a VPN, or organising a seminar could potentially become sufficient to invite surveillance and the creation of a criminal dossier.

What is equally striking is that the document appears to focus exclusively on Muslims. This raises a fundamental question: why is radicalisation viewed only through the lens of a religious minority? What about the public distribution of trishuls, repeated instances of mob lynching, or organised campaigns of hate speech and violence? If these acts do not fall within the state's understanding of radicalisation, while ordinary religious observance and digital privacy do, then the standard being applied is plainly discriminatory.

Legal experts must closely examine this SOP for its compatibility with the Constitution, particularly the guarantees of equality under Article 14, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, the right to life and privacy under Article 21, and freedom of religion under Article 25. If the document is genuine, the Gujarat government owes the public a clear explanation. Democratic accountability demands transparency, judicial scrutiny, and an immediate public response.

---

*Human rights leader