Gujarat Sachivalaya blacklists, denies entry to woman social activist: Will NHRC probe?

By Kantilal Parmar* 

I have approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) seeking an independent, impartial, and transparent investigation into a serious incident that took place at the Gujarat Secretariat in Gandhinagar on August 18, 2026.

The matter concerns social activist and women’s rights leader Chandrikaben Solanki, who, according to the information available to me, was denied an entry pass to the Secretariat when she went there to meet Gujarat’s Social Justice and Empowerment Minister, Dr. Manishaben Vakil, to raise an issue concerning social justice.

What is particularly troubling is that she was reportedly told that she was “blacklisted.”

For me, this raises a fundamental question: Can a citizen, particularly a woman social activist seeking to make a legitimate representation to the government, simply be denied entry to the state Secretariat without a clear legal and administrative basis?

If a citizen is denied access or placed on a blacklist, there should be a written order, a decision by a competent authority, clearly stated reasons, and a specific legal or regulatory basis for that action.

That is why I have asked the NHRC to examine the matter independently rather than allowing assumptions or allegations to determine the truth.

In my representation to the NHRC, I have requested an investigation into several basic but important questions regarding why Chandrikaben Solanki was denied an entry pass to the Secretariat, whether any written government order exists declaring her “blacklisted,” and if so, which authority issued it and on what date. I have also sought clarity on the law, rule, circular, security order, or administrative provision under which she was prevented from entering, whether she was given an opportunity to know the reasons or present her side, whether others were permitted entry on the same day, and if so, why a different standard was allegedly applied to her. I have further asked whether any discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, or social identity took place.

These are not questions I believe should be answered through political statements or speculation. They should be answered through official records and an impartial inquiry.

I have also requested that all relevant evidence from August 18 be immediately preserved, including CCTV footage from the Secretariat, visitor and pass registers, pass application and processing records, any records relating to a blacklist or restricted-entry decision, official orders, file notes, security personnel duty records, and other relevant documentary and digital evidence. Preserving this material is important to establish what actually happened and who took the relevant decisions.

I want to make one point very clear: my objective is not to prejudge or falsely accuse any individual.

If there was a legitimate security concern or a lawful reason for denying entry, that reason should be established through the official process. But if the investigation finds that the action was arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to fundamental rights, then those responsible should face appropriate legal action.

I have asked the NHRC to examine the incident in the context of the constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, including equality before the law, protection against discrimination, freedoms guaranteed to citizens, and the right to live with dignity.

The issue becomes even more serious if an investigation establishes that caste-based discrimination took place or that a member of a Scheduled Caste was subjected to unlawful treatment. In that event, I have requested that the authorities consider appropriate action under all applicable laws, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, wherever its provisions are found to apply.

Through my complaint, I have requested the NHRC to treat the matter as an alleged human rights violation, seek a detailed report from the Gujarat Government and the concerned authorities, obtain the original copy of any alleged “blacklist” order along with the relevant file notes and legal basis, ensure preservation of CCTV footage and all relevant evidence, order or recommend an independent and impartial investigation if necessary, and recommend appropriate action against responsible officials if discrimination or a human rights violation is established. I have also requested that Chandrikaben Solanki be given a fair opportunity to make her representation before the government, that neither she nor other human rights activists connected with the matter face retaliation, threats, or harassment, that appropriate relief or compensation be considered if a violation is established, and that the Commission consider taking suo motu cognizance or ordering a special inquiry if it deems the matter sufficiently serious and of public importance.

For me, this case is not merely about an entry pass.

It is about whether ordinary citizens and social activists can approach their own government without arbitrary barriers. It is about transparency in the exercise of administrative power. And it is about ensuring that constitutional rights do not remain merely words on paper.

We frequently hear public commitments about women’s empowerment, women’s rights, and campaigns such as Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao. Those commitments must also be reflected in the way women who raise social and public-interest issues are treated by government institutions.

If Chandrikaben Solanki was legitimately denied entry for a lawful reason, the authorities should state that reason clearly and transparently. If, however, she was arbitrarily “blacklisted” or denied access without lawful authority, due process, or a legitimate justification, then that raises a much more serious question about the protection of citizens’ human rights.

I have therefore asked the NHRC to establish the facts independently, preserve the evidence, examine the constitutional and legal issues, and ensure accountability wherever the evidence warrants it.

Truth should be established through records, evidence, and an impartial investigation—not through silence or assumptions.

---

*Dalit rights activist, Ahmedabad