Dear Reader,

On 5 January, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgement denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Supreme Court Observer contends that the ruling represents constitutional abdication rather than judicial restraint, as the Court recast prolonged pre-trial detention—from a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21—into a contextual factor to be balanced against the UAPA’s stringent statutory framework. This approach departs from Union of India vs K A Najeeb (2021), which treated unconscionable delay in trial as a sufficient ground for bail.

The judgement, Supreme Court Observer argues, weakens safeguards on liberty by placing the burden on the accused to demonstrate prosecutorial or judicial fault for delay, while treating case complexity as an exculpatory factor for the state. The application of section 43D(5)—stringent bail provisions under UAPA—further collapses judicial scrutiny into accepting prosecution material at face value, particularly interpretive evidence such as speeches and meeting attendance. By distinguishing between ‘principal architects’ and other accused, the Court entrenches selective liberty, rendering Article 21’s guarantee uneven and setting a precedent that risks normalising indefinite pre-trial incarceration without trial.

The Reporters’ Collective investigates and finds that the Election Commission of India (ECI) deployed untested software during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 states, which flagged 3.66 crore voters as “suspicious” due to “logical discrepancies”—1.31 crore in West Bengal (17.11% of voters) and 2.35 crore in Madhya Pradesh (41.22% of voters)—putting their voting rights at risk. The software, used without written instructions, protocols, or manuals, relied on the digitisation of physical voter lists over 20 years old, carried out hastily across the states. No thorough tests were conducted to verify the quality or accuracy of these digitised records, likely leading to widespread misidentification. Additional voters across ten other states undergoing SIR were similarly flagged, yet the ECI provided no guidance for officials tasked with resolving these cases.

The investigation accessed ‘suspect lists’ for two states for the first time, highlighting the lack of transparency. Mid-process software adjustments, combined with opaque algorithms and the absence of public disclosure, left officials to manage flagged voters at their discretion. This represents the first instance of the ECI relying on unverified digital tools to challenge millions of established voters’ rights, exposing administrative failures that undermine confidence in India’s electoral process.

India’s deep-sea fishing policy aims to boost exports and employment by extending fishing into India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), following its focus on modernising fleets and licensing. However, critics—including fishing communities and some state governments such as Kerala—argue that the policy mainly benefits large, corporate fishing vessels over traditional fishers. They highlight concerns that prioritising licensing and corporate access neglects governance, sustainability, and legal protections for small-scale fishers, facilitating corporate entry with little consultation or support for marginalised groups.

Keraleeyam Masika reports that the anticipated consequences are both socio-economic and ecological. Critics argue that small and artisanal fishers will be displaced as mechanised deep-sea fleets outcompete traditional boats, accelerating overfishing and stressing marine ecosystems. They also warn that centralised revenue control and dispute resolution will weaken state authority and limit local benefit sharing. So also, mid-sea transhipment could enable opaque, potentially unregulated fishing practices and reduce employment at local landing centres. Overall, the policy risks eroding traditional livelihoods, worsening ecological degradation, and consolidating corporate dominance over India’s seas.

Relentless coastal erosion and intensifying cyclones have erased much of Old Podampetta, a fishing village in Odisha, forcing its residents into fragmented resettlements such as New Podampetta and Siddhant Nagar. The Migration Story reports that state-led relocation has scattered families, weakened access to fishing livelihoods, and stretched everyday life across long distances. As men increasingly migrate for longer periods—working on trawlers or in distant cities—the village’s social fabric has thinned, leaving behind settlements that are physically safer yet emotionally incomplete, detached from the sea-bound rhythms that once anchored the community. Amid this rupture, women have emerged as the custodians of memory and belonging.

Several times a week, they return to the abandoned remains of Old Podampetta at dawn to perform rituals, light lamps, and gather at shrines and courtyards that still hold meaning. These journeys are acts of quiet resistance—through prayer, shared meals, and storytelling, they briefly reconstruct a village that no longer exists. Their labour sustains cultural continuity in the absence of men and amid policy failure, showing how tradition, care, and collective remembrance become tools of survival when land, livelihood, and community are steadily claimed by the sea.

For more such stories from the grantees this week, please read on.

Warmly,

Sunil Rajshekhar
IPSMF