Uttar Pradesh’s Ban on Caste-Based Gatherings Could Silence the Marginalised

The Order Appears to Be Overreach, Aimed at Shielding the Ruling Party’s Ideology

September 23, 2025

The Uttar Pradesh government has issued a directive banning caste-based political rallies, describing it as a step to preserve national unity and public order. However, the measure restricts democratic rights for communities that depend on public assembly to resist caste discrimination. It also represents a significant expansion of state power in ways that appear aligned with political interests.

The Limits of State Power

The Indian Constitution recognises the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), which this measure appears to curb. The state may restrict these rights only under conditions laid out in Article 19(2) and Article 19(3). These include concerns over the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.

But the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that limitations on these rights must be reasonable, must address a genuine threat to public order, and must be proportionate to that threat. The Uttar Pradesh order does not appear to meet these standards. It provides no basis to show that all caste-based rallies pose a credible risk of violence, and it makes no distinction between gatherings that incite hatred and those that press legitimate demands for justice.

Dalit groups gather to demand access to land, backward class communities march to protect their share in reservations, and caste associations hold meetings to honour their reformers. These acts are integral to public life and fall within the protected space of constitutional rights.

A government cannot restrict all forms of caste-based assembly simply because some events have occasionally led to unrest. Constitutional law requires that restrictions on fundamental rights be narrowly applied to specific acts that threaten public order, rather than entire categories of expression. The Constitution permits such limits only when the state can demonstrate a specific and imminent danger.

Administrative Measures That Disempower

The directive also includes instructions to police officers to remove caste identifiers from arrest memos, station records and other official documents, except when the offence is under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as reported by The Indian Express. However, in India’s criminal justice system, caste is often a factor in determining how police respond to a complaint, whom they arrest and whether they pursue investigations seriously. Without this data, it becomes harder to study patterns of bias and discrimination within law enforcement.

Removing caste data from records can also make it difficult to prove that crimes were motivated by caste-based prejudice. For example, if a Dalit man is attacked for riding a horse during his wedding, or if an inter-caste couple is harassed, the caste of the victim is essential to understanding the intent behind the offence. Without that information, such acts may be treated as ordinary crimes rather than hate crimes, and this reduces both visibility and accountability.

On paper, the order presents an image of caste neutrality. In practice, it removes the tools needed to challenge caste injustice.

Discretion Without Safeguards

By treating all caste-based gatherings as unlawful, the order grants broad discretionary powers to police officers and district administrators. These officials are now responsible for deciding which events count as caste-related and whether they should be disallowed. In a context where caste continues to determine access to power and affect how policing is carried out, this kind of discretion creates serious risk of selective enforcement.

Communities that experience exclusion and discrimination are most vulnerable to such decisions. A rally demanding unpaid wages or protesting a caste-based assault could now be blocked or criminalised. Meanwhile, dominant caste groups may avoid scrutiny by describing their events in neutral or religious terms. Although the order applies uniformly on paper, its enforcement is likely to produce highly unequal outcomes.

Political Calculations and Strategic Silencing

The ban cannot be viewed in isolation from the political environment in Uttar Pradesh and the interests of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Opposition parties such as the Samajwadi Party have drawn strength from Dalit and backward caste voters. Their mobilisation strategies are deeply linked to caste identity. Blocking caste rallies reduces their ability to organise and reach their constituencies.

Further, across India, momentum has grown not just for a caste census, but for its full implementation in the upcoming national enumeration. Such a census would expose how wealth, education and political representation remain concentrated among a limited number of upper-caste groups. The data would disrupt the narrative of cultural and political unity often promoted by majoritarian ideologies, including the BJP’s vision of Hindu nationalism.

A caste census would reveal the extent of inequality within the Hindu community itself, drawing attention away from external groups, mostly Muslims and Christians, who have often been portrayed by Hindu nationalists as threats. By exposing internal disparities in access to wealth, education and power, the data would challenge the idea of a unified Hindu bloc. This creates political risk for narratives built on cohesion and majoritarian identity. The order appears intended to pre-empt such risks by limiting the possibility of caste-based mobilisation once the data becomes available.

Risks to Constitutional Democracy

The ban functions as a way to push caste concerns out of the political domain altogether. By criminalising public assembly based on caste identity, the state sends a message that caste discrimination is no longer a legitimate subject for political action or collective protest. This raises a deeper question about whether political parties and governments are now expected to behave as if caste-based exclusion no longer exists, and whether those responsible for sustained discrimination should be shielded from public accountability. The move suggests an effort not to address caste injustice but to deny it any space in democratic discourse.

A government that values equality would use caste data to make fair policies. One that fears the data chooses control and denial. That choice takes away tools from the oppressed and weakens the protections that keep democracy alive.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.