In a move that has sparked widespread debate about the boundaries of freedom of expression and the right to dissent, Sumaiyya Rana, a prominent social activist and national spokesperson of the Samajwadi Party (SP), was served a legal notice by the Lucknow police over her social media posts opposing the Waqf Amendment Bill. This action by law enforcement has stirred concerns among civil rights groups and political leaders alike, raising questions about the shrinking space for democratic dialogue in the country.
Sumaiyya Rana, daughter of renowned Urdu poet Munawwar Rana, has been an outspoken critic of various policies that she believes undermine the rights of minority communities in India. Her recent posts condemning the provisions of the Waqf Amendment Bill reportedly caught the attention of authorities, who accused her of inciting unrest through her public statements.
The police, invoking provisions under the newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), issued a notice under Section 130 — a preventive measure that allows authorities to demand a bond of good behavior from an individual considered likely to disturb public peace. According to the notice, Rana was directed to appear before a magistrate and show cause as to why she should not be asked to furnish a personal bond of ₹10 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount, committing to maintain peace and not post any content that could "incite disturbance."
Rana, in her response, strongly criticized the administration’s actions. She stated that such notices are being used as tools of intimidation against those who question the government’s policies or raise concerns about issues affecting marginalized communities. "This is not about public peace. This is about silencing dissent. I have every right, as a citizen of this country, to voice my opinion on a matter that directly affects the Muslim community," she said during a press briefing. She also added that she would challenge the notice in court and continue to speak up against what she described as an unjust law.
The incident follows a series of events in which Rana was reportedly placed under house arrest to prevent her from protesting against the Waqf Amendment Bill, which was recently passed in Parliament. The bill, according to legal experts and activists, significantly alters the control and management of Waqf properties, stripping traditional Waqf boards of many of their rights and vesting greater powers in the state machinery.
Critics argue that the bill violates several constitutional provisions, including Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own religious affairs; Article 14, which ensures equality before the law; and Article 300A, which protects citizens from being deprived of property without due legal authority. Activists like Rana have pointed out that the bill could lead to the arbitrary acquisition and misuse of Waqf properties, many of which are centuries-old endowments meant for charitable and religious purposes.
Sumaiyya Rana's supporters see the police action as a clear example of state overreach and a tactic to create a chilling effect on free speech. Several leaders from the opposition, including members of the Samajwadi Party and other secular-leaning parties, came out in support of her, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the democratic right to protest and criticize the government. “This government cannot tolerate even a whisper of disagreement. What harm is there in questioning a bill that affects a large section of the community?” a senior SP leader remarked.
Human rights organizations have also taken note of the developments. Legal experts warn that the increasing use of preventive laws and bonds of good conduct against activists and journalists could set a dangerous precedent. "If raising concerns about public policy becomes a ground for criminal action, then we are heading toward a very undemocratic space," a human rights lawyer said.
Meanwhile, social media has erupted with reactions from both sides. While some users criticized the government for targeting dissenters, others supported the police's action, accusing Rana of politicizing religious issues and disturbing communal harmony. However, the broader consensus among neutral observers remains that dissent, when expressed peacefully and within constitutional boundaries, should not be treated as a crime.
Sumaiyya Rana remains defiant in the face of what she terms as “state bullying.” She reiterated that her fight is not just about the Waqf Bill but about preserving the democratic ethos of the country. “Today it is me, tomorrow it could be any citizen who dares to speak. We must stand up before silence becomes the new normal,” she said in a public statement.
As legal proceedings continue, this incident has become emblematic of the larger struggle between civic activism and authoritative clampdowns. It underlines the urgent need for preserving spaces for civil discourse and ensuring that voices of dissent, even if unpopular, are heard without the fear of persecution.