In a bold move to safeguard the rights of children, Don Bosco Gujarat, in collaboration with Just Rights for Children, launched a 100-day campaign to eradicate child marriage across Anand, Vadodara, and Chhotaudepur districts. The campaign was inaugurated on 13 October 2025 by Don Bosco Kawant and Don Bosco Kapadvanj, both of which have long championed the dignity and future of children. This regional initiative aligns with the national movement Bal Vivah Mukt Bharat (Child Marriage-Free India), launched by Union Minister Smt. Annapurna Devi in November 2024 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.

Under the national umbrella, DISHA Don Bosco, Kawant, and DRISTI Don Bosco, Kapadvanj — partners of the Just Rights for Children Alliance — have played a pivotal role in grassroots awareness and prevention. Nationwide, the campaign has prevented over 1.9 lakh child marriages, offering thousands of children the chance to pursue education and personal growth.

The 100-day intensive awareness drive, running from 1 November 2025 to 26 January 2026, aims to mobilize communities, strengthen local participation, and foster collaboration among stakeholders. Religious leaders — pujaris, maulanas, granthis — along with marriage enablers such as caterers, printers, musicians, and halwais, will be engaged to ensure vigilance and accountability. Village panchayats will play a key role in declaring child marriage-free zones. Between June and September 2025, Don Bosco teams profiled 150 villages, conducted community meetings, painted awareness messages on walls in 25 villages, and collected pledge letters from 150 families. A national workshop titled Voices of Survivors brought together 53 participants who shared stories of resilience and transformation. Don Bosco Gujarat continues its mission to educate, empower, and protect young lives. The campaign stands as a clarion call: every child deserves the right to grow, learn, and dream — free from the burden of early marriage.

After decades of marginalisation, the Adivasi and tea tribes of Assam have demonstrated renewed collective strength through massive rallies in Dibrugarh and Tinsukia in October 2025. These mobilisations, which evoked memories of the tragic Beltola mayhem in 2007, signal the community’s resolve to press for long-standing constitutional and welfare demands ahead of the 2026 Assam Assembly Elections. With an estimate of around 20% of the state’s population—the Adivasi community is poised to play a decisive role in the electoral outcome, making their demands a crucial political issue.

Scheduled Tribe (ST) Status: This is the community’s most significant and long-standing demand. Despite migrating to Assam over a century and a half ago to work as indentured labourers in tea gardens, they have been denied constitutional recognition as an ST, unlike in their states of origin. The All Adivasi Students’ Association of Assam (AASAA) argues that the government has demonstrated a lack of political will to grant this status, a demand promised by the BJP in its 2014 campaign. Granting ST status would provide safeguards and benefits essential for their socio-economic upliftment. Impact on electoral dynamics: With millions of votes at stake, the Adivasi community’s united front can determine electoral outcomes in numerous constituencies. By focusing on shared concerns and exercising their voting power strategically, they can hold parties accountable and make their demands a central issue in the election discourse.
The rallies also bring to the fore a crucial need for the community to maintain vigilance over their leadership. History shows instances where internal and external political forces have exploited the community’s aspirations for personal gain. By actively rejecting and boycotting leaders with questionable integrity, the Adivasis aim to protect their collective voice and rights.

The Delhi High Court, the top court for the national capital region, issued a directive to the federal government to respond to the petition seeking explanations for prolonged vacancies in the federal National Commission for Minorities (NCM). The bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed on Oct. 15 that vacant posts of the commission chairperson, vice-chairperson and five members have rendered it ineffective and inoperative.

The court responded to a public interest litigation filed by Mujahid Nafees, convenor of the Minority Coordination Committee, an organisation focused on the welfare of minorities. In the petition, Nafees alleged that the government’s negligence in filling the top posts was a violation of constitutional safeguards for the minorities in the country. The National Commission for Minorities Act 1992 mandates the federal government to constitute the commission as a quasi-judicial body to safeguard the rights of minority communities. The commission remained largely defunct after several of its members moved out since November 2024, following completion of their five-year term.

Religious minorities form around 18 percent of India’s 1.4 billion people, more than 80 percent of whom are Hindus. Muslims are the largest minority community, forming 14.2 percent of the population, followed by Christians at 2.3 percent and Sikhs at 1.7 percent. The other religious minorities are Buddhists and Zoroastrians, the latter also known as Parsis. The Commission is mandated to have one member each from the six notified minority communities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, and Jains.

In an interview, Cardinal Filipe Neri Ferrão, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI) and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), reflected on the meaning of synodality in today’s fast-changing and polarised world. He shared his hopes for the future Church in Asia, the vital role of the laity and youth, and the blessings he has received throughout his long and distinguished ministry as a priest and bishop. According to him, synodality means walking together, listening deeply, and discerning God’s will as a community. In today’s polarised world, especially with social media and AI sometimes dividing us, synodality offers a way to rediscover unity. It calls us to pause amidst the noise, to create spaces where voices, especially those often unheard, are genuinely listened to. This kind of collective listening and openness can help heal divisions not only within the Universal Church, but also beyond.

The Supreme Court of India on October 17 quashed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The FIRs, lodged by third-party complainants affiliated with right-wing Hindu groups, accused Christian educators and clergy of orchestrating mass conversions—charges the Court found to be legally untenable and procedurally flawed.

The apex court’s ruling, authored by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declared that “criminal law cannot be a tool to harass innocent citizens,” and emphasized that only the alleged victim or their immediate family may file a complaint of coercive conversion. The Court noted that none of the FIRs had been filed by actual victims, rendering them “incurably defective.”  Legal experts hailed the judgment as a watershed moment. “This ruling restores the sanctity of personal faith and curbs the weaponization of anti-conversion laws,” said constitutional scholar Anjali Menon. “It sends a clear message that religious choice is a matter of conscience, not criminal suspicion.”

The court’s decision also prompted a relook at pending cases across Uttar Pradesh, where dozens of FIRs had been filed under similar circumstances. “The judgment will encourage greater scrutiny of politically motivated complaints and protect minority communities from targeted harassment,” said advocate Ramesh Thomas, who represented several of the accused. In a poster circulated for public awareness following the judgment, the Court’s stance was summed up in bold clarity: “Faith is a matter of personal choice. No one else can police it.” As India navigates the tensions between religious plurality and political majoritarianism, this judgment stands as a constitutional compass—pointing firmly toward liberty, dignity, and the rule of law.