Can India Fight Radicalisation Without Religious Profiling? The Gujarat SOP Debate Explained

On June 15, the Superintendent of Police in the Gujarat State Police Services (SPS), Praful Vaniya, issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Gujarat’s new Anti Radicalisation Cell (ARC).

The reported SOP on anti-radicalisation triggered a wider national debate over how democracies should balance national security with constitutional freedoms. It reportedly directs police to identify, monitor and intervene in cases of suspected radicalisation. While the government says the initiative is aimed at preventing terrorism and violent extremism, critics argue that several reported provisions risk conflating ordinary religious practices, digital privacy tools and constitutionally protected conduct with indicators of radicalization.

The controversy has reignited longstanding questions about profiling, surveillance and the limits of preventive policing. It also raises a broader policy issue: can India strengthen counter-radicalisation efforts without undermining the constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, free expression and religious freedom? Understanding the debate requires examining both the reported contents of the SOP and the legal principles that govern state action.

What is Gujarat's Anti-Radicalisation SOP?

The Gujarat State Intelligence Bureau has reportedly issued a Standard Operating Procedure directing every district and police commissionerate to establish Anti-Radicalisation Cells (ARCs). According to reports, the SOP is designed to help police identify early signs of radicalisation, improve intelligence gathering, undertake counselling and rehabilitation where appropriate, and coordinate with other security agencies. Monthly reports from district units are to be submitted to the State Intelligence Bureau.

The reported SOP defines radicalisation as a process through which an individual adopts extremist or anti-national ideas that threaten the country's unity and seeks to influence others to adopt similar beliefs. It outlines a framework covering prevention, detection, counselling and, where criminal conduct is suspected, legal action.

The BJP had promised the creation of anti-radicalisation cells in its 2022 Gujarat Assembly election manifesto, and the present framework is widely seen as the implementation of that commitment.

Why has the SOP sparked controversy?

The controversy stems not from the objective of preventing violent extremism—which is widely accepted as a legitimate function of the state—but from concerns over how radicalisation is defined and detected.

Civil liberties groups, opposition leaders and legal experts argue that several reported indicators listed in the SOP appear to blur the distinction between constitutionally protected religious expression and conduct that may legitimately attract police scrutiny. Critics contend that if ordinary religious practices become grounds for surveillance, the framework could amount to religious profiling rather than evidence-based policing.

Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas has urged the Gujarat government to suspend implementation of the reported SOP pending an independent constitutional review. In his letter to the Chief Minister, he argued that any provisions permitting surveillance based on religion, attire, language or other protected characteristics should be reconsidered because they may conflict with constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom.

Which provisions have raised concerns?

Although the Gujarat government has not officially released the reported confidential SOP, media reports describing its contents have generated significant debate.

According to these reports, the document asks police to monitor behavioural, digital and community indicators that may suggest an individual is becoming radicalised. Some reported indicators include extensive use of encrypted messaging platforms, VPN services, contact with extremist organisations, possession of extremist propaganda, suspicious procurement of explosive precursor chemicals, and support for designated terrorist organisations.

Critics argue that some of the reported indicators are quite problematic. Media reports claim the SOP also references changes in religious appearance, wearing certain forms of religious attire, increased use of Arabic expressions, strong reactions to incidents affecting Muslim communities globally, frequent visits to particular religious institutions and other forms of religious observance.

What does the Constitution say about profiling?

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly use the phrase "religious profiling," but several fundamental rights provide safeguards against discriminatory state action.

Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution protects citizens from discriminatory actions from the state as well as provide equality before the law.

Article 19 protects freedoms including speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, public order and national security.

Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment, recognises privacy as a fundamental right while allowing proportionate restrictions through law for legitimate state objectives. This could be considered the strongest provisions against such profiling mentioned in the Constitution.

Articles 25 and 26 protect freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health.

Constitutional experts therefore distinguish between profiling based on protected identity and targeted investigation based on credible evidence of unlawful conduct. The latter is generally recognised as a legitimate policing function, while the former raises concerns regarding equality, due process and non-discrimination.

How do other democracies approach counter-radicalisation?

Many democracies have developed preventive counter-radicalisation programmes, although their approaches vary considerably.

The United Kingdom's Prevent programme requires teachers, healthcare workers and public officials to identify individuals considered vulnerable to radicalisation and refer them for voluntary support.

The United States generally relies more heavily on intelligence-led investigations focused on specific threats rather than broad community monitoring. The controversial Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, broadened the surveillance and investigative powers of federal agencies.

Many experts increasingly argue that successful counter-radicalisation depends not only on policing but also on education, social inclusion, mental health support and credible community engagement.

Can security and civil liberties coexist?

They must. Modern democracies have a legitimate responsibility to prevent terrorism, violent extremism and organised attacks but they also have a duty to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens.

Surveillance should be based on credible intelligence, judicial oversight where required, proportionality and clear legal standards rather than assumptions linked to religion, ethnicity or protected identity.

Clear distinction must also be made between holding controversial or unpopular beliefs, which may remain constitutionally protected, and preparing or inciting violence, which can legitimately attract criminal investigation.

The Gujarat debate therefore reflects a broader challenge confronting democracies worldwide. As extremist groups increasingly exploit digital platforms and encrypted communications, governments seek stronger preventive powers. Yet maintaining public trust requires ensuring that these powers are exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy and religious freedom.