This article presents an analysis of the complete profile of senior advocate Indira Jaising, covering major controversies associated with the CAA, criticism of UAPA and new criminal laws, and advocacy for Rohingya refugees, to the suspension of Lawyers Collective’s FCRA licence and scrutiny over foreign funding, including grants from Open Society Foundations backed by George Soros.
On January 27, 2026, following the backlash against student protests on UGC equity rules, Indira Jaising said “the case was filed because the 2012 regulations were inadequate. She described the opposition as an “upper-caste reaction” to efforts by SC, ST and OBC communities to address discrimination, called it disturbing, and said she hoped the Supreme Court would deal with the issue rationally while noting the rules still need strengthening.”
Who Is Indira Jaising?
Indira Jaising, born on June 3, 1940, in Mumbai to a Sindhi Hindu family, rose to prominence as a senior advocate championing human and women’s rights. She holds a Bachelor of Arts from Bangalore University and a Master of Laws from the University of Bombay (1962), bolstered by a fellowship at London’s Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and a visiting scholar role at Columbia University. In 1986, she became the first woman designated Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court, followed by her appointment as Bharat’s first female Additional Solicitor General from 2009 to 2014. She served on the UN’s CEDAW committee (2009-2018) and received the Padma Shri in 2005. Married to senior advocate Anand Grover since 1981, they co-founded Lawyers Collective, an NGO focused on underprivileged rights.
FCRA Suspension and Foreign Funding Scrutiny
Lawyers Collective faced severe repercussions over foreign funding. On June 1, 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs suspended its FCRA registration. A government intelligence report revealed ₹4.1 crore from George Soros-backed Open Society Foundations, linked to activities like religious conversion and “regime change” narratives. The CBI filed an FIR on June 13, 2019, against Jaising, Grover, and the NGO, charging criminal conspiracy, breach of trust under IPC, FCRA 2010 violations, and Prevention of Corruption Act offenses. Raids hit their Delhi office and residence on July 11, 2019. The MHA alleged misuse of ₹13 lakh in foreign funds for advocacy, rallies, and media campaigns targeting MPs in 2009, 2011, and 2014.
Alleged PFI Links to Anti-CAA Protests
Jaising’s role in anti-CAA agitation drew MHA allegations of PFI funding. On January 28, 2020, reports surfaced that the Kerala-based Popular Front of India (PFI), banned later for terror links, transferred ₹4 lakh to Jaising from a Kozhikode account, part of ₹77 lakh to lawyers including Kapil Sibal during 2019 Anti-CAA/NRC protests and riots. PFI denied this, claiming payments were fees for the 2017 Hadiya case. Enforcement Directorate probes tied PFI to violence in UP, Delhi, and Bengal, portraying these funds as fueling anti-CAA dissent.
Criticism of CAA, UAPA, and New Criminal Laws
Jaising has repeatedly opposed key laws as “anti-secular” or “draconian”. She views the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) as a step toward “Hindu Rashtra,” incompatible with Bharat’s “secular Constitution”. She demands scrapping the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), calling it prone to abuse against dissenters. In Delhi riots cases, she questioned UAPA’s use against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam (January 7, 2026 article), arguing no evidence met Section 15’s “terrorist act” threshold and citing misuse in 2021 Pinjra Tod bail orders. On June 12, 2024, she slammed new laws—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—claiming Section 152 revives harsher sedition, turning protests into terror without safeguards, inverting bail norms.
Advocacy for Rohingya and Attacks on Judiciary
Jaising championed Rohingya refugees, arguing in 2018 against their deportation as “illegal infiltrators,” pushing Supreme Court petitions and UNHCR protection despite Bharat’s 2017 security-driven policy. As head of a 2017 UN panel with Radhika Coomaraswamy and Christopher Sidoti, she warned of “genocide threat” in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. On March 23, 2018, she tweeted that two “upper caste” Supreme Court judges diluted the SC/ST Act to “protect Brahmins” via preliminary inquiries (Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case), prompting BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to condemn it. Recently, on January 27, 2026, she defended UGC equity rules against protests, labeling opposition an “upper-caste reaction” to SC/ST/OBC equity efforts.
A Hindu Civilizational Perspective
From the lens of Hindu civilization—rooted in dharma’s balance of justice, security, and national unity—Jaising’s positions undermine Bharat’s sovereignty. Hindu thought, as in the Rig Veda’s emphasis on ṛta (cosmic order) and Arthashastra’s realpolitik on threats, prioritizes protecting the janapada from infiltration and internal disruption, as seen in CAA’s refuge for persecuted non-Muslims versus Rohingya advocacy that ignores demographic shifts endangering Hindu-majority regions. Her Soros-PFI funding trails evoke warnings in Chanakya Niti against traitors sowing anarchy. True secularism aligns with sanātana dharma’s inclusivity for dharmic kin, not spreading animosity with casteist rhetoric. Jaising’s “Hindu Rashtra” alarmism inverts this: Bharat’s resurgence as Vishwa Guru demands reclaiming civilizational strength, not Western-funded narratives eroding it.
Source: Who Is Indira Jaising? A Profile of a Senior Advocate and Controversies
