Hindu religious leader unfairly targeted and arrested by Pune police for opposing Shaniwar Wada namaz row

Case ID : 5c27916 | Location : Pune, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 21 December, 2025

Case ID : 5c27916

Pune, Maharashtra, India

21 December, 2025

Hindu religious leader unfairly targeted and arrested by Pune police for opposing Shaniwar Wada namaz row

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community

Case Summary

In Pune, Maharashtra, a Hindu religious leader, Mahamandaleshwar Aradhana Sakhi of the Vaishnav Kinnar Akhara, was unfairly arrested and subjected to custodial action by the authorities following her public support for the Hindu cause during the Shaniwar Wada namaz controversy. Notably, in October 2025, communal tensions escalated in Pune after a group of Muslim women offered namaz at the historic Shaniwar Wada Fort, a monument built by Peshwa Bajirao in 1736 and regarded as a powerful symbol of Maratha heritage and Hindu sovereignty. The offering of namaz was not only a violation of the law but also a deliberate and provocative act, aimed at disrespecting the sanctity of a site that is held sacred by Hindus. In the aftermath of the incident, cases were registered in connection with the episode, rendering the matter politically and socially sensitive. Aradhana Sakhi, a prominent Kinnar (transgender) and Hindu religious leader associated with the Vaishnav Kinnar Akhara, had been actively engaged in Hindu religious life, opposing religious conversions, participating in cow protection activities, and intervening in cases involving Hindu girls facing coercive or deceptive interfaith exploitation. Following her outspoken stance on the Shaniwar Wada issue, she was unfairly arrested by the Pune Rural Police on 22 December 2025. Hindu organisations also revealed that she was arrested under false charges by the police, an action that Hindu organisations described as retaliatory and disproportionate. Reports confirm that the victim was arrested from her residence and subjected to custodial procedures that raised serious concerns, including her placement in a men’s jail despite her status as a Kinnar Mahamandaleshwar. This treatment was widely regarded as degrading and violative of basic dignity. Hindu groups stated that this constituted targeted harassment of a Kinnar religious leader for her opposition to religious conversions and her broader work within the Hindu community. In response, Hindu organisations asserted that swift action had been taken against a Hindu religious voice while the original violation at Shaniwar Wada received comparatively restrained enforcement. The issue expanded beyond an individual case, with demands for the withdrawal of registered cases, a transparent review of her arrest and custody, and accountability for procedural lapses. Hindu organisations called upon the Maharashtra government, particularly the Home Department, to intervene and order an impartial inquiry, warning that continued inaction risked eroding public confidence in the equal application of the law.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The other sub-category selected here is - Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community. In several cases, Hindus are attacked specifically or tangentially for their association with parties or organisations perceived to be pro-Hindu and/or for working in favour of the Hindu community. One of the classic cases was the attack against a Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha (BJYM) worker Praveen Nettaru. Nettaru was attacked and hacked to death for his association with Hindu organizations and his work for the Hindu community. He was murdered by PFI, a terror organization which aimed to commit a genocide of Hindus, target Hindu leaders specifically and turn India into an Islamic Nation. In such cases, it is possible that the immediate trigger for the violence is non-religious – either according to the perpetrator or the police. However, there are surrounding circumstances from which the conclusion can be reached that the victim was attacked for his association with a Hindu organization. In a similar case, Rinku Sharma was attacked by radicals. He was a member of Bajrang Dal and regularly worked for the Hindu community. While the police cited a different non-religious trigger for the attack, it is true that he was associated to a Hindu organization and the family of Rinku Sharma specifically attributed his gruesome murder to him working for Bajrang Dal and raising Jai Shree Ram slogans. Such cases are intrinsically driven by religious hate and would therefore be documented as a hate crime under this category. This case has been added to the tracker because the action taken against Mahamandaleshwar Aradhana Sakhi arose directly from her sustained work for Hindu causes and her open opposition to activities that were undermining Hindu religious sentiments, especially the Shaniwar Wada namaz controversy. Aradhana Sakhi had been consistently involved in opposing forced religious conversions, supporting cow protection efforts, and intervening in cases involving Hindu girls facing coercive or deceptive interfaith exploitation. Her public stance during the Shaniwar Wada namaz controversy was a continuation of this broader pattern of engagement and working for the Hindu cause, in which she spoke out against Muslims performing namaz, which was essentially an assertion meant to challenge Hindu identity and desecrate a monument that stands as a testimony to Hindu sovereignty. Her intervention was not incidental or apolitical but stemmed from her identity and role as a Hindu religious leader actively working for the Hindu community. Therefore, the arrest and custodial action against her was because she spoke for the Hindu cause and condemned Muslims for deliberately performing namaz at the Shaniwar Wada. Thus, the punitive action against her was not isolated but was linked to her ideological position and long-standing association with Hindu religious causes. By speaking against radical Muslim elements and practices that were hostile to Hindu interests, she attracted state action that Hindu organisations interpreted as retaliatory. The custodial treatment she was subjected to, including her placement in a men’s jail despite her status as a Kinnar religious leader, further reinforced the perception of targeted hostility rather than neutral law enforcement. The manner and timing of the arrest, coupled with her established record of working for Hindu causes, indicated that she was penalised for supporting Hindus. Taken together, these factors showed that the case was intrinsically driven by institutionalised bias and hostility towards a Hindu religious leader for her ideological stance and community work; thus, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.