Once again, the Election Commission of India (ECI) made the headlines, when on June 29, 2025 it announced that Bihar became the “first state to implement mobile phone-based e-voting during local body elections.” State Election Commissioner Deepak Prasad said while 70.20 per cent of the eligible voters used the e-voting system, 54.63 per cent exercised their franchise by visiting polling booths reported The Hindustan Times. The ECI has termed this move as “a symbol of convenience, security, and empowered participation,” claiming that, “the system was specifically designed for voters who face challenges in reaching polling booths, such as the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, and migrants.Only pre-registered users were allowed to vote via the e-voting platform, he added.

Meanwhile, Madhav Deshpande, with 40 plus years of experience in the field of Computer Science and its Applications and Architecture of Unique Software apart from being an Advisor to the Obama administration, has meanwhile offered his independent critique of this switch by the ECI to the “mobile phone-based e-voting” system implemented without consultation by the election body.

Issues raised by the expert:

• As soon as a voter’s identity is verified and linked to the voter’s thumbprint, FaceID*, or PIN, are all identifying documents(photo ID, video ‘selfie’) completely expunged from the system?
• Is the user identity tokenised?
• Is token table destroyed? If not, how is it ensured ephemeral?
• From item 2 in the google play disclosure which says “Some of the data that you submit may be classified as “Personally Identifiable Information” (PII), meaning information that can be used to uniquely identify or contact you, such as your Voter ID number, mobile phone number, or other identifiers (“Personal Information”/”Personally Identifiable Information”)”, it is clear that voter details are actively sought, stored and may even be intended to be used even after vote is cast. It is clear from this that the voter identity is neither tokenised nor is the token table destroyed. This is in complete contradiction to the principle of secret ballot and as such this app must be immediately withdrawn forthwith.
• Item 3 in the same disclosure on Google Play portal says “Please also note that data collected by us from a particular device may be used in conjunction with data from other devices that are linked to the browser”meaning that the personal data is not only stored for the purpose of voter identification, it may be used to identify and monitor the voter’s electronic activity, amounting to electronic surveillance. As such this is infringement of individual freedom and must be banned immediately.
• Operationally, how does the app ensure that the person (voter) identified is the same as the person casting the vote on the phone?
• How does the app ensure that the person is casting their vote with free will and secretly; as against being forced to cast it under threat? If the app cannot guarantee expression of free will of the voter, it is in contradiction to the first principle of democratic voting and must be immediately banned.
• And lastly, the app declares that it cannot guarantee complete security of the data being transmitted over network, meaning that the ballot cannot be guaranteed to be secret and as such its use must be banned forthwith. The disclosure says “…you acknowledge and agree that no transmission of data over the internet or mobile networks can be guaranteed to be completely secure. Accordingly, any transmission of information is done at your sole risk.”
• Technically, the network operators have enough and more tools to siphon data and alter it, insert / delete new data etc. if the data is not adequately secured (as is obvious from 8 above).
• There is no mention of where the distributed journal of data blocks is stored. If the blocks are stored on foreign servers or if the block chain technology implemented is from foreign vendors, it compromises Indian sovereignty and use of such app must be banned immediately

Related:

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

The post Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While writing my previous blog on how and why Narendra Modi went out of his way to promote English when he was Gujarat chief minister — despite opposition from people in the Sangh Parivar — I came across an interesting write-up by Aakar Patel, a well-known name among journalists and civil society circles.

Titled “How Gujarat ignores the English language”, with a subheading “Exploring clichés about Gujarat’s English and education system”, the piece was published in the online edition of the Hindustan Times’ business daily, Mint. It is now 12 years old — one reason why I decided to review what Aakar had written.

While quickly going through the article, I found Aakar — who served as the head of Amnesty International India between 2015 and 2019, and currently chairs its board — was grossly mistaken in stating that the Congress in Gujarat “has supported introduction of English earlier but the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) reject this.”

Traditional Indian spices

As my two previous pieces on this site suggest (click here and here), poor English in Gujarat is actually a Congress legacy — one that sections of the Sangh Parivar wanted to continue. Modi, however, made efforts to reverse this by crafting policies and programmes supporting the teaching of the language.

That said, much of what Aakar wrote in his article — published online in Mint on October 18, 2013 — still holds true. Written after attending a function at a school in Surat where he had studied 25 years earlier, Aakar states he “was struck” to find school teachers speaking “an embarrassingly-broken English, sprinkled with errors and without felicity.”

I don’t know how much teachers’ knowledge of English has changed since then, but Aakar’s quotation from the Gujarat education department website suggests that Modi’s efforts to promote English seem to have failed — at least at the official level. The web address quoted by Aakar may have changed, but the gibberish English written on it remains stuck in time.

Indeed, the two long quotes from the website that Aakar reproduced in 2013 remain unchanged. They appear verbatim today as they did then — serving, as he called them, “an evidence on display” of the poverty of English in a department meant to support Modi’s language promotion policies through such grand programmes as SCOPE, or Society for Creation of Opportunities through Proficiency in English.

Let me now reproduce the two long quotes from the Gujarat State Education Department website which Aakar copied in 2013 to “explain” how the department puts together its textbooks — and which remain as incoherent today as they were back then.

The first appears under the “Overview” section (screenshot here) of Gujarat textbooks. It states (quoted verbatim, without correcting grammar):

“Establishment

“Gujarat state Textbook Mandal was established in AD 1969 on 21st October. Since 38 year mandals main target. High quality textbooks are published and to Gujarat students they are easily available at reasonable prices.

Through Mandal Std. 1-12 Gujarati Medium textbooks are published. Thereafter in Hindi, English, Marathi, Sindhi, Urdu, Sanskrit and Tamil Language also text books are published.

Board Committees

Mandals whole management is done properly; it decided objectives are fulfilled for that Board Committee is formed as below.

(1) General Board (2) Director Board (3) Working committee (4) Educational committee (5) Production committee (6) Research committee.

Above mentioned all committee’s administration works properly regarding that advise suggestions are given.

Aakar Patel

 

Mandal distribution related works

Printed textbooks are distributed in whole Gujarat at Government level working organizations through them with district distributor textbook are sold in retail for that work distributors are hired. Retailers registration is done in mandal. In Ahmedabad also Ahmedabad has its own selling centre. (Sale Depot, Godown no. 9 below Asarva Bridge, Ahmedabad – 380016, Ph. 22133920) is there. At any institute or personal level to any student from this sale centre textbook can be availed at retailing std. from outside Gujarat through money order or bank draft also textbooks can be obtained.

Mandals research related work

Textbook mandal by publishing textbook is not satisfied. Textbooks quality improves continuously for that research related work is also done. From primary teacher to university professors knowledgeable persons are joined in evaluation programme and other educational programme. Textbooks writers, advisers, translators etc. for them work of finding genius is done.

Mandal’s work in new sector

Basic subject’s textbook – AD 1999 to Std. 11-12, basic subject 26 textbooks publishing being done Mandal for general exam additional subjects through textbook relevant sectors students are provided basic literature. Due to this in village and Kurshi sector also Mandal human research development important work could give own contribution.”

The second is what the department calls a “Disclaimer” (screenshot here):

“Gujarat Government Education Department related information is easily available to people from one place only with that aim this website is developed. Regarding this matter if you have any opinion then you are requested to contact us. To keep this site latest and the mistake that come our consideration to correct those mistakes all efforts will be done. In this site document information created by people and private organizations is there. The information available for outside, on its exactness, co ordination latest or completion we have no control or we can give any promise, this matter has to be kept in mind.

The information of this web site is for the benefit of general public and from it any legal right or responsibility is not created. For over sight or any mistake of typing this department is not responsible.

If any information is not true or some corrections are needed in it, if this is known then the steps to solve it opinions can be given. This web sites documents/samples (PDF file) soft copy and hard copy thus from both they are taken. While conversion certain documents formatting may change that can happen for conversion raised mistakes efforts are done of correcting it. In spite of that now also there can be any mistake in it. If regarding this matter you have any questions then original documents respective copies have to be brought or you are requested to contact us. Moreover for linked sites policy or method we are not responsible.”

Established in 2007–2008, the site has had a whopping 19,816,644 visitors. Yet it hasn’t been updated since 2014 — the year Modi left Gujarat to become the country’s Prime Minister. On Google, interestingly, the site is labelled as “Not secure or Dangerous,” with its identity marked as “not verified” (screenshot here).

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Whither SCOPE? Twelve years on, Gujarat’s official English remains frozen in time appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The people had indeed spoken—and they had rejected everything Cuomo represented. The former New York governor, married into the Kennedy dynasty through his union with Kerry Kennedy, had tried to buy his way back to relevance with billionaire money and the weight of two of America’s most storied political families. The political titan who had resigned in disgrace had just been crushed by a nobody. A housing counsellor from Queens. A 33-year-old democratic socialist whom most New Yorkers couldn’t have picked out of a police lineup six months earlier.

Across the city in Astoria, that nobody—Zohran Kwame Mamdani, son of Indo-Ugandan exiles, former rapper, sometime housing advocate – stood before a crowd of volunteers who had just rewritten the rules of American politics. They had not merely defeated a former governor; they had obliterated him, turning Cuomo’s 30-point lead into a seven-point rout that would make their candidate the Democratic nominee for mayor of America’s largest city.

This was not supposed to happen. Not in New York, where money and connections have long determined who gets to compete for City Hall. Not to Andrew Cuomo, scion of political royalty, armed with $33 million and the backing of Wall Street’s finest. And certainly not at the hands of an obscure Assemblyman whose campaign headquarters doubled as a community organizing centre in Queens, whose previous claim to fame was battling foreclosure notices in immigrant neighbourhoods nobody else bothered to visit.

Yet here was Mamdani, with 93 per cent of ballots counted, claiming 43.5 per cent of first-choice votes against Cuomo’s 36.4 per cent. His primary victory, powered by 50,000 volunteers and $8 million in small-dollar donations, represented something unprecedented in American politics: the emergence of a candidate who successfully translated policy prescriptions into cultural resonance, whose “exuberant economic populism” became, in the words of campaign observers, “a love song to a city yearning for change.” His victory positions him as the Democratic nominee who could become New York’s first Muslim, Indian-American, and millennial mayor—a symbolic breakthrough that extends far beyond representation to embody resistance against the nationalist currents of Donald Trump’s second presidential term.

Roots of Rebellion

To understand how Mamdani reached this moment, one must look to the inheritance that shaped him. Born on October 18, 1991, in Kampala, Uganda, to Indian parents, Mamdani grew up carrying the legacies of dislocation and resistance. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a renowned Gujarati Shia Muslim scholar at Columbia University, whose work on decolonisation reshaped how generations understood power and citizenship. His mother, Mira Nair, an acclaimed Punjabi Hindu filmmaker, gave voice to diaspora stories through her cinema.

The middle name Kwame, a tribute to Ghanaian revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, was entirely intentional. It was a signal. Mahmood Mamdani’s own life had been a study in resistance: expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin for being Indian and outspoken, he passed through London refugee camps before returning to a post Amin Kampala. His resignation from the University of Cape Town, after white faculty resisted efforts to decolonise the curriculum, led to his landmark book Citizen and Subject, which reframed Africa’s colonial inheritance as one that divided urban citizens from rural subjects.

That defiant, searching spirit filtered down. Zohran’s undergraduate thesis at Bowdoin, on Uganda’s expulsion of Indians, reflected far more than an academic interest but a personal reckoning. It brought him closer to immigrant communities whose lives echoed his family’s. The narrative of loss and return, of exile and belonging, lived in him.

After arriving in New York at age seven, Mamdani came of age in the city’s multitudes. At Bowdoin, he studied Africana Studies and co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine—his politics expanding beyond borders, his compass set to global justice.

From the Streets to the Statehouse

The path from Bowdoin College to City Hall was anything but conventional for Mamdani. After graduating with a degree in Africana Studies, where he co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine, he spent time pursuing an unlikely passion: hip-hop music. Under a stage name he now prefers to keep private, Mamdani briefly tried his hand as a rapper, before concluding that community organizing offered more direct routes to social change.

His transition to housing advocacy proved formative. Working as a foreclosure prevention counsellor in Queens, Mamdani spent his days in cramped apartments with families facing eviction, navigating bureaucratic mazes to keep people housed. The work provided intimate knowledge of the housing crisis that would later inform his policy prescriptions, but more importantly, it connected him to the human cost of policy failures that most politicians encounter only in statistics.

By 2019, Mamdani was organizing tenant unions in Astoria. Renters, once isolated, began to act collectively. They fought back. And in those tight hallways and cramped living rooms, he learned what real power looked like. The power of platforms paled next to the power of listening, of showing up, of helping people see themselves as part of something larger.

His 2020 election to the New York State Assembly at age 29, defeating a four-term incumbent in Astoria’s diverse district, marked his formal entry into electoral politics. The victory, followed by unopposed re-election, established him as a rising star in progressive circles. His legislative record, including securing $100 million for subway service improvements and piloting fare-free bus programmes, demonstrated his ability to navigate Albany’s complex coalition politics while maintaining his progressive credentials.

The 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes offered another proving ground. Mamdani stood with the unions. His face became familiar on picket lines. His solidarity went beyond symbolism and built the trust that would carry him through a citywide campaign.

A City Crying Out for Bold Answers

When Mamdani unveiled his mayoral platform, critics immediately branded it “radical.” The label didn’t seem to bother him. “These policies reflect what working people demand,” he argued in response, “not what billionaire donors or real estate speculators prefer.” It was classic Mamdani—turning a potential weakness into a populist rallying cry.

His comprehensive agenda reads like a progressive wish list: freeze rents on over one million stabilised apartments, eliminate fares on city buses, fund universal childcare, raise the minimum wage to $30 by 2030, and establish city-run grocery stores to combat food inflation. The financing mechanism—a $10 billion tax on corporations and the ultra-wealthy—represents perhaps the most controversial aspect of his platform, prompting business elites to threaten a capital strike.

Mamdani’s housing strategy represents a particular departure from conventional wisdom, shifting emphasis from developer incentives to tenant-owned buildings—a approach he describes as informed by his years of tenant organising experience. “We’re not going to build our way out of this crisis by making developers richer,” he said during a campaign debate, a line that became a signature applause generator at his rallies.

His public safety vision, prioritising what he calls a “Department of Community Safety” over militarised policing, reflects progressive thinking on criminal justice reform but has drawn scepticism from centrists like Mayor Eric Adams, whose 2024 corruption indictment was ultimately dismissed. When pressed on specifics during a contentious radio interview, Mamdani argued that “public safety means people feeling safe in their homes from eviction, safe in their neighbourhoods from violence, and safe in their workplaces from exploitation.”

David Slays Goliath: How the Upset Happened

The mechanics of Mamdani’s campaign victory represent a masterclass in modern political organising. Defying 31 of 32 polls that favoured Cuomo, the campaign leveraged New York’s ranked-choice voting system with surgical precision. A strategic cross-endorsement with City Comptroller Brad Lander, who secured 11.4 per cent of first-choice votes, provided the crucial margin in reallocations that secured Mamdani’s seven-point victory margin.

The ground game was unprecedented in its scope and intensity. Fifty thousand volunteers conducted 1.2 million door-knocks, reaching diverse communities across the city’s five boroughs. The campaign’s ability to mobilise South Asians in Richmond Hill, Latinos in Jackson Heights, Chinese voters in Flushing, and even make inroads among Brooklyn gentrifiers demonstrated sophisticated targeting and messaging. Even in conservative Staten Island, traditionally hostile territory for progressive candidates, Mamdani narrowed the gap to just nine points.

The financial contrast between the campaigns tells its own story. Mamdani’s $8 million, raised from 21,000 small-dollar donors—75 per cent contributing under $100—stood against Cuomo’s $33 million war chest, including a $25 million super PAC, Fix the City, backed by billionaire Bill Ackman, a Trump supporter and Israel advocate. This David-versus-Goliath dynamic resonated with voters increasingly cynical about money’s role in politics.

Cuomo’s campaign, by contrast, seemed to embody everything voters found objectionable about contemporary politics. Heir to a political dynasty through his father Mario Cuomo, who served as governor from 1983 to 1994, Andrew Cuomo relied heavily on name recognition but failed to qualify for public matching funds. His record—hiding nursing home deaths during COVID-19, discrediting over a dozen women who accused him of sexual harassment, and cutting a 2022 gerrymandering deal that aided Republican House gains—made him a symbol of status-quo failure, unable to withstand Mamdani’s populist surge.

When Identity Meets Authenticity

Mamdani’s relationship with New York’s 600,000-strong South Asian community exemplifies his sophisticated approach to identity politics. Drawing on his mother Mira Nair’s Sikh heritage, he engaged authentically with community institutions, speaking Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi at gurdwaras and community events. His support for India’s 2020-21 farmer protests and praise for Kerala’s Communist leadership demonstrated his ability to navigate complex subcontinental politics while maintaining progressive credentials.

His critique of Hindu nationalism, including calling Narendra Modi “the butcher of Gujarat” for the 2002 riots and condemning the Ram Temple consecration as majoritarian oppression tied to the Babri Masjid’s demolition, drew predictable criticism from BJP MP Kangana Ranaut but solidified his standing among progressive South Asian groups like DRUM. This willingness to take controversial positions on international issues distinguished him from conventional politicians who avoid diaspora controversies.

Perhaps no issue tested Mamdani’s political courage more than Palestine. His characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” and his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement became a litmus test for progressive authenticity. His pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an indicted war criminal—if elected mayor and Netanyahu visited New York represented a direct challenge to the Democratic establishment’s unwavering support for Israel. During a heated March 2025 confrontation with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, Mamdani demanded the release of detained activist Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American organizer arrested while protesting weapons shipments to Israel. The moment, widely shared on social media, further galvanized his support among pro-Palestinian groups and cemented his stance as a rare voice of solidarity within mainstream American politics.

This stance contrasted sharply with Cuomo’s offer to join Netanyahu’s defence team before the International Criminal Court, aligning him with establishment Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Mamdani’s position, amplified through 135 mosque visits during the campaign, mobilised Muslim voters despite drawing antisemitism accusations from Representative Laura Gillen. The defence mounted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, citing his clear condemnation of antisemitism as a “disgusting and dangerous ideology,” helped neutralise these attacks.

The Hard Part: From Nominee to City Hall

The transition from primary winner to governing will test Mamdani’s political skills in new ways. With the November general election looming, he must first survive what promises to be a bruising campaign against the Republican nominee while managing New York’s complex electoral dynamics. Should he win in November, governing the city’s $115 billion budget and 300,000 employees will require executive experience that his critics, led by Cuomo, have questioned. The New York Post and business elites, alarmed by his tax proposals, may support Cuomo’s rumoured independent run, creating additional political complications.

Federal budget cuts under Trump’s second term, combined with potential state resistance to progressive policies, will create fiscal constraints that may limit Mamdani’s ability to implement his agenda. However, some of his key proposals, particularly the rent freeze, appear feasible through existing mechanisms like the Rent Guidelines Board.

His electoral coalition—South Asians, Latinos, progressive young voters—provides a strong foundation for governance, but maintaining unity while making the inevitable compromises required for effective administration will require careful political management. His consultations with technocrats like Maria Torres-Springer suggest preparation for the practical challenges of potential governance, though media scrutiny and a Republican opponent in the general election will test his campaign from now until November. Should he prevail in November, potential opposition from figures like Eric Adams would test his administration from the outset.

If Mamdani reaches City Hall, he may join the lineage of American progressives who governed boldly: Milwaukee’s “sewer socialists,” Bernie Sanders in Burlington.

“It always seems impossible until it is done,” he said, quoting Mandela. Mamdani has done what many thought impossible. What remains is to prove it was entirely intentional.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post New York’s New Equation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The official statement further said that, on average, 143 identified cases were resolved, and 187 criminals convicted each working day, the state government said. “Launched on July 1, 2023, Operation Conviction has proven to be a game-changer, leading to the conviction of 97,158 criminals between July 2023 and mid-June,” ADG prosecution was reported by HT to have Deepesh Juneja said.

Juneja also stated that of the 1,14,029 identified cases, 74,388 cases were disposed of. Under the campaign, 68 accused persons were sentenced to death, 8,172 received life imprisonment, 1,453 were sentenced to over 20 years, and 87,465 were given up to 20 years’ imprisonment. The state government claims that the data showcases this government’s commitment to delivering swift and decisive justice particularly in cases involving serious crimes needs to be closely examined however. To justify these methods the government statement also states that “395 accused were convicted in 272 cases involving the top 10 criminals.” Besides, when it came to crack down on the mafia, 29 of the 69 identified mafias were convicted, reaffirming that the crackdown was not limited to petty offenders, the statement added.

The campaign was stated have also delivered results in cases of crimes against children as reflected from 17 accused being sentenced to death under the POCSO Act which included three such punishments in a month and 619 persons being handed out life imprisonment. Of the 68 death penalties, 17 were under POCSO, 48 for heinous crimes, and the rest in other cases. On average, 143 identified cases were resolved, and 187 criminals convicted each working day, it said.

The post 97,000 persons convicted in UP under ‘operation conviction’: State Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident reportedly occurredd in the BMC office premises when the official, Additional Commissioner Ratnakar Sahoo, was in the midst of conducting a grievance redressal meeting at his chamber. According to a subsequent police complaint that Sahoo filed, six-seven unknown individuals entered his chambers and aggressively asked whether he had spoken to Jagannath Pradhan, a BJP leader from Bhubaneswar. Sahoo said he responded that he had a telephonic conversation with Pradhan earlier in the day. The group then allegedly started assaulting him without any provocation and demanded that he apologise to Pradhan. Why they wanted him to apologise was not made clear.

“They beat me brutally in full public view with an attempt to murder, in the presence of public representatives, i.e. corporators of the BMC, BMC officers, staff, and citizens. While I was trying to shield myself and plead for mercy, they threatened me and attempted to forcibly drag me into a vehicle, saying that I must come to Jagannath Pradhan and apologise,” Sahoo said in the complaint.

The assailants also allegedly snatched his mobile phone and uploaded scandalous content as his WhatsApp status, he said.

The incident has sparked state-wide outrage, with BMC officials staging a cease-work protest blocking a major road outside the BMC office. They demanded the immediate arrest of the miscreants. There was heavy police deployment within the BMC premises following the incident.

Police sources said they have registered a case and arrested three persons, including BMC corporator Jeevan Rout, in connection with the attack. Police said they were investigating the involvement of other persons.

Pradhan the BJP leader thereafter described the incident as unfortunate and said that he knew two people allegedly involved in the attack. He also said the BJP government would not shield anyone and would take action against all those involved in the assault.

The issue has also triggered a political row, with the Leader of Opposition and former chief minister Naveen Patnaik calling the attack “appalling”. He demanded “immediate and exemplary” action in the matter.

His post on “X” states:

I am utterly shocked seeing this video. “If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the government?” Patnaik asked in a post on X.

Demanding immediate action to restore faith in his government, Patnaik said the government shouldn’t allow heinous acts to go unpunished. “The people of #Odisha will not forgive this,” he said.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated BJP MLA Candidate.

What is more appalling is that this happened in broad daylight, in the heart of the capital city-#Bhubaneswar to a senior officer while he was in his office, hearing grievances of people.

I ask @MohanMOdisha

Ji to take immediate and exemplary action against not only those who perpetrated but more importantly the political leaders who orchestrated and conspired this shameful attack. The people named by the officer in his FIR have behaved like criminals. If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the Government

I only hope that Shri Majhi directs immediate action to be taken to restore faith in his government and not allow this heinous act to go unpunished like the assault on an officer by the ex-Governor’s son. The people of #Odisha will not forgive this.

I am utterly shocked seeing this video.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated… pic.twitter.com/yf7M3dLt9C

— Naveen Patnaik (@Naveen_Odisha) June 30, 2025

The post Odisha: senior Bhubaneswar municipal official assaulted on duty, told to “apologise” to BJP leader appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The opinion of independent experts should be also be taken into consideration by the apex court before it assesses the actual impact of this law on our forest cover, the letter states.

The text of the open letter may be read here:

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India on the Conflict of Interest of the Central  Empowered Committee

Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We have expressed our anguish several times in the past regarding the steady reduction of India’s forest cover, due to changes in certain laws and policies of the government, as well as their actions. What is causing us great concern now is a matter of conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India’s forests even further down the road.

A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted in the year 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was set up for the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on matters of forests and wildlife and to provide technical advice on the subject to the Supreme Court. It consisted of three former officers of the MOEF, and two non-government persons, the first an expert on forests and wildlife and the other an advocate of the Supreme Court who was also an environmentalist. In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest.

In 2023, since Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) seemingly had complete autonomy in choosing the members of the CEC, it nominated in all the four posts of members, four former government officers, three of whom are retired Indian Forest Service officers and one, a retired scientist, who had also worked for many years until his retirement in the MoEFCC. There are no independent experts on the Committee.

Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently.

A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government.

In 2023 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023, as, according to them, the Act would hasten the decline of forests in India, already greatly reduced since a decade or two earlier. In hearings in this case, so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and geo- referenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case). The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court.

However, we fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter.

We would like to point out that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 was prepared and defended before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) by a CEC member then at the helm in the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) 2023 which is being challenged in the Supreme Court, was also notified at that time, as were the rules under the Act and the consolidated guidelines (notified on November 29, 2023 and December 12, 2023.

Similarly, several memoranda that permitted using degraded, notified forests and unclassed/ revenue forests for compensatory afforestation in exchange for diversion of forest land were issued during the tenure of some of the CEC members while they held top positions in the MoEFCC. Such orders are against the Godavarman judgement of 1996, but they were issued nevertheless. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, cannot but be in line with the previous positions held by these officials in the government. The advice of the CEC in any case which challenges the FCAA 2023 (with which they were closely associated while in the government), will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed, and will thus be a clear conflict of interest.

An indication of this is already evident in the recent SC order on ‘zudpi’ forests (scrub forests) of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court’s order of May 5, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC’s advice which recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for ‘compensatory afforestation’ considering ’zudpi’ forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees. Actually, ‘zudpi

forests are scrub forests/grasslands rich in wildlife specifically adapted to such vegetation. ‘Zudpi’ forests support important, endemic and endangered species such as the Indian grey wolf, Great Indian bustard, lesser Florican, Blackbuck, Indian fox etc., besides serving as corridors for tigers, leopards, bears and other wildlife, and helping mitigate human-wildlife conflict in an area severely affected by the same. Diverting of ‘zudpi’ forests for non -forestry purposes is also violative of the Supreme Court’s Godavarman order of 1996 as well as the more recent orders of the Court dated February 3, 2025 and March 3, 2025 in the case against the FCAA 2023, which is still under litigation. It is gratifying to note that the Honourable Supreme Court did not accept the CEC recommendations in toto.

We would like to recommend to the Honourable Court that in order to give fair and unbiased advice, a CEC needs to be composed not just of experts who are retired officials of the government but of renowned experts from outside as well, of which there are many in the country. As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest.

We request the CJI to ensure that such a CEC is not allowed to advise the Honourable Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country’s forests, wildlife and ecological security.

Signatories:

The post Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In response to this contentious backdrop, a key aspect of the newly relaxed rules involves the utilisation of the 2003 Bihar electoral rolls, which comprise 4.96 crore electors. The ECI has now stated that individuals born after 1987 will not be required to provide proof of their parents’ birth if their names, or their parents’ names, appear on these 2003 rolls. This provision is designed to streamline the verification process and alleviate the documentation burden for a significant portion of the electorate.

According to ECI, this provision is expected to simplify the process for approximately 60% of the state’s total electorate. These electors can simply verify their details against the 2003 rolls and submit a filled Enumeration Form. This accessibility of the 2003 data is intended to expedite the revision process for both electors and Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

Using 2003 rolls when names are not listed

The ECI has further clarified that even if an elector’s name is not present in the 2003 Bihar Electoral Roll, they can still use an extract from the 2003 Electoral Roll to substantiate details for their mother or father. In such instances, no other corroborating documents for their parents would be required; the relevant extract or details from the 2003 electoral roll would suffice. However, these electors would still be required to submit their own documents along with the filled Enumeration Form.

The mandate and dynamics of electoral roll revisions

According to ECI, the revision of electoral rolls is a fundamental and statutory exercise, mandated by Section 21(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 25 of the Registration of Elector Rules, 1960. The ECI has routinely conducted both annual intensive and summary revisions for 75 years. This ongoing process is essential because electoral rolls are dynamic, constantly changing due to factors such as deaths, internal migration (for reasons like occupation, education, or marriage), and the addition of new voters who reach the age of 18. The current SIR in Bihar aligns with this continuous effort to maintain accurate and current voter records.

In line with these principles, ECI instructions dated June 24, 2025, stipulate that Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs), District Election Officers (DEOs), and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) must make the Electoral Rolls with a qualifying date of January 1, 2003, freely available to all BLOs in hard copy. Additionally, these rolls are to be accessible online on the ECI’s website for public download and use as documentary evidence during the submission of Enumeration Forms. The ECI’s press note dated June 30, 2025, provides further details.

The ECI’s press noted dated June 30, 2025 can be read here

Commencement and operational aspects of SIR in Bihar

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) officially began in Bihar, as the ECI stated on June 28, 2025, with reports indicating the participation of various political parties. To manage this extensive undertaking, the ECI has deployed 77,895 Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and is in the process of appointing nearly 20,603 more for new polling stations.

According to ECI’s press note (No. ECI/PN/236/2025), over one lakh volunteers are expected to assist electors, with a focus on older individuals, the sick, Persons with Disabilities (PwD), and other vulnerable groups. Recognised National and State Political Parties registered with the ECI have appointed 1,54,977 Booth Level Agents (BLAs, with scope for more appointments). The distribution of new Enumeration Forms (EF) has commenced door-to-door across all 243 Assembly Constituencies of Bihar for the existing 7,89,69,844 electors. Online submission of these forms is also enabled. Of the current electorate, 4.96 crore individuals whose names were on the 2003 electoral roll’s last intensive revision need only verify their details, fill the Enumeration Form, and submit it.

Divisional Commissioners and District Magistrates are engaging BLOs full-time for the SIR, and SMS notifications are being sent to 5,74,07,022 registered mobile numbers in Bihar to raise awareness.

Past revisions and political discourse

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct an Intensive Revision in Bihar, which effectively entails preparing fresh electoral rolls, has ignited considerable political discussion. This initiative has drawn criticism, with the Congress party voicing concerns about the potential for deliberate voter exclusion facilitated by state machinery.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has also weighed in, characterising the move as “more dangerous than NRC (National Register of Citizens)” and suggesting that her state, scheduled for elections next year, could be the actual underlying objective. Such reactions underscore the heightened political sensitivities frequently associated with electoral roll revisions, particularly in states approaching elections.

The Congress, through its empowered action group of leaders and experts (EAGLE), has formally opposed the revision exercise, asserting that it poses a risk of wilful voter exclusion.

In a statement shared by AICC General Secretary (Organisation) KC Venugopal on ‘X’, the party declared its opposition to what it termed the “devious Special Intensive Revision exercise ordered by the ECI for Bihar.” The Congress leaders further indicated that by undertaking such a revision in Bihar and other states, the ECI implicitly acknowledges existing issues with India’s electoral rolls.

Challenges to ECI’s authority and historical precedent

The ECI’s current revision in Bihar has drawn sharp criticism regarding its legal premise and scope. Notably, senior social activist Dr. Pyare Lal Garg has questioned the ECI’s move, contending that it “usurps the powers to test ‘Indian citizenship’,” a function he asserts does not lie with the ECI. Dr. Garg has stated that the latest decision by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is not only “unlawful and hasty” but also “violates the Indian Constitution and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”

Historical records show intensive revisions were conducted in 1952-56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, and 2004. These were however carried out, over the time and duration required and available under law, following due process under both the RPA Act 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Related:

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Who orchestrated APPs failures, the FM and her ex-FS or the ECI?

VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections

The post Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This blog is a continuation of my story “English proficiency for empowerment: Modi’s SCOPE vision contrasts Amit Shah’s remark”. I personally found nothing unusual in the Union Home Minister’s “feel ashamed” remark directed at those who speak in English, as I have witnessed his dislike for the language on several occasions during my stint as the Times of India representative in Gandhinagar from 1997 to 2012.

In fact, Amit Shah never tried to hide his disdain for English. He would candidly tell me that he didn’t read the Times of India because it was an English daily. Once, ahead of a mass rally during an assembly election campaign in a tribal-dominated region of Gujarat that Modi was about to address, I spotted him. On seeing me, he objected to a particular news item I had written. I asked, “How do you know? You don’t read the Times of India.” He responded, “Yes, but others tell me what appears in your paper.”

On another occasion, as narrated to me later, Shah, accompanied by senior BJP leader Purshottam Rupala, reached my office to lodge a complaint about a report I had written. Bharat Desai, then my editor, heard them out patiently. Suddenly, Shah snapped, “Who reads your English paper?” To this, Desai calmly replied, “If nobody reads our paper, why have you come here? You can have tea and leave.”

Shah’s attitude wasn’t limited to just a contempt for English. Once, while discussing the poor state of education in Gujarat in his home minister’s chamber—an issue many would privately raise—I asked him what he thought should be done to improve the state’s educational standards, which I believed were among the poorest in India. His informal reply was startling: “Nothing needs to be done. It’s doing fine. No need to change things.”

Ironically, no one seemed to understand the importance of English for improving educational standards in Gujarat better than his boss, Narendra Modi. Unlike many earlier chief ministers, Modi went out of his way to promote English education in schools. His flagship initiative, SCOPE—Society for Creation of Opportunities through Proficiency in English—was launched with this very objective and continues to this day.

I don’t know the exact reason, but I believe he was convinced that English was a crucial business requirement for attracting investment to Gujarat. One of the major hurdles for those looking to set up enterprises in the state has been the poor educational standards of Gujarati job seekers, which he seemed to associate with their weak English communication skills. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his view after becoming the Prime Minister.

From what I gathered during my days at Sachivalaya, after Modi became chief minister, he consistently urged government officials to draft policies to make English a compulsory subject at the primary and secondary levels. In doing so, he even went against his trusted protégé Anandiben Patel—then education minister and now UP governor—who once told me, “We don’t need English, we need Sanskrit.” Modi’s push for English education became a sore point for many in the RSS.

Once, a pro-RSS group running a school in Gandhinagar, Vidya Bharati, invited journalists for a press-cum-lunch meet. Cloaking a swadeshi garb, their aim was to accuse Modi of “neglecting” Sanskrit in favour of English. They even announced an agitation against this perceived slight to Sanskrit—an agitation that never materialized. I reported the event for the Times of India.

Despite his ideological leanings, credit for reviving English in Gujarat must go to Modi—even though his command of the language was initially weak. During his first business summit, Resurgent Gujarat, held in early February 2002 in the presence of the British ambassador, Modi pronounced “delegates” as “dulgats,” causing amused chuckles in the audience. Yet, he took a surprisingly pragmatic approach to the language that Shah dismissed as “foreign.”

Within three years in office, Modi had improved his English considerably. Around 2003 or 2004, he inaugurated an IT event at InfoCity in Gandhinagar, supported by a global firm. He spoke in English, ex tempore, using short but grammatically correct sentences. During subsequent Vibrant Gujarat summits, Modi continued to speak off-the-cuff in English, without a teleprompter, fully aware that foreign dignitaries and entrepreneurs were key participants.

Even while denouncing “English culture,” Modi, by 2003, had begun instructing officials to draft education policies to overcome English language deficiencies. In fact, his was the first major reversal of a flawed language policy that had persisted since the 1960s. That policy, the result of a debate between two ministers both surnamed Thakore—one dubbed “Thakorebhai Panchava” for wanting English from Class 5, the other “Thakorebhai Athva” for preferring it from Class 8—had led to a compromise: schools could choose. The result? Children began English in Class 8, and dropped it by Class 10, producing a generation with little or no English proficiency.

Modi seemed to recognize this gap as a barrier to Gujarat’s global aspirations. He pushed for English in schools. A key obstacle, then and now, was the chronic shortage of English teachers—but the blame for that lay with his predecessors.

Looking back at my stories for Times of India, I found that in 2006, Modi urged the education department to launch a movement promoting spoken English among Gujarati youth. At the department’s Chintan Shibir, he stressed the importance of this skill: “Poor English among the Gujarati youth is telling adversely on their standing in the world. This stigma should be removed at the earliest. There is a need to develop an atmosphere in which the Gujarati youth, well-equipped with English, are able to show their best skills to the world.”

This was not Modi’s first push for English. A year earlier, in 2005, he proposed starting English education from Class 1. Although the idea gained traction in the bureaucracy, he had to backtrack due to resistance from the Sangh Parivar. The RSS’s education wing, Shiksha Bharati, labeled the move “anti-swadeshi.”

Even in the mid-1990s, when Gujarat decided to introduce English from Class 5, it had declared the subject non-examinable—so most students didn’t study it. Modi changed that in 2004, making English exams mandatory in Class 5 across the state.

“There is indeed a major change now. Even rural areas show a strong interest in English. With free textbooks, rural children are now scoring better in English than in other subjects,” Nalin Pandit, former director of Gujarat Council of Educational Research and Training (GCERT), once told me.

Thanks to Modi’s insistence, the Indian Institute of Teachers’ Education (IITE) was established in 2010 as a university with English as the medium of instruction. I had quoted him in a report saying, “World-class teachers to be produced at IITE must be taught in a language used internationally.” A brainchild of Modi, IITE today offers BA-BEd and BEd-MEd programs in English at its Centre of Education, while affiliated colleges offer B.Ed programs in both English and Gujarati.

IITE emphasizes the development of communication skills in both the mother tongue and English, showing a commitment to multilingualism in teacher training—a vision that stands in direct contrast to the anti-English rhetoric of Amit Shah.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Business requirement? Modi’s quiet push for English in Gujarat despite Sangh’s swadeshi garb appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The mobilisation was, in large part, organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, with support from people’s organisations. Key MVA constituents—the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar faction) turned out in support. The turnout reflected a broad political front, including working-class organisations, students, farmers’ unions, and civil liberties groups.

State Secretary of the CPI (M), Dr. Ajit Nawale, had issued an open call for participation across Maharashtra, urging district units to treat this as a “decisive stand against authoritarianism.” Protesters arrived from across the state—by bus, train, and private vehicles—responding to the call to defend democratic rights.

Opposition and civil society leaders stand together

Several prominent leaders stood in solidarity at the protest. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray, Supriya Sule of the NCP (SP), CPI state secretary and labour organiser Subhash Lande and senior social activist Ulka Mahajan joined demonstrators at Azad Maidan, expressing serious concern about the implications of the bill.

1 of 9

These leaders and activists highlighted how the Bill, under the pretext of “public safety,” could be used to suppress dissent, criminalise activism, and target opposition voices. They noted that terms such as “radical Left-wing organisations” and “urban Naxal” remain undefined and dangerously broad in the amended draft, leaving space for arbitrary interpretation.

Other speakers also pointed out that the bill’s provisions—such as unchecked powers to evict communities (Section 9), seize properties (Section 10), and deny lower court remedies (Section 12)—mirror the most draconian aspects of laws like the UAPA and NSA.

From every corner of Maharashtra, a message of resistance

The crowd was a mix of students, youth, farmers, trade unionists, and senior citizens. Red flags and protest banners filled the grounds of Azad Maidan. Many held up pamphlets circulated by the organising groups, breaking down the bill’s most dangerous provisions and urging complete withdrawal—not mere amendments. Visuals from the ground show the scale and intensity of the crowd gathered at the ground. Protesters emphasised that the Joint Committee’s amendments are superficial and leave intact the state’s power of surveillance, to prosecute, and punish under vaguely defined offences (Detailed report on earlier protests may be viewed here)

Backdrop: The Bill’s imminent passage in the Monsoon Session

The Maharashtra government had invited public comments and criticisms on the Bill, to be submitted by April 1. Among thousands of others, Citizens for Justice and Peace had also submitted an elaborate critique. This may be read here. The protest coincides with the start of the Maharashtra Assembly’s monsoon session, where the revised Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill is likely to be introduced. Although the Joint Committee proposed some changes—such as limiting the bill’s applicability to organisations and raising the investigation officer’s rank—rights groups and opposition parties have argued that these are cosmetic changes that do not alter the repressive core of the legislation.

The continued use of ideological terms, the lack of statutory definitions, and the shielding of officials from prosecution (Sections 14 and 15) have all been flagged as severe threats to constitutional safeguards. The committee’s refusal to hold public hearings with those who submitted objections has also drawn sharp criticism.

The joint coalition of activists, people’s organisations and the left front have strongly critiqued the published ‘report of the Joint Committee.’ Citizens for Justice and Peace presents its critique here:

Note on Joint Committee Report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024: Superficial amendments, structural repression intact

June 30, 2025

What has been termed as the Joint Committee’s report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 (Assembly Bill No. 33), appears to be a clear whitewash of the actual discussions that took place with members of the Opposition over five sittings since the Committee was formed. The obvious motive of this government is not even to record or allow the dissent and voices that were raised by members of the Opposition (Maha Vikas Aghadi) on key aspects of the Bill which includes definitions, seizure and arrest powers, superintendence of investigations, constitution of the Advisory Board and also the denial of one tier of justice, the district courts for first appeals.

Fundamentally, the very insistence of this regime and administration for the passage of a fourth law to ostensibly counter terrorism (or Naxal-caused terror) when Maharashtra already has the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) since 1999, the Unlawful Practices (Prevention) Act since its inception –first 1967 and post 2004 with multiple amendments since it’s a central law—and finally the 2023 Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) Sections 113-119 that have incorporated all draconian sections of the UAPA in everyday criminal law. [The justification, therefore that ‘other states have such a law’ is nullified by the facts: these states had enacted these legislations before the UAPA in amended form applied to the entire country and also the BNS, 2023.]

What can be the reasons (or the motive) to bring in a fourth such legislation when the above stringent provisions are already in force? Except to use it as a sword over the heads of activists (political and social), writers, dissenters, political opponents—in fact any person/s who are “inconvenient” to the regime or administration? A fourth law with draconian provisions will make bail impossible!

The press note by the government on behalf of the Committee clearly reveal that the discussions and deliberations notwithstanding, the attitude of the state government has not changed and the final Bill (in few form) when it will be tabled, will continue to be riddled with core constitutional defects.

Changes outlined in the Press Note June 26, 2025 on “Committee’s Findings:

The changes made are cosmetic, rhetorical, and deliberately evasive. The bill retains its unconstitutional structure, vague terminology, and legal architecture that allows for the criminalisation of dissent, targeting of political opponents, and violation of fundamental rights.

Despite widespread opposition, extensive written objections, and participation from multiple political formations and civil society organisations, the Committee has made only three formal amendments:

1. Rewording the objective clause to target “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations”;
2. Recasting the composition of the Advisory Board;
3. Raising the investigating officer’s rank from Sub-Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police.

None of these changes address the key concerns raised regarding the need for multiplicity of counter terror laws, wide definitions, unchecked executive power, procedural violations, denial of legal remedy, and institutional impunity. This report, therefore, must be categorically rejected. The bill remains a direct attack on India’s constitutional order.

I. Title and Objective: Politically weaponised language, vague in law

Original title:

“A Bill to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful acts of persons and organizations…”

Amended title:

“A Bill to effectively prevent certain illegal activities of radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations…”

Analysis:

• The rewording does not narrow the scope. It simply replaces generic terms with ideologically charged and undefined phrases.
• The inclusion of “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations” is deliberately vague. No legal definition of “radical” is provided. The phrase “similar organisations” creates infinite elasticity, allowing any ideological formation—even peaceful or democratic—to be labelled a threat. [Note: Radical Right-Wing Organisations have escaped all consideration or mention!]
• The justification for this framing lies in the invocation of “urban Naxalism”—a politically loaded term with no statutory definition. Its continued use codifies the state’s ideological hostility to dissent.

Conclusion: This amendment intensifies the bill’s politically motivated purpose. Here is not a law to main peace or law and order, but a tool to terrorise and silent dissent. It reinforces a narrative in which civil society actors, trade unions, student groups, and political opponents can be branded as subversive. The bill’s objective remains a tool of ideological surveillance, not a legitimate legal safeguard. 

II. Advisory Board: Erosion of judicial independence

Original Clause 5(2):

The Advisory Board was to comprise individuals who “are or have been judges of a High Court or are eligible for appointment.”

Amended Clause:

Now allows appointment of:

• Retired High Court Judges
• Retired District Judges
• Government Advocates of the High Court

Analysis:

• This amendment is a deliberate dilution of judicial independence.
• Government advocates are functionaries of the executive. Their inclusion on a body meant to evaluate the legality of state actions obliterates the principle of neutral oversight.
• Retired district judges do not carry the constitutional status or independence of High Court judges.
• The executive retains unchecked power to choose pliant members, turning the Advisory Board into a formal rubber stamp.

Conclusion: The Advisory Board, which was supposed to serve as a procedural check, has now been structurally compromised. The amendment institutionalises executive capture of oversight mechanisms. 

III. Investigating Officer Rank: Cosmetic bureaucratic adjustment

Original Clause 15(1):

Police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to investigate offences under the Act.

Amended Clause:

Investigation restricted to officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above.

Analysis:

• Raising the rank of the investigating officer is an administrative change. It does not alter the grounds, process, or criteria of investigation.
• The real issue is not who conducts the investigation, but what can be investigated.
• The law allows vague, subjective interpretation of terms like “association,” “support,” or “membership” of radical groups.
• The UAPA and NSA demonstrate that higher rank officers have been equally complicit in abuse and arbitrary arrests.

Conclusion: This amendment is a public relations manoeuvre, not a safeguard. It creates the illusion of due process while leaving arbitrary detention and criminalisation of dissent fully operational.

IV. Structural defects the Committee has deliberately ignored

The most dangerous provisions of the original bill, identified in detailed submissions by multiple groups including CJP, remain untouched. The committee has not even acknowledged, let alone amended, the following especially:

Section 2(f): Overbroad definition of “Unlawful Activity”

• No revision made.
• The section allows any form of protest, critique, or public mobilisation to be interpreted as a threat to public order.

Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

• District Magistrates and Police Commissioners retain absolute powers to seize properties and evict residents from notified areas.
• Only a vague promise of “reasonable time” to vacate is offered to women and children.

Section 10(1): Confiscation of moveable property

• No legal safeguards introduced.
• Entire homes, records, belongings, and finances can be seized on executive suspicion.

Section 12: Bar on district-level legal remedy

• Individuals can only approach the High Court or Supreme Court to challenge state action.
• This provision deliberately denies access to justice for economically weaker citizens and violates the principle of accessible legal redress.

Sections 14 & 15: Blanket immunity to officials

• Officers and magistrates acting under the law are granted total immunity, even when they violate constitutional rights.
• No mechanisms for accountability or independent review have been introduced.

Conclusion: The bill continues to function as an extra-constitutional regime. It merges preventive detention, ideological policing, and property seizure into a legal framework shielded from public accountability and judicial review.

V. Committee’s Ideological Closing Statement: Criminalising youth and dissent

The report ends with a “recommendation” urging the state to act against the “growing attraction” of youth to Naxalism and to implement policies to “discourage” them and “bring them into the mainstream.”

Analysis:

• This ideological framing reinforces that the law is designed to monitor, control, and neutralise student movements, political education, and grassroots activism.
• The state’s role is redefined not as a guarantor of rights, but as a censor of ideas.

Conclusion: The bill is not preventive security legislation. It is a state doctrine against dissent, designed to criminalise political education, intellectual opposition, and mobilisation.

This report must be rejected in its entirety!

The Joint Committee has failed in its legislative duty to protect constitutional values. It has whitewashed a draconian bill under the guise of minor technical amendments. What remains is a legal instrument of political repression.

The bill:

• Treats opposition as extremism
• Treats mobilisation as subversion
• Treats dissent as treason

This is a dangerous precedent. Not just that the Maharashtra government has reduced the functioning of a democratically set up Committee with Members of the Opposition in the State Assembly to tokenism but is proceeding –riding roughshod over critiques of such a law—with a statute that will have dangerous consequences. If enacted, it will be used to target civil society, demolish protest movements, paralyse unions, and intimidate the political opposition across Maharashtra.

Note prepared by Team Citizens for Justice and Peace

Related:

Maharashtra Unites: State-wide protests to take place against controversial MSPS Bill on April 22

Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?

Maharashtra’s redrafted Public Security Bill narrows scope — but concerns about suppression of dissent persist

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

The post Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Opposition “merely protests in press conferences”, news reports on Sunday, June 29 suggest that the ECI is riding roughshod over all concerns and going ahead anyway!

This article by an expert, associated with Vote for Democracy asks:

• Is this move not a flagrant breach of Election Law?
• Is it move not part of a nefarious design meant to deal a serious blow to our election system and the Universal Right to Franchise?

This article further demands:

Has CEC Gyaneshwar Kumar been appointed to:

• Utterly violate Clause 19 of the Representation of Peoples’ Act 1950 (hereinafter called RP ACT 1950)?
• To violate the RP ACT 1950 selectively against the poor, unlettered, homeless property-less, deprived citizenry?
• To also surreptitiously CAA 2019 & the dangerous NRC?

Does the CEC have the Constitutional Authority under Law:

• To define and judge the citizenship rights?
• To usurp the powers of the Parliament?

In June 24, in a sudden move just months before the forthcoming 2025 Bihar Vidhan Sabha Elections, the ECI under the present CEC has woken up to a special revision of electoral rolls, a process that has to be undertaken strictly in accordance with election law (Representation of People’s Act, 1951) and of course the Constitution.

This unilaterally announced and fundamentally flawed decision of the ECI must be seen in the context of a series of data denials of information to the opposition parties and the general public. Under Articles 324-326 of the Indian Constitution, all data preserved by the ECI is in good faith of the “people of India” and not under the control of a government then in power. The ECI has, in recent months undemocratically changed its own rules not to make available videography of polling booths post-closing time and has, been obdurately refusing to make available to the Opposition and public previous Electoral Roles (to enable detection of mass deletions and mass exclusions) in data which is in a readable and searchable format,

In this background of complete breakdown of trust and communication between the people themselves, Opposition parties and the ECI, the ECI issues this sudden diktat on June 24, 2025. Using a newly coined and specially designed term, ‘Special Intensive Revision’ of Electoral Rolls, vide its No. 23/ESR/2025 dated June 24, 2025—an exercise that finds no legitimacy in either Article 324 of the Constitution of India nor in the Representation of Peoples’ Act 1950, nor either in the Electors Registration Rules 1960.

With these usurped powers, the ECI has issued “instructions dated June 24, 2024, addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer Bihar, Patna directing therein the ‘Special Intensive Revision’ of Electoral Rolls, by July 26, 2025.” While claiming that the exercise has been necessitated because of “new demographic factors that have emerged in recent times”, the ECI’s decisions/actions do not find any objective basis.

The ECI has thereby directed the CEO Bihar to perform this self-appointed duty to decide as to whether each one of the voters is an Indian citizen or not, an exercise that the ECI with well delineated powers under the Constitution and the RPA-1950 is simply not authorised to do.

The ECI has further delegated this onerous task to the Block Level Officers (BLOs) who are, usually, Class 3 employees and cannot be authorised to decide on the citizenship of all the electors. No law empowers them to do so, especially those electors who have been registered to vote over several decades. Which means those voters who have enjoyed the constitutional right to universal adult franchise. As a result of this step, this scrutiny of Bihar voters who today touch 80 million –and increase from 77.26 million in the 2024 Lok Sabha (last June) —needs to be undertaken in just over a month!!! Will this process — hastily announced and compressed for completion in less than four weeks– moreover, one that has no basis in law or the Constitution be undertaken without the fundamental violation of Registration of Electors Rule 1960—since the legally mandate and mandatory time required for each step of this task has simply been overlooked, deliberately?

Enormity of the new task to be accomplished in one month

STATE WISE NUMBER OF ELECTORS – BIHAR

Source: https://www.eci.gov.in/general-election-to-loksabha-2024-statistical-reports

Under which Law does the ECI claims to draw the powers for such a draconian task?

The ECI in its directive letters No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II) dated June 24, 2025 (ibid) has claimed that it is empowered to do so under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and section 21 of the Representation of People, Act, 1950.

Let us examine the said provisions.

Article 324 in Constitution of India

324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).

The ECI has been empowered to, ‘The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls’, but not to decide as to whether one is a citizen of India or not.

This is because there is a separate Citizenship Act, 1955 and Indian Citizenship is decided as per provisions of Article 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India.

Article 11 reads as under: Parliament to regulate the Right of Citizenship by law.

Therefore, the June 24, “directives” of the Commission are unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the articles related to Citizenship. Moreover, the ECI is unauthorisedly and illegally assuming the powers of Parliament, especially when it is seeking certain documentary evidence from any persons who are not included in the electoral roles of 2003 and are born before July 1, 1987 in as much as:

A person most deprived being homeless, unlettered, having no identity card, no land, no permanent residence certificate issued by Government, no passport, no pension payment order as he she does draw any service pension, issued before July 1, 1987 and who has not been included in the electors list earlier before 2003, either because the person is a minor, or because of the dereliction of duty by the ECI will be severely impacted.

In order to remove such arbitrariness, discrimination, favouritism, deprivation and chaos, keeping in view the actual conditions of the country provisions have been made under the RPA Act 1950 and The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to which we shall refer a little later.

First, the Clause 21 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950:

The said Clause 21 reads as under:

[21. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls. — (1) The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

2[(2) the said electoral roll—

(a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date—

As such in this clause 21 (1) one needs to concentrate on following mandate of the law to the ECI:

i) shall be prepared in the prescribed manner

ii) In accordance with the rules made under this Act.

ECI cannot and should not travel beyond the four walls by way of unauthorised outreach activities rather should concentrate on its sacred duty of conduction elections in a fair, transparent and absolutely impartial manner.

Consequently, it is clear that the instructions issued by the ECI, are patent violation of the provision of clause 21(1) as this intended action will nullify all the existing roles containing all electors that have been in effect –granting Universal Adult Franchise–in 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and the 2024 Lok Sabha elections apart from the elections to the Bihar state legislature during this long period of over two decades.

Further, this clause 21 of the RPA Act, 1950 is subordinate to the umbrella Clause 15 which reads as under:

15. Electoral roll for every constituency. —For every constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.

Therefore, Clause 15 makes it patently clear that an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Possibly deliberately and with mala fide intent, the ECI has failed or refused to note is that all provisions for the ‘preparation of electoral rolls’ are to be read together, not just Clause 21 selectively.

There is no denying the fact that the ECI is empowered to have the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission for preparation of the electoral rolls but it is of a great significance that the ECI is duty bound to accomplish the task in accordance with the provisions of this ACT 1950, nothing more, nothing less.

Let us now glance at the provisions of the Act, ibid wherein, under Clause 19, the conditions for the registration of an elector are codified which the ECI has miserably failed to observe/maintain.

The same are reproduced here as under:

4 [19. Conditions of registration. —Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Part, every person who —

(a) Is not less than [eighteen years] of age on the qualifying date, and

(b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency,

shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.]

It is crystal clear that there are only two conditions required for any person to get registered as an elector namely the person should be of 18 years or more and should be ordinarily residing in the constituency. Further it is the clear mandate given to the ECI and the inherent right of the person that the person shall be registered in the electoral rolls. From the above provisions it is obvious that the ECI has no right to demand the documents as enumerated in its order from each and every elector who is was not registered in 2003. Worse, merely owning a house or a property in an area does not make one an ordinarily residing citizen as defined under Clause 20 of the rules Ibid which is as under:

20. Meaning of “ordinarily resident”. —6[(1) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.

(1A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therein.

Parliament, the law-making body—legislature– has been conscious of the need to weed out the wrongly registered voters (electors) and the provision to address this malady is contained under Clause 16 of the RPA Act 1950 and the same is as under:

16. Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. — (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he—

(a) is not a citizen of India; or

(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt 1*** practices and other offences in connection with elections.

The ECI’s unconstitutional and bombastic claim that it will seek a certificate of birth under Sub-clause(a) of Clause 16 is preposterous. Will the ECI then also seek a certificate of being sound mind as provided under subclause (b)of the Clause ibid.

What do the Rules for registration prescribe for getting registered as an elector?

Under Rule 13(1) of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, it is provided that a person has to submit an application in form No. 6. There is no distinction provided in Rule 13 (1) of the Rules between voters registered in 2003 or thereafter at any time. How can therefore the ECI make conditions that are contrary to this mandate?

The form also does not prescribe for the need to produce any certificates as has recently been announced by the ECI arbitrarily.

Under the 1960 Rules, there is a further provision that allows for correction in electoral roles—a person has to apply in form No. 8. To raise any objection for a wrongful or ‘fake’ inclusion of voters, an application has to be moved in Form No. 7. There is also a punishment prescribed for any false declaration made and hence the present architect newly framed by ECI smacks of a move uncalled for.

Time lines for the deletion of name as per instructions issued by the ECI vide No. 23/INST/2023-ERS Dated August 11, 2023

An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is not empowered to undertake this task, much less the BLO!

The Commission taking all aspects into consideration, including with a view to wrongful deletion during election year has directed that ERO shall not resort to a deletion without a form 7 and without following due process of verification as laid down in para 4 of the above said instructions. The due process of verification as laid down and prescribed in para 6 (ii) (iii) of the above instructions, is as under:

An application has to be submitted by an Objector on the prescribed form No. 7 for deletion of any name, supported by a declaration that the information filled therein is not false and a receipt is to be issued against the receipt of the application, there is a punitive clause for false entries as under:

Note. – Any person who makes a statement or declaration which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is punishable under section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950)

1. The election authority has to serve a registered notice to the concerned elector by registered post and the receipt of the delivery of the notice is to be kept in record
2. The person served the notice is supposed to reply with in 15 days after the issuance of the notice.
3. If no reply is received then the election authority asks the BLO to conduct a visit to the spot and makes all the records of time and date of visit, the person visiting and the person and exact place visited, the enquiries conducted and submit it to the competent authority who thereafter on expiry of further 15 days issues orders for the deletion.

The ECI– in its own wisdom– has prescribed following documents for the ‘special intensive revision’, oblivious of the ground realities or despite being aware of the same.

• any identity card
• pension payment order,
• identity card or document issued in India by government before June 1, 1987
• birth certificate issued by the competent authority,
• passport,
• matriculation certificates,
• permanent residence certificate issued by competent state authority and
• any land or house allotment certificate by government, among others.

Ground realities 

1. To seek a birth certificate of a person born before 1987 and also of his parents is nothing but a move calculated for exclusion. This also smacks of an indirect move to bring in the controverted National Register of Citizens (NRC), under challenge in the Supreme Court. Basically, this is also contrary to the law of the land in as much as the registration of births and deaths Act came into existence only in 1969 as under:

“The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 18 of 1969) [31st May 1969] An Act to provide for the regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith”.

2. Those who are born before July 1, 1987 and were registered as voters after 2003 cannot be denied their right as Indian citizen by the ECI, without proceedings conducted as per law by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, to decide the citizenship issue.

3. Civil registration of births and deaths until 2011 (when the last Census was conducted) were at only 82.4% and 66.4% respectively. How then can we imagine that every legitimate birth and death of both father and mother of those born on or before July 1, 1987 will have been recorded through a birth certificate?

4. Even after making birth registration mandatory in 2023, as on March 11,2025 still 10 % of Indian births go unregistered.

5. The National Family Health Survey-3 conducted from December 2005 to August 2006, shows only 6.3% birth registrations in Bihar, 7.3% in UP, 9.5% in Jharkhand and 16.4% in Rajasthan while the national figure for this was 41.4%, and birth certificates granted only for 27.1% of the population.

6. In 199, in India only 52.1% population was able to read and write, around half of the population is totally unlettered. The figures for Bihar show the literacy rate at only 38.48% and among females only 22.89%. To go further, in 2001 only 87,60,589 out of 8,29,98,509 persons i.e., a poor 55% of the people had passed their Std X examinations making the ECI’s demand of a matriculation certificate a cruel joke.

7. As of December 31, 2023, 6.5 percent (92,624,661) of Indian citizens possessed a valid passport; now CEC Mr. Gyaneshwar is on to deny them their voting rights on grounds of not having a passport!

8. Between 2019 to 2023 the total number of passports issued in Bihar are 20,12,357, that is catering to around 1.5% population. (Parbhat Khabar digital Bihar May 17, 2025 6.05am)

9. 4% population does not possess own houses per 2011 census, but Mr. Gyaneshwar wants them to show papers of own house otherwise lose electoral rights.

10. gov.in › images › AADHAAR_NUMBERS_ENGLISHGOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION …As per RGI data, the total projected population (2022) of India is 137.30 crore (approx.). As on June 30, 2022, a total of 133.586 crore Aadhaar cards have been generated. Around 4 crores of Indians have not got even an Aadhaar card.

Under these circumstances, one wonders as to why- instead of using the scant available resources for conducting a fair impartial and transparent just elections in the state of Bihar, the ECI is undertaking an unlawful and unconstitutional electoral revision exercise, hell bent in punishing the poor and hapless who enjoys one right above all, the right to universal adult franchise.

(The author, one of the experts associated with Vote for Democracy is also Former Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh)

Related:

Who orchestrated APPs failures, the FM and her ex-FS or the ECI?

SABRANGINDIA EXCLUSIVE: Election 2024, ECI: Technical glitch, gross negligence or deliberate manipulation?

The post Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.