The findings emerge from an audit reported by The Hindu that Charchagram, a civic technology initiative, conducted by Saurav Rajput, a data scientist and alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta. The audit examined JavaScript code made publicly available by the ECINET website.

The findings assume significance amid objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over the centralisation of ECINET and the electoral roll database.

The audit identifies two forms of access control that State-wise settings governing access to enumeration forms and State Nodal Officers’ accounts, and a separate restriction concerning electoral officers in West Bengal. However, it does not establish whether these controls were enforced by the platform’s backend, whether they were used in practice or which officials, if any, were affected.

State Nodal Officers’ accounts can be disabled

The Hindustan Times reported that ECINET has a dedicated management section for State Nodal Officers (SNOs), with options to create, manage, update and disable their accounts. The section includes a disable button against each officer’s entry. The confirmation message states: “On disabling this State Nodal Officer, the user will no longer be able to access the application.”

Rajput observed that this wording indicates an account-level restriction that could prevent the officer from accessing the application, rather than merely reducing the officer’s permissions.

The publicly available code also contains the message: “View enumeration form details is not enabled for selected State”.

This indicates that the option to view enumeration form details can be enabled or disabled separately for each State. Where the feature is not enabled, officials receive this message instead of being shown the forms.

The audit therefore points to a system in which access to a particular function can be controlled State by State, while an SNO’s account can also be disabled. It does not establish whether either option was exercised against any State or officer.

Separate restriction identified for West Bengal

The audit also found a separate restriction in the code that specifically identifies West Bengal.

The SIR Phase II landing page generally provides an option for officials to view enumeration form details. However, the code examined by Rajput contained a separate exclusion for West Bengal’s EROs and AEROs, potentially preventing them from accessing these forms.

The same restriction extended to the notice-and-hearing dashboard used to track, process and dispose of notices and hearing-related actions concerning voter registration and electoral roll revision.

The audit found no equivalent State-specific exclusion for EROs and AEROs in other States.

Rajput examined the publicly served code on October 2, 6, 7 and 9. The West Bengal-specific exclusion was still present in the code retrieved on October 19.

The presence of this restriction in the code does not, by itself, establish that West Bengal’s electoral officers were actually denied access. The audit did not test the application after login or examine whether the server enforced the restriction.

The information electoral officers use for scrutiny

The enumeration form page contains information relevant to the scrutiny of voters’ records. This includes the constituency, part and serial number, the elector’s voter ID and name, details of the person who submitted the form, uploaded documents and the Booth Level Officer’s (BLO) recommendation.

The page also contains documents labelled “ERO/AERO-Document” and “Hearing-Order”. Officials can use the available options to return a form to the BLO or identify an elector as belonging to a previous SIR electoral roll.

The notice-and-hearing dashboard supports the processing of cases involving notices, hearings and electoral roll revision.

If the restrictions identified in the code were enforced, they could limit the ability of the affected officers to view information required for their work. Whether any such limitation occurred remains unverified.

How the audit examined the platform

ECINET was launched in January 2026 as the ECI’s unified digital platform for officials. It brings several services under a single login, including user management, ERONET, the Right to Information module and the Enumeration Form Tracker used during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Officials access these services through the platform’s official login. However, the login page also loads a large JavaScript file that is publicly accessible. The file contains interface labels, menu names, screen routes and application programming interface (API) paths, including information relating to functions intended for officials.

Rajput said he examined files that the website made available to the public. He did not use login credentials, access an official account or make calls to the application’s backend endpoints.

He said he first located the relevant feature on September 28. The current build was introduced on October 16, but he did not have access to earlier versions and could not establish when the features were first introduced or whether they had changed.

The audit establishes that the relevant restrictions appear in the publicly served code. It does not establish whether corresponding controls operated on the server, whether the features were activated or how they affected the functioning of the platform.

The findings have not been independently verified by the reporting newspaper, and the ECI did not respond to its questionnaire.

West Bengal’s SIR and the dispute over voter records

The access restrictions identified in the code concern functions central to West Bengal’s contested SIR exercise, which began on November 4, 2025.

The draft electoral roll, published on December 16, excluded 7.8% of the electorate recorded before the revision, according to the report. The ECI subsequently flagged another 1.36 crore electors for what it described as “logical discrepancies”.

Hearings were delayed amid a dispute between the ECI and the West Bengal government over the rank of officials appointed as EROs.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution and entrusted the hearings to judicial officers. It asked the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to make serving and former judicial officers available to examine pending claims.

On February 24, the Court noted that approximately 250 judicial officers had been assigned around 50 lakh cases, a workload that could take up to 80 days. It expanded the pool of judicial officers and directed that only documents submitted on or before February 14 would be considered.

The Court also placed responsibility on EROs and AEROs to satisfy the presiding judicial officers regarding the specified documents.

The judicial officers completed their work on April 6. Of the 1.36 crore cases involving logical discrepancies, approximately 22 lakh names were removed, according to the report.

Millions of appeals remained pending

The final electoral roll was published on February 28, with approximately 10% of the pre-SIR electorate removed. Supplementary lists continued to be issued until a day before the April Assembly elections because cases involving logical discrepancies were still being processed.

According to the report, 27.1 lakh people were ultimately disenfranchised. Around 38 lakh appeals remained pending before 19 appellate tribunals as the elections approached. These included challenges by people whose names had been excluded and objections to the inclusion of other electors.

The tribunals were not yet fully established at that stage. During the preceding two months, several tribunal judges had also complained that the ECI’s portal and backend processes were obstructing their work.

The audit does not establish that the access restrictions it identified caused voter exclusions, delayed the hearings or contributed to the pending appeals. Its findings concern the presence of controls in the website’s code, rather than their actual use or impact.

Questions over EROs’ statutory responsibilities

On February 21, Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee alleged that EROs in West Bengal could no longer monitor AEROs’ progress on ECINET during the revision.

He argued that this violated Sections 13B and 13C of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which deal with the appointment and responsibilities of EROs and AEROs, including the preparation of electoral rolls and the placement of AEROs under EROs’ control.

Supreme Court advocate Harshit Anand said that, if implemented, the reported restriction could conflict with the Supreme Court’s directions.

He explained that the Court’s February orders placed primary responsibility for document verification on EROs and AEROs, with judicial officers subsequently examining their reports. If electoral officers were denied access to forms and claims, this could also obstruct the judicial scrutiny of the cases.

These concerns depend on whether the reported restrictions were actually applied and whether they affected the work of electoral officers.

What the findings establish

The audit identifies State-wise controls over enumeration form access and SNO accounts, alongside a separate restriction in the code concerning West Bengal’s EROs and AEROs. It raises questions about how access to ECINET’s functions is configured and administered during electoral roll revision.

However, the audit does not establish when the restrictions originated, whether they were activated, whether the platform’s backend enforced them, which officers may have been affected or whether they altered the processing of voter records.

Further information about the platform’s backend operations and the permissions assigned to electoral officials would be needed to establish whether the restrictions were applied in practice and what consequences, if any, followed.

The central question remains whether the access controls identified in the code were merely present as system features or were actually used during West Bengal’s SIR process.

Auto-generated Form 7s used for deletions without written ECI guidelines

Moreover, thousands of names have been deleted from electoral rolls during Phases II and III of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) using Form 7s automatically generated by the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ERONet software and digitally signed by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). However, no written communication or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) explaining this process has been shared with State election authorities, according to officials cited by The Hindu. 

The practice has been reported in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal, including cases involving voters flagged for unresolved “logical discrepancies” or “no mapping”. More than 87,000 names in Uttar Pradesh and over 95,000 in Uttarakhand were reportedly deleted through this method. Under the ECI’s Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2024, there is no provision for an ERO to file Form 7. The form is intended for an eligible elector to object to an entry or seek deletion of a name. In cases of death, it may also be submitted by a family member, a local elector or a Booth Level Officer (BLO). The rules prescribe procedures for receiving, checking and displaying Form 7 applications, as well as cross-verification in specified cases. Although the ERO has the authority to delete a name found ineligible after the prescribed process, the manual does not provide a general procedure for auto-generating Form 7s in this manner. 

The manual mentions auto-generated Form 7s only in the context of verifying Photo Similar Entries, where field verification by the BLO and the required signature are necessary before the forms can be processed. The ECI had not responded to the query on the absence of written instructions, raising questions about the procedure followed for these deletions and the guidelines under which State election authorities were operating.

The TCS connection and VFD’s questions

The relationship between ECINet and Tata Consultancy Services is raised in Vote for Democracy’s statement on the “ECINet-TCS nexus”. The statement says TCS has operated ERONet 2.0 since 2023 and describes its role in the electoral software and database framework. It also raises allegations concerning changes to Form 6 and electoral officers’ access rights. These remain claims requiring responses from the ECI and TCS. 

VFD says questions sent to TCS in October–November 2025 received no reply. Its present statement asks who proposes, reviews and approves access changes; whether TCS administers permissions; what access Bengal’s judicial officers received; when independent audits occurred; and what oversight the Election Commissioners exercise. It also seeks information about external database connections and their monitoring. 

The VFD’s statement titled “Vote for Democracy Statement on the ECINET-TCS Nexus: Asking Some Questions” can be accessed from here

The unanswered question of authority

However, reports of repeated objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the ECI ordered a review of ECINet by a committee headed by the senior deputy election commissioner, with an independent IIT/IIIT expert, to check compliance with electoral laws and rules. The commissioners had also objected to a work-allocation change affecting oversight of the electoral IT system. The ECI said that change was never implemented and maintained that field officers’ access to ECINet matched their statutory powers.

The questions placed the findings alongside objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to the centralisation of ECINet and the electoral roll database.

In September 26, 2026 statement, Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh said that the ECI’s response did not directly deny the reported findings. He questioned ECINet’s centralisation, changes to Form 6 and voter deletions, and said a technical review would not address these concerns. He demanded suspension of SIR and the CEC’s resignation or prosecution.

STATEMENT OF SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH, MP, GENERAL SECRETARY (COMMUNICATIONS), ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

September 8, 2026 https://t.co/aABG0evy0o

— INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) September 8, 2026

The immediate questions are concrete. Who authorised the Bengal exception? Was it used during verification or appeals? Who can disable State-level access? Are such decisions recorded, reviewed and communicated to the officers concerned?

The continuing presence of these controls after public objections makes a documented explanation necessary. Electoral officers’ responsibilities depend on access to the records they must examine. The ECI must explain how ECINet’s permissions support those responsibilities, who controls changes and whether any restriction prevented officers from carrying out their work.

Related:

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Karnataka Form 7 Row: 91,278 deletion requests and bulk filing complaints—where was the ECI’s check?

September 26 ECI Press Note: Does it not render SIR redundant?

The post Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a statement issued on October 23, the experts urged the Indian government to “respect, protect and fulfil the right to peacefully protest” and ensure justice for violations reported during recent demonstrations and previous protests. Their intervention comes amid reports of police action against demonstrators in New Delhi and other parts of the country, including protests against voter-roll deletions under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and government decisions concerning education.

The experts warned that the crackdown reflects a broader pattern of restrictions on dissent, including excessive force, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and the targeting of student activists.

“We have repeatedly alerted the Indian authorities to undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and the targeting of student activists, amongst others,” they said.

Over 7,000 reportedly detained; concerns over gender-based violence

The UN experts referred to reports that more than 7,000 young people, journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and political party members were recently detained in New Delhi and transferred to detention centres far from the sites of protest. Their phones were allegedly seized and protest-related material deleted. Most were reportedly released after around 24 hours, including protest leaders.

Despite the reportedly peaceful nature of the demonstrations, police allegedly used force against unarmed students, including lathi charges, while preventing thousands of others from joining the protests.

The experts also expressed particular concern over reports of injuries, ill-treatment and sexual violence against women protesters, as well as other forms of gender-based abuse during demonstrations and related detentions. They called for authorities to address the gender-specific consequences of restrictions on peaceful assembly and the reprisals faced by protesters.

The statement links the demonstrations to widespread concerns over government decisions affecting education and the SIR exercise, which has reportedly resulted in voter-roll deletions affecting approximately 130 million people, including members of Muslim, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. The experts called on the government to uphold the democratic right of students and other citizens to assemble peacefully and express their grievances without fear of violence or retaliation.

Section 163 of BNSS flagged over restrictions on assembly

The experts also raised concerns over the reported use of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to impose broad restrictions on public gatherings, suspend public transportation and enforce internet shutdowns. Section 163 empowers executive magistrates to issue orders to prevent or address specified threats, including dangers to human life, safety and public tranquillity. Its use to impose sweeping restrictions on assemblies raises questions about whether such measures meet the legal requirements governing limitations on peaceful protest.

The UN experts stressed that restrictions on peaceful assembly must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. They warned that the reported actions implicate India’s international obligations concerning freedom of peaceful assembly and expression, personal liberty and security, and the right to defend human rights.

“We call on the authorities to immediately cease the use of excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans, and refrain from the misuse of digital surveillance, including through biometrics, and internet disruptions,” they said.

The intervention highlights concern not only over physical force and detention but also over the use of surveillance and communication restrictions to impede mobilisation and the dissemination of information during protests.

Experts recall March detentions and alleged enforced disappearances

The statement also recalled the reported detention of 10 student and labour-rights activists in New Delhi in March. According to the information cited by the experts, plain-clothes police officers detained the activists, held them incommunicado for more than 24 hours and allegedly subjected them to ill-treatment, threats, coercion and forced declarations.

They were reportedly released after habeas corpus proceedings were initiated. Such proceedings allow courts to examine the legality of a person’s detention and provide a judicial remedy against unlawful deprivation of liberty. By invoking these earlier incidents alongside the recent protests, the experts situated the reported abuses within a wider pattern of concerns over police conduct and the treatment of activists.

They called for an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the conduct of law enforcement personnel and affiliated forces, demanding accountability, justice and reparations for victims.

“The Government must guarantee non-recurrence and uphold the democratic right of students and others to assemble and express grievances,” the experts said.

Experts across 16 human rights mandates issue warning

The signatories include independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, among them special rapporteurs on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of expression, the independence of judges and lawyers, education, minority rights, privacy, torture, violence against women and human rights defenders. The statement also carries the support of members of two working groups: the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

Among those signing the statement are Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; and Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls.

Their statement places the reported treatment of protesters under international human rights scrutiny and calls on the Indian government to respond through investigation, accountability and guarantees against recurrence. Their central demand is that peaceful protest must not be met with disproportionate force, indiscriminate detention or measures that effectively prevent citizens from exercising their democratic rights.

The complete statement may be read here.

Related:

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post UN experts condemn India’s crackdown on youth-led protests, flag 7,000 detentions and alleged sexual abuse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The timing makes the decision particularly alarming. The country is already witnessing opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, amid concerns over the exclusion of eligible voters. The Census questionnaire, meanwhile, seeks information extending beyond conventional demographic particulars, including Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile phone details, bank-account information, and the dates and places of birth of parents.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here, here, here and here.

The government has offered administrative convenience as a justification for widening the workforce. But a shortage of government personnel cannot explain away the dangers of unchecked discretion over who gets to collect citizens’ private information. Nor can assurances of data security substitute for transparent rules that prevent the exercise from being weaponised. The Census is a nationwide exercise through which the State collects sensitive information from millions of households. Expanding access to that information through an opaque and discretionary recruitment process, without publicly establishing robust safeguards against political interference and data misuse, raises serious questions about who the government intends to empower and for what purpose.

A backdoor for the Sangh Parivar?

The amended rules permit teachers from government, local authority, aided and unaided private educational institutions, as well as teachers associated with societies and trusts, to be appointed as enumerators. Clerks and officials from government departments, public sector undertakings, banks, companies and other institutions are also eligible. The third category allows the appointment of “any person” considered suitable by the State government or Union Territory administration.

The last provision is especially troubling. It leaves considerable discretion with the appointing authorities without specifying, in the notification, sufficiently clear criteria for eligibility, political neutrality or independent scrutiny.

On October 17, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of turning Census recruitment into an employment scheme for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers. In a post on X, Ramesh drew attention to an RSS training camp held in Belgaum from July 10 to 12, 2026, which he said had focused on Census 2027.

He also questioned the composition of the Union Home Ministry’s High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes, constituted on May 26, and its October 14 call for public inputs from Indian and foreign organisations. Linking these developments to the October 16 notification, Ramesh alleged that the government was preparing to recruit thousands of RSS-BJP workers under what he described as a “Rozgar Guarantee Yojana”. His warning was unequivocal: “. Just like with the SIR, dangerous manipulations will be carried out in the Census data as well.”

मोदी सरकार ने अब जनगणना 2027 के लिए गणनाकर्मियों के रूप में नियुक्त किए जा सकने वाले लोगों का दायरा बढ़ा दिया है। इसके पीछे काफी गड़बड़झाला है।

10 से 12 जुलाई 2026 के दौरान RSS ने बेलगाम में अपने कार्यकर्ताओं के लिए एक बड़ा प्रशिक्षण शिविर आयोजित किया था, जिसका एकमात्र एजेंडा जनगणना 2027 था।

केंद्रीय गृह मंत्रालय द्वारा 26 मई 2026 को गठित डेमोग्राफिक बदलावों पर उच्चस्तरीय समिति ने अब देश की डेमोग्राफी में हो रहे बदलावों को लेकर आम जनता के साथ-साथ भारतीय और विदेशी संगठनों से भी सुझाव मांगे हैं। इस समिति में उच्चस्तरीय केवल एक ही बात है-इसके सदस्यों का RSS से जुड़े संगठनों और लोगों से संबंध। इसलिए हम जानते हैं कि ये सुझाव कहां से आएंगे।

16 अक्टूबर 2026 को जारी जनगणना के नोटिफिकेशन को 10 से 12 जुलाई 2026 के RSS के प्रशिक्षण शिविर और 14अक्टूबर 2026 को डेमोग्राफी में बदलावों पर बनी समिति द्वारा सुझाव मांगने के संदर्भ में देखा जाना चाहिए।

यह साफ है कि यह हजारों RSS/BJP कार्यकर्ताओं के लिए एक रोजगार गारंटी योजना है। इससे पहले ही बिगाड़ी जा चुकी जनगणना की प्रक्रिया और भी दूषित होगी। एक और संस्था को बर्बाद किया जा रहा है। SIR की तरह जनगणना के आंकड़ों में भी खतरनाक तरीके से हेरफेर किया जाएगा।

PM-HM की जोड़ी के षड्यंत्रकारी मंसूबों की कोई सीमा नहीं है।

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) October 17, 2026

The CPI(M) has raised similar concerns. In a statement posted on X, party leader M.A. Baby warned that the amended rules could facilitate the entry of Sangh Parivar-linked individuals into the Census workforce, exposing citizens’ personal information to potential political misuse. He demanded that the amendments be withdrawn and an all-party consultation on Census methodology be convened immediately.

The Union Home Ministry’s amendments to the Census Rules are not as innocuous as they might seem at first glance.

The newly notified amendments open up enumerator roles to private school teachers, members of “institutions, societies and trusts,” and any person deemed “suitable” by the concerned State Government or Union territory administration. This is a means of ensuring backdoor entry to the Sangh Parivar to access the private data of Indian citizens.

On 24 August, I had submitted a memo on behalf of CPI(M) to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner demanding that personal details sought in the notified questionnaire for the second phase, such as Aadhaar, voter ID, passport, mobile number, details of bank accounts, and religion and birth place of parents, not be collected. The memo also called for strict safeguards against linking Census data with other databases.

Deploying Sangh Parivar agents to collect individual details that do not serve the Census purpose will weaponise the Census exercise for citizenship determination and electoral exclusion. The fact that the Modi government is going ahead with this in the midst of a nationwide upheaval against the SIR process shows its blatant disregard for public sentiment and constitutional norms.

This cannot be allowed. The notified amendments must be withdrawn, and an all-party consultation on Census methodology must be held immediately. The Census must not become the next SIR in the hands of Modi – Amit Shah – Mohan Bhagwat.

— M A Baby (@MABABYCPIM) October 19, 2026

These allegations expose a fundamental problem with the government’s approach. When a ruling establishment has repeatedly been accused of using state institutions to advance its political agenda, widening access to sensitive household information through loosely defined recruitment criteria cannot be treated as an innocent bureaucratic exercise. The issue is not merely who gets a temporary job; it is about who is entrusted with collecting intimate details about people’s identities, families, documents and circumstances, and what prevents that access from being exploited.

Why does the Census need so much personal information?

The expanded recruitment rules are only one part of a larger problem: the growing volume of sensitive information being sought from households. As previously discussed, the 40-question Population Enumeration questionnaire includes several data fields not included in the 2011 Census. These include nationality, the spouse’s name, parents’ particulars, permanent residential address, digital literacy and the place of COVID-19 vaccination. Respondents are also asked about bank accounts and whether they possess Aadhaar, voter ID, a passport, a driving licence and a mobile phone.

The CPI(M) had already raised objections to this questionnaire. In a memorandum submitted to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner on August 24, M.A. Baby demanded that details such as Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers, bank-account information, religion and parents’ places of birth not be collected. The memorandum also sought strict safeguards against linking Census data with other databases.

These are questions the government cannot evade. What is the precise statistical necessity of collecting each additional data field? Who will have access to it? How long will it be retained? What prevents it from being linked to databases maintained for entirely different purposes?

A Census official told The Hindu that data collected through enumerators’ mobile applications would be centralised and deleted from the enumerators’ devices after their work was completed. The official also claimed that adequate checks were in place to protect privacy. That assurance does not answer the central questions. Deleting data from an enumerator’s phone does not establish who can access the central database, what safeguards prevent unauthorised sharing, or whether the information can be linked to other government records. Centralisation is not, by itself, a guarantee of security.

From SIR to Census: the danger of turning data into a tool of exclusion

The controversy cannot be separated from the political context in which it is unfolding. There are also reasons to question the political neutrality of the data-collection process itself. The Hindu reported in June 2026 that enumerators in Rajasthan had allegedly been instructed not to select certain government scheme-related responses that could reflect poorly on the government. The reported examples included open defecation, the use of wood or dung cakes as household fuel, and access to tap water. If government personnel are being instructed to avoid recording responses that might embarrass the ruling establishment, the integrity of the Census is already at stake. A national statistical exercise cannot be permitted to become a public-relations exercise for the government.

The shortage-of-staff argument is no excuse

The government has defended the expansion on practical grounds. According to The Hindu, around 34 lakh enumerators will be needed for the Population Enumeration phase. The exercise is scheduled for February 2027 across much of the country, while enumeration in poll-bound Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Goa is scheduled from December 1, 2026, to January 4, 2027. School examinations, Assembly elections and the deployment of government teachers for electoral duties have added to the administrative pressure.

Former Deputy Registrar General of India K. Narayanan Unni told The Hindu that the move appeared to reflect a shortage of government schoolteachers and personnel from government-aided schools. But administrative pressure cannot justify an unrestricted expansion of the workforce without adequate accountability. The previous practice of relying largely on government schoolteachers, revenue officials and other public personnel was not without its own shortcomings. Yet the move to widen recruitment demands a clear explanation of how standards of impartiality, confidentiality and accountability will be maintained.

The legal challenges surrounding the deployment of private schoolteachers further complicate the picture. The Hindu reported that the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed two Haryana government communications seeking details of teachers for Census duties on October 16. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had granted interim protection to associations representing more than 500 private unaided and minority schools in Maharashtra against notices, appointment orders and coercive action relating to Census deployment.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post Who will collect India’s data? Modi-led government opens census to private individuals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report, dated September 27, 2026, was prepared by Sabir Ahamed, Souptik Halder and Ashin Chakraborty. It analyses the Absent, Shifted and Dead (ASD) lists published by the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, examining removals by constituency, district, polling booth, gender, age and recorded reason.

Its main finding is the difference between the hills and the Imphal Valley. The hill constituencies recorded an average of 79 removals per booth, compared with 31.2 in the valley. Churachandpur district alone accounted for 38,264 names, nearly one-fourth of the state total.

The authors do not conclude that any community was deliberately targeted. They identify places and categories requiring closer verification, particularly because the records do not distinguish people displaced since May 2023 from those who moved voluntarily.

What the report examined

The study covers all 60 constituencies and analyses records from 3,014 polling booths across Manipur’s 16 districts. The statewide average was 52.6 removals per booth, rounded to 53 in the report’s summary.

The authors checked the constituency files against the combined state file. They report that the records matched name for name and that each constituency’s total agreed with the sum of its available booth records.

However, 27 booth records in seven constituencies could not be downloaded from the election website. These included 15 records in Tamei, four each in Chingai and Tadubi, and one each in Phungyar, Ukhrul, Karong and Kangpokpi.

The figures for these seven constituencies are therefore lower bounds: they count the available records and may understate the full number. All seven constituencies are in the hill group.

The report also states that the authors did not have the complete electoral rolls, including voter totals by constituency, booth, gender or community. It consequently provides counts and averages per booth, rather than the percentage of registered voters removed. It makes no comparison with winning margins or turnout because the necessary electoral rolls and 2022 result sheets were unavailable to the study.

Hill constituencies account for 1.05 lakh names

The report divides Manipur into three geographical groups: 39 valley constituencies, 20 hill constituencies and Jiribam, which it treats separately.

The valley group covers Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur, Thoubal and Kakching. The hill group covers Chandel, Churachandpur, Kamjong, Kangpokpi, Noney, Pherzawl, Senapati, Tamenglong, Tengnoupal and Ukhrul.

Nineteen of the 20 hill constituencies are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Kangpokpi is a general constituency situated in a hill district. Together, the hill constituencies accounted for 1,05,294 removals across 1,332 booths—66.4% of the state total. The 39 valley constituencies accounted for 51,106 removals across 1,640 booths, or 32.2%. Jiribam recorded 2,277 removals across 42 booths, accounting for the remaining 1.4%. The average number removed per hill booth was about two-and-a-half times the valley average. Jiribam’s average was 54.2.

These figures describe the distribution of recorded removals. Without the total electorate in each group, they do not establish the comparative probability of an individual hill or valley voter being removed.

Churachandpur accounts for nearly one-fourth of removals

Churachandpur district recorded 38,264 removals across its four constituencies: Saikot, Churachandpur, Henglep and Singhat. Its average of 132.4 removals per booth was the highest among the 16 districts. The district’s total exceeded the combined 33,896 removals recorded in Imphal East and Imphal West, which together contain 23 constituencies.

Among the other hill districts, Tamenglong recorded 10,973 removals, Kangpokpi 10,425, Ukhrul 10,050 and Senapati 7,689. Pherzawl recorded 6,732, Chandel 6,672, Tengnoupal 5,228, Noney 4,759 and Kamjong 4,502. In the valley, Imphal West recorded 17,187 removals and Imphal East 16,709. Thoubal recorded 6,957, Bishnupur 6,279 and Kakching 3,974.

The district comparison shows variation within the hills as well. Noney averaged 91.5 removals per booth, followed by Pherzawl at 86.3 and Chandel at 83.4. Senapati’s average was substantially lower, at 34.2. Kakching had the lowest district average, at 26 removals per booth. Bishnupur and Thoubal followed at 26.3 and 26.6 respectively.

Saikot records the highest constituency total

Saikot had the largest number of removals among all 60 constituencies: 14,152 across 84 booths. It also had the highest average, at 168.5 removals per booth.

Churachandpur constituency followed with 9,381 removals, Henglep with 8,130, Tamenglong with 7,000, Chandel with 6,672 and Singhat with 6,601. Ukhrul recorded 6,382, Tengnoupal 5,228, Nungba 4,759 and Thanlon 4,696. The ten constituencies with the highest removal totals were all in the hill group.

The ranking changes when measured per booth. After Saikot, Henglep averaged 135.5 removals, Singhat 117.9, Thanlon 114.5, Churachandpur 105.4 and Tamenglong 104.5.

Wangkhei stood out in the valley. It recorded 3,756 removals across 50 booths, averaging 75.1 per booth—more than twice the valley average and the eleventh-highest constituency average statewide. At the other end, Singjamei recorded the smallest total, at 671 names. Hiyanglam recorded 692 and Sugnoo 848. Thongju had the lowest average per booth, at 19, followed by Hiyanglam at 19.2 and Moirang at 19.6.

“Permanently shifted” is the most common recorded reason

The ASD records classify removals under four reasons. “Permanently Shifted” accounted for 72,473 names, or 45.7% of the total. Death accounted for 43,000 names, or 27.1%. Another 35,810 names, or 22.6%, were classified as “Untraceable/Absent”. The remaining 7,394, or approximately 4.7%, were recorded as already enrolled elsewhere.

These are the reasons entered in the records. The study does not independently establish the circumstances of every person listed under them. The geographical differences were substantial. In the valley, death accounted for 43.2% of removals, permanent shifting for 35.8%, absence or inability to trace the voter for 16.6%, and enrolment elsewhere for 4.4%.

In the hills, permanent shifting accounted for 50.4%, absence or inability to trace the voter for 25.7%, death for 19.1%, and enrolment elsewhere for 4.9%. Taken together, shifting and absence accounted for about 76% of hill removals, compared with approximately 52% in the valley.

The authors also found that constituencies recording more removals per booth generally had a larger share attributed to shifting and a smaller share attributed to death. They explicitly state that this relationship does not explain why the removals occurred.

Recorded reasons differ between constituencies

Nungba had the highest proportion of removals attributed to permanent shifting: 3,359 of its 4,759 names, or 70.6%. Tamenglong followed at 69.5%, Thanlon at 67.9%, Ukhrul at 67.1% and Tamei at 63.7%.

Death accounted for the highest share in Lamsang, at 62.9%, followed by Konthoujam at 62.4%, Patsoi at 62.1% and Thongju at 61.8%. Thanga had the highest proportion recorded as untraceable or absent: 675 of 1,087 names, or 62.1%. The corresponding shares were 48.6% in Uripok, 47.7% in Wangkhei and 44.6% in Tengnoupal.

Saikot recorded 5,611 names under this category, representing 39.6% of its removals. Its other entries comprised 5,242 permanently shifted voters, 2,839 deaths and 460 cases of enrolment elsewhere. Moirang had the highest proportion recorded as already enrolled elsewhere, at 21.1%, involving 199 names. Heirok followed at 12.7%, Mao at 11.2% and Uripok at 10.1%.

The report cautions that a high percentage within a constituency’s removals does not necessarily mean a large number of people. Both the count and its share need to be read together.

Women form the majority in every constituency

The records contain 88,799 women, 69,871 men and seven persons recorded under the “Other” gender category. Women constituted 55.96% of all names counted, while men constituted 44.03%. Women formed the majority in every constituency. Their share ranged from 51.1% in Patsoi to 68.8% in Wabgai. Other constituencies with high female shares included Bishenpur at 68%, Khangabok at 66.7%, Lilong at 65.6% and Wangjing Tentha at 64.3%. Thoubal and Keirao each recorded 64.2%.

At district level, women accounted for 64.1% of removals in Kakching, 63.5% in Thoubal and 62.9% in Noney. The female share was 58.4% in the valley, 54.8% in the hills and 54.6% in Jiribam.

The authors make a specific qualification: because the study lacks the gender composition of the full electorate, it cannot establish whether women faced a higher removal rate than men. It establishes that more women than men appear in the removal records.

Women’s removals are more often linked to shifting

The recorded reasons also differ by gender. Permanent shifting accounted for 52.4% of women’s removals, compared with 37.1% of men’s removals. Viewed across the entire permanent-shifting category, women accounted for 64.2% of those listed.

Death showed the opposite pattern. It accounted for 35.3% of men’s removals and 20.6% of women’s removals. Absence or inability to trace the voter accounted for 22.3% of women’s removals and 22.9% of men’s. Enrolment elsewhere accounted for approximately 4.7% in both groups. The report further records that 46,786 of the 88,799 women—about 53%—were listed against a husband’s name rather than a father’s.

The authors identify marriage-related changes of residence as an issue requiring attention when a woman’s enrolment moves between two places. However, the records do not establish how many women were removed specifically because of marriage or how many subsequently failed to secure enrolment at their new address.

The report does not claim that these figures demonstrate different treatment of women by election officers.

People aged 30–44 form the largest age group

People aged 30–44 accounted for the largest number of removals, at 57,103. They were followed by those aged 45–59, at 38,408. The records also included 25,086 people aged 60–74, 19,600 aged 75 or above, and 18,480 aged 18–29.

The statewide median age was 46. In the valley it was 48, compared with 45 in the hills and 44 in Jiribam. People aged 60 or above accounted for approximately 34% of valley removals, compared with 26% in the hills. The report connects this difference with the higher proportion of death-related removals in the valley.

Its age charts show that removals among older people were more often attributed to death, while those among younger people were more often attributed to shifting.

One-tenth of booths account for 36% of removals

The removals were concentrated in a relatively small number of booths. The most affected tenth—roughly 300 booths—accounted for 36% of all names counted. The most affected quarter accounted for 62%. The median booth recorded 32 removals, below the statewide average of 52.6. A total of 97 booths recorded at least 200 removals each.

Under the new 2026 booth numbering, Leijangphai in Thanlon recorded the highest count, at 426 names. Permanent shifting accounted for 96% of its removals. Hamleikhong Hundung in Ukhrul followed with 412, of which 84% were attributed to shifting. In Saikot, Tuibong (S.W.-II) recorded 396 removals and Khopuibung 386; untraceable or absent voters accounted for 84% and 75% respectively.

Wangkhei’s booth 12, listed as Kabo Leikai Nongpok in the report, recorded 369 removals, with 81% classified as untraceable or absent. Sadim in Karong also recorded 369, with 86% under that category. Kaimai in Tamei recorded 366 removals, 92% classified as untraceable or absent. Ukhrul (E-2) recorded 335 and Azuram in Tamei 324, with every removal at both attributed to permanent shifting.

Changed booth numbers affect comparisons

The report warns that booth numbers changed in 29 constituencies. Researchers cannot assume that a booth carrying a particular number before revision corresponds to the booth with the same number afterwards.

Across the records, approximately 62% retained their old booth number. The report therefore presents separate tables using the old and new numbering.

This distinction changes the highest booth total. Under the old numbering, Saikot’s part 49 recorded 446 removals—the largest count in that table. Its records are associated with new parts 53 and 54, and 78% were classified as untraceable.

Similarly, old part 78 in Churachandpur recorded 373 removals distributed across new parts 86 and 87.

The authors include both systems so that verification can identify the original polling area and avoid misleading comparisons caused by renumbering or the division of records.

Displacement cannot be separated from ordinary migration

The report places particular emphasis on displacement since May 2023. A person staying in a relief camp or another district may be recorded as shifted or untraceable at the original address, even when the departure was involuntary.

The source data does not identify displacement as a separate category. The study therefore cannot determine how many entries marked permanently shifted or untraceable concern displaced people.

This limitation is central to its findings. The concentration of removals in hill constituencies, together with their high proportion of shifting and absence entries, identifies where verification should begin. It does not, by itself, prove that those entries were incorrect or that a community was deliberately excluded.

The authors recommend checking these cases booth by booth, with particular attention to families unable to return to their recorded addresses.

Names cannot establish community identity

The report also examines the final word in people’s names, while expressly warning against treating it as a reliable community identifier.

Manipur’s electoral records contain different naming practices. A final word may be a clan name, village name, father’s name or title, rather than a surname.

Across 1,58,671 records used for this analysis, the authors counted 50,647 distinct final words. The ten most common accounted for 16.8% of those records.

The difference between the valley and hills was substantial. The ten most common final words accounted for 37.5% of the valley records examined, compared with 9.3% in the hills. The study counted 9,771 distinct final words in the valley and 42,871 in the hills.

Statewide, the most frequent were Devi, appearing 10,303 times, Singh, appearing 6,406 times, and Haokip, appearing 3,725 times.

The authors draw no conclusion about community-wise removals from these counts. They instead raise a practical concern automated methods that match or classify people by names may perform differently across Manipur’s naming systems and require careful examination.

Concerns extend beyond voting

The report discusses how uncertainty over electoral status can create difficulties in administrative processes where electoral documents are used to establish identity or residence.

It refers to cases examined by Sabar Institute involving passport renewal, Public Distribution System access, domicile and residence certificates, education and other services. These observations form part of its broader discussion of SIR; they are not findings established by the Manipur ASD dataset.

It nevertheless argues that demands for documents, repeated visits to offices and unresolved appeals can place additional burdens on affected people. It identifies displaced families, migrant workers, women changing residence after marriage, students, older people, persons with disabilities, third-gender electors and people with incomplete documentary records as groups requiring particular attention.

Verification, accessible appeals and publication of voter totals

The report recommends beginning verification with booths recording the largest concentrations of removals, especially cases classified as permanently shifted or untraceable.

It calls for publication of constituency-level voter totals so that researchers can calculate removal rates, rather than relying only on counts and averages per booth.

It also recommends simple objection procedures, accessible appeals and free legal assistance for people unable to manage the paperwork or afford repeated visits to administrative offices. Displaced families and women changing residence after marriage require particular attention, the authors state.

Its wider recommendations include transparency and human review where automated tools or discrepancy filters are used, documentation of individual cases by researchers and civil society groups, parliamentary scrutiny, and an independent nationwide study covering deletions, restorations, appeals and adjudication delays.

For Manipur, the report identifies a specific task that verify the concentrated removals in the hill constituencies and establish whether people recorded as shifted or absent remain eligible for enrolment, including those living away from home because of displacement.

The report may be read here.

Related:

Bringing together fact-finding reports on Manipur, a commitment to conflict-ridden Manipur

Just days before polling, two killed in fresh violence in Manipur

Back & Forth, Manipur govt’s decision to declare Easter Sunday a working day sparks outrage, govt backs down

Moreh, Manipur: CCTV footage supports claims of locals, show men in uniform indulging in arson, Assam Rifles personnel standing as mute spectators

The post Manipur SIR: Sabar Institute’s report records 1.59 lakh removals, two-thirds in hill constituencies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 10, the United Nations Human Rights Office expressed concern over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, civil-society members, lawyers and journalists in India. It called for the release of those arbitrarily detained and urged respect for peaceful assembly. The government rejected the criticism. Similarly, over 100 Harvard University alumni issued a statement condemning police brutality, unlawful detention and constitutional rights violations.

That response was predictable. The events that produced the criticism were not.

Delhi witnessed an extraordinary mobilisation of state power against demonstrations demanding accountability from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. Protesters were prevented from assembling at Jantar Mantar. Police detained leaders, including MPs and former Chief Ministers. Police removed students from trains before they could reach the capital. Lawyers were detained. Journalists covering demonstrations were taken into custody. Police used force and violence against protesters, especially students: private parts of women were kicked and phones taken away. The internet was suspended in parts of central Delhi, Metro stations were closed, and railway services were severely disrupted.

The scale was extraordinary. On October 10, 45 Delhi Metro stations remained shut, while more than 250 railway services were cancelled or disrupted.

Eventually, Jantar Mantar itself got denotified by the Home Ministry as a protest site, even as right-wing groups were reportedly free to proclaim that they would “destroy all anti-Modi forces” and “slay protesters,” while the Delhi Police remained mute spectators.

Even a week later, the police continue to assault peaceful protesters carrying national flags, refusing to register an FIR over the police brutality. Leaders like Neha of AISA and Dipke are still being detained for prolonged periods, including at night, at undisclosed locations. Even delegations of lawyers and concerned citizens who march to police stations seeking answers are long-denied information about their whereabouts.

This was not proportionate policing of an unruly mob. Much of it was preventive action against citizens who had not committed violence. The distinction matters enormously.

Article 19 does not confer an unlimited right to occupy every road or disregard reasonable lawful restrictions. But travelling to a demonstration is not a crime. Reporting a protest is not participation in disorder. Representing protesters is not obstruction of justice. Peacefully demanding the resignation of a constitutional functionary is not an attack on the Republic.

When a government begins to erase these distinctions, law enforcement ceases to look neutral and begins to resemble political management.

The Supreme Court recognised the danger. In an exceptional Sunday sitting on October 11, it directed that peaceful and unarmed persons must not be illegally detained. It said Metro and railway services should function normally subject to genuine public-order necessities, free movement should be permitted, lawyers should not be obstructed in their professional duties, and internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with law.

A constitutional democracy should find it sobering that its Supreme Court had to remind, after strong attention-seeking, the executive of propositions so elementary.

The government cannot hide behind the legality of SIR

Electoral rolls require revision. Dead voters cannot remain indefinitely registered. Duplicate entries must be removed. People who have permanently shifted must be correctly recorded. Persons legally ineligible to vote cannot acquire electoral rights merely because an administrative error went unnoticed. Indeed, on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR, recognising the Election Commission’s authority under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act to undertake intensive revision. The Court also permitted a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes.

But the judgment contained an equally important restraint. The Election Commission does not become the final authority for terminating a person’s citizenship. Formal adjudication belongs to the competent authority under citizenship law.

The government’s defence therefore answers only one question: Can electoral rolls be revised? Of course they can. It does not answer the far more important question: How has that enormous power been exercised? Has the motive of conducting the exercise been to “clean” up the roles or to exclude pre-determined sections of voters?

More than 13 crore names were omitted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the nationwide revision. When exclusion occurs on such a scale, transparency is not optional. Nor can the government dismiss every criticism as partisan agitation, because some of the most serious objections have come from inside the Election Commission itself.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least fourteen occasions within ten months concerning voter enrolment, deletion, restoration and control over electoral-roll systems. Among the descriptions reportedly used were “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

One dispute involved Form 6, used for registering new voters. Changes introduced through the Commission’s digital system required applicants to answer questions linked to previous SIR records and their parents or grandparents. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly objected that the alteration had not been lawfully authorised and risked harassing first-time voters. The Commission subsequently removed the disputed addition from its ECINET portal in states where SIR had concluded.

That is not an insignificant administrative disagreement. It goes to the heart of who enters the electorate and under what conditions.

An institution weakened by the way its guardians are chosen

These developments cannot be separated from the altered architecture governing Election Commission appointments.

In Anoop Baranwal, the Supreme Court created an interim selection arrangement comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted legislation. The Modi government subsequently did enact legislation—but removed the Chief Justice from the committee and substituted a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The result is straightforward: the executive now holds two of the three positions on the selection committee. The Supreme Court itself has recorded that this replacement lies at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the 2023 law.

This does not establish the allegation that Indian elections have been “rigged”. But institutional independence is not sustained merely by the absence of proven misconduct. Constitutional bodies survive because citizens can reasonably believe that they are insulated from the government whose political fortunes their decisions may affect.

The Modi government weakened that perception even when it constructed an appointment system in which the executive enjoys a built-in majority.

Now, when questions arise inside the Commission itself, the government’s instinct appears not to be radical transparency but political defence.

That is precisely the wrong response.

This is how democratic erosion occurs

India is not formally under an Emergency. There has been no proclamation under Article 352.

Democracies rarely collapse in a single constitutional explosion. They are hollowed out institution by institution. The judiciary may continue to deliver important interventions, yet public confidence in its ability to consistently confront executive power has been strained. Large sections of the mainstream media, meanwhile, operate in an environment of concentrated ownership, political alignment and governmental pressure; India now ranks 157th of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 Press Freedom Index. Overall trust in news among respondents to the Reuters Institute’s 2026 India survey fell to 39 per cent.

Then comes the machinery of everyday coercion: a journalist detained, a lawyer obstructed, a student pulled from a train, an internet connection suspended, a Metro station closed, a peaceful assembly prohibited, a constitutional institution stripped of visible independence, a voter suddenly required to prove an entitlement once presumed secure.

Each abuse can be rationalised in isolation. Together they reveal the steady normalisation of a state in which institutions meant to restrain power are themselves losing credibility, independent scrutiny is treated as hostility, and coercion substitutes a democratic response.

An Emergency need not always be proclaimed and democratic freedoms can also be extinguished by accumulation.

If the Election Commission’s SIR is legitimate, accurate and procedurally fair, they should not fear scrutiny. If Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions can withstand examination, barricades cannot strengthen his credibility. If the allegations are false, the appropriate answer is evidence.

Instead, the spectacle presented to the country has been one of police buses, blocked stations, disrupted trains, internet restrictions and preventive detention.

The state has used coercive power to contain a crisis of institutional trust. In doing so, instead of an uncomplicated right approach, it has enlarged that crisis.

Publish the records. Explain the major categories of voter deletion. Make restoration simple and accessible. Answer Sandhu and Joshi’s objections point by point. Establish transparent audit trails for electoral databases. Investigate allegations of misconduct by police against journalists, lawyers and other demonstrators. Permit peaceful protest.

And above all, stop treating scrutiny of the institutions as hostility towards India.

The Chief Election Commissioner derives authority not merely from statutory tenure but from public confidence that the referee is independent of every player—including the one occupying the government benches. His resignation is thus non-negotiable.

The Modi government should understand a fundamental truth that every democratic government eventually learns: institutions cannot be protected from criticism by protecting them against criticism.

A confident democracy answers questions. An insecure state arrests those who ask them.

When the question is who remains entitled to vote, there can be no bigger test of the Republic.

(Amal Chandra is an Indian author, policy analyst, and columnist, currently serving as The Statement Fellow and Coordinator, South Asia at Students for Liberty; Shabnam K. is an alumnus of the University of Delhi and a former SBI Youth for India Fellow)

Related:

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

The post India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Three days after the planned rally, the consequences extend well beyond the detention of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke. All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora, who was detained while marching with students in Delhi, has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a police notice requiring Neha to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety. Meanwhile, CJP convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka remain in judicial custody as their release proceedings face further delays.

The government responded to the Lehra Do Tiranga march by detaining Abhijeet Dipke and Neha, but thousands of protesters marched through Connaught Place. The police tried to disperse the crowds with incessant whistling.

Videos by Maya Palit (@mayapalit1), Surabhi Kanga (@surabhikanga) and Puja Sen (@psen9)

— The Caravan (@thecaravanindia) October 16, 2026

#WATCH | People carry out the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest march in the national capital, following a call by the CJP for the demonstration today.

CJP Founder Abhijeet Dipke has been detained by Delhi Police https://t.co/M0cBpeza2P

— ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2026

#WATCH | Maharashtra: Visuals from Azad Maidan in Mumbai, where people have started gathering following CJP’s call for the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest. https://t.co/qAJpgpIwX6

— ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2026

Delhi: Delhi Police detained AISA president Neha Bora as she arrived to participate in CJP’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest march https://t.co/SvzwDq1Miq

— IANS (@ians_india) October 16, 2026

Tense scenes unfolded at Connaught Place during the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march as Delhi Police detained protesters. Crowds gathered around detention buses, with demonstrators attempting to secure the release of those held.

DeKoder reports from the ground amid heavy police deployment and restrictions on the protest. Follow for more updates.

#IndianDemocracy #DelhiPolice #Protest #CJP #DelhiProtest #TirangaRally #ECI #SIR #GyaneshKumar

— DeKoder (@DeKoderAI) October 16, 2026

AISA national president Neha Bora was detained by Delhi Police at Mandi House while heading towards Connaught Place for the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest.

The detention comes amid heavy police deployment and restrictions in central Delhi ahead of the CJP-backed Tiranga march.
Follow DeKoder for more updates.

#NehaBora #DelhiPolice #Protest #CJP #DelhiProtest #LehraDoTiranga #AISA #ECI #SIR #GyaneshKumar

— DeKoder (@DeKoderAI) October 16, 2026

Ready for jail over the Tricolour: CJP’s Abhijeet Dipke dares Delhi Police as Central Park turns into a fortress for the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march.

Ukrainian Armed Forces #Ranabaali Hegseth भगवती मंदिर Brahmin #Salaar2 #Tesla #WorldFoodDay #Ranabaali #MaaKatyayani #reliance Dhirubhai Ambani

— Mir Ilyas (@Mir_Ilyas_INC) October 16, 2026

Delhi: A ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march was held at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place https://t.co/dsYIV6dV00

— IANS (@ians_india) October 16, 2026

Pune, Maharashtra: Pune city unit of the Cockroach Janata Party organised a ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march, which concluded at the Pune Collector’s Office. The protest follows nationwide demonstrations after party members Abhijeet Dipke and Saurabh Ranka were taken into police custody in Delhi

— IANS (@ians_india) October 17, 2026

The demonstrations were organised in solidarity with Das and Ranka, who were remanded to five days of judicial custody after they entered Jantar Mantar on October 13, a day after the Union government withdrew the site’s designated protest status. The party has also been demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and calling for the restoration of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue.

The police have cited the absence of permission, violations of previous undertakings and apprehensions of a breach of public peace to justify their actions. Protest organisers, however, have questioned why the exercise of political dissent and the unfurling of the national flag have been met with preventive detention and restrictions.

Neha Bora challenges police notice before Delhi High Court

Bora’s case has emerged as a significant part of the aftermath of the rally. According to LiveLaw in its October 19 report, the AISA president has approached the Delhi High Court seeking an urgent hearing, a stay on the police notices and its withdrawal.

Bora was detained on October 16 while marching from Mandi House with AISA members towards the planned gathering at Connaught Place. Bora was released early the following morning, after nearly 12 hours in detention. The police told LiveLaw that her release followed the completion of formalities under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

Her subsequent legal challenge concerns a separate notice issued on October 18. Issued under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the notice directed Bora to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), New Delhi District, on October 19 and execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.

In its statement, AISA said the notice was prima facie ambiguous, factually incorrect and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which respectively protect freedoms including speech and peaceful assembly, and the right to life and personal liberty. Bora’s legal team, led by Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol and Moksha, among others, said it would seek an urgent hearing before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and respond to the notice before the SEM.

AISA has also alleged that plainclothes police personnel have been following Bora since their release on October 17. The association has questioned whether this is routine police procedure or an attempt to intimidate Bora.

The legal challenge raises questions about the grounds on which a person who has already been released from detention can subsequently be required to furnish a peace bond, the factual basis for the notice and the constitutional safeguards applicable to preventive proceedings. These questions are now before the High Court; the allegations in the petition are not yet judicial findings.

Bora’s detention took place alongside that of Dipke, but the legal routes subsequently taken by the two differ. Dipke was held under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS and released on October 17 after proceedings before an SEM, subject to a peace bond requiring him to maintain peace for a year. Bora, by contrast, was released after action under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and has now challenged the separate notice requiring her to furnish a bond.

Delhi’s planned rally was stopped, but protests continued

The events in Delhi on October 16 unfolded amid extensive security arrangements and restrictions on gatherings in Connaught Place. Hours before the scheduled 5 pm rally at Central Park, Delhi Police visited Dipke’s residence in Jhandewalan and served him a notice prohibiting the march. The police cited his public statements, and social media calls for people to assemble without the required permission. The New Delhi Municipal Council also announced that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17. Despite these measures, the demonstration did not simply disappear when its organisers were detained.

According to The Indian Express, Dipke was detained while on his way to Connaught Place, while Bora was detained at Mandi House. More than 100 protesters were detained, with several reports putting the total at around 150. Hundreds of supporters and student activists nevertheless gathered at different points in central Delhi, carrying the national flag and raising slogans.

ThePrint reported that, within minutes of the organisers’ detention, people gathered at Connaught Place, unfurled a large national flag and marched around the inner circle. Protesters regrouped at different locations even as police attempted to disperse the gatherings. 

AISA members also held a separate demonstration near Mandi House, demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, a rollback of the SIR exercise and the withdrawal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Minor scuffles were reported as police attempted to disperse crowds.

The Aam Aadmi Party also held a Tiranga march near Rashtrapati Bhavan and its central Delhi headquarters, according to The New Indian Express. Party workers carrying national flags raised slogans including “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram”.

The police response extended beyond the detentions. In its October 18 report, The Indian Express reported that Delhi Police had registered multiple FIRs following the demonstrations, including cases concerning alleged violations of prohibitory orders. Police were also investigating social media posts and taking action against at least 17 handles over content they alleged included misleading or fabricated videos and abusive material.

What happened in Mumbai and Bengaluru?

The October 16 call was not confined to Delhi. CJP supporters and allied groups also mobilised in Mumbai and Bengaluru, although the demonstrations proceeded under different local conditions. In Mumbai, police granted permission for a one-day protest at Azad Maidan from 10 am to 5 pm. The gathering was organised in solidarity with Das and Ranka and called for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

According to PTI, on October 16, social activist Anjali Damania addressed the gathering and sought accountability for what she described as police brutality against protesters in Delhi. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena leader Sandip Deshpande also attended, while CJP supporters and members of student organisations carried the national flag and raised slogans.

Mumbai, Maharashtra: Following a call by the CJP to hold a ‘Tiranga March’ on Carter Road in Bandra, the police took action. The Mumbai Police had not granted permission for the march; nevertheless, several CJP supporters arrived at Carter Road to participate. Subsequently, the police began taking the protesters into custody. During this process, actor Amin Hajee was also detained by the police; he had arrived at Carter Road to join the demonstration. Several others were also taken into custody by the police

— IANS (@ians_india) October 18, 2026

The Free Press Journal reported that the Mumbai demonstration drew an estimated 50 to 100 participants at different times during the day. The protesters called for the scrapping of the SIR exercise, an impartial investigation into alleged voter deletions and the replacement of electronic voting machines with ballot papers. The demonstration concluded peacefully with the national anthem.

Mumbai, Maharashtra: Actor Amin Hajee says, “I will not say anything. I have just one request for you. You had taken an oath to provide us with protection—so, this is your oath…” https://t.co/kI9SYP25X5

— IANS (@ians_india) October 18, 2026

In Bengaluru, a peaceful Tiranga march was permitted, subject to conditions and security arrangements. The Indian Express reported that the Bengaluru mobilisation began at 5 pm on October 16 and formed part of CJP’s nationwide campaign against alleged irregularities in the SIR and its demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

Reporting by Reuters on October 16 also recorded smaller demonstrations in Patna, alongside the protests in Mumbai and Bengaluru. In Delhi, the flag-waving gatherings continued despite the detention of the principal organisers.

Dipke released, but Das and Ranka remain in custody

The dispute over the protest has continued through the proceedings concerning the two CJP convenors. Das and Ranka were detained on October 13 after allegedly scaling the locked gates of Jantar Mantar and entering the premises to unfurl the national flag and raise slogans. Police said the two had violated peace bonds executed after earlier detentions and argued that their release could lead to further breaches of public order.

In an order dated October 14, the SEM remanded them to five days of judicial custody, stating that adequate surety had not been furnished at that stage. Both were sent to Tihar Jail. Dipke, who was detained separately on October 16, was released the following day after executing a peace bond. The release proceedings for Das and Ranka, however, have remained contentious.

According to Hindustan Times, CJP representatives spent nearly five hours at Mandir Marg police station on October 18 awaiting proceedings before the SEM. The hearing reportedly lasted only eight to ten minutes before being deferred. The party alleged that officials had repeatedly rejected surety documents on different grounds, including objections to fixed deposit receipts and the addresses of people standing surety.

CJP legal head Ratna Singh questioned why the proceedings shifted towards a reported threat received by the SEM instead of addressing the merits of the release request. The police said the magistrate had reported receiving threatening messages, following which a report was registered against unidentified persons. The authorities have denied deliberately delaying the release process and maintained that the surety documents submitted by the party were faulty.

The Indian Express reported on October 19 that the police were expected to seek an extension of the duo’s custody, citing apprehensions that their release could disturb public peace. 

We are still at SEM court, waiting for court to dictate order.

There is no reason to extend judicial custody. Today also no argument presented by PP on law. All his arguments were mere assumptions. Absolute waste of time of SEM court.

Saurav and Ashutosh must be released.

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 19, 2026

Detailed reports on protests against ECI may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The confrontation reached a flashpoint in Jadavpur on Saturday night, October 17, when a team from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, accompanied by police and central forces, arrived to demolish a CPM bookstall that the party says had the requisite permissions. Left supporters resisted the operation through the night, forcing the demolition team to retreat after hours of confrontation. The CPM subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court, which agreed to hear its petition on October 20, offering temporary relief to the stall.

The struggle to protect the right to know…

The BJP administration in Bengal has brought in bulldozers to demolish the CPI(M) bookstall in Jadavpur. Citizens of the area came out in resistance. https://t.co/1xSjkSW2lx

— Mayukh Biswas (@MayukhDuke) October 17, 2026

The immediate relief is welcome. But it also raises a more disturbing question: why did a dispute over a bookstall have to escalate into an overnight confrontation involving police, municipal authorities and political protesters before judicial intervention could offer a reprieve?

Book stalls run by Left parties have been vandalised, burnt and removed across the state during the festival. Left leaders blame BJP workers for the attacks, and accuse a section of the police of using a narrow Calcutta HC order to clear stalls statewide. 1/2 https://t.co/PgeODxuYd6

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 18, 2026

CPI(M) West Bengal State Secretary Mohd Salim visited the bookstall in Jadavpur that the BJP administration had attempted to demolish. The full force of bulldozers, police, armed police personnel and BJP-RSS goons who had arrived to destroy the bookstall was forced to retreat in the face of people’s resistance.

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 19, 2026

The episode must be viewed against the backdrop of an earlier judicial order in the separate dispute over a CPM bookstall in Bongaon. The allegations raised in the petition was that the CPI(M) had been prevented from setting up its traditional bookstall while a stall belonging to the Hindu Jagran Manch was allowed to occupy the area. The Left party told the Court that it had been setting up bookstalls near Durga Puja pandals for decades, with its petition referring to a tradition extending over approximately 50 to 60 years. A single-judge bench had permitted the party to set up its stall within 100 metres of its intended location and had directed the authorities to examine whether a stall associated with the Hindu Jagran Manch had the necessary permission. On Friday, October 16, a division bench stayed that order after the state government challenged it, preventing the CPM stall from operating for the remaining days of Durga Puja, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The Bongaon proceedings and the Jadavpur confrontation are legally distinct. The division bench’s stay in Bongaon cannot simply be treated as an order authorising the demolition of the Jadavpur stall. Nor does the latest decision to hear the Jadavpur petition automatically establish that the court has issued a blanket injunction against every possible administrative action. Yet the distinction makes the question of legal authority more, not less, important. Any attempt to remove the Jadavpur stall must stand on its own lawful basis, rather than on an assumption that the separate Bongaon order settles the matter.

CPM state committee member Sudip Sengupta told The Telegraph that the Jadavpur stall had the requisite permissions from Kolkata Police, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the authorities concerned with its electricity supply. He alleged that officials arrived to remove it after the court had gone on vacation. These claims raise a straightforward question: if permissions had been granted, on what legal grounds were officials seeking to demolish the stall, and what procedure had been followed before attempting to do so?

The attempt to remove the stall was resisted on Saturday night, and police and central forces returned in greater numbers. Left supporters, including CPM leaders Sudip Sengupta and Srijan Bhattacharya, continued their resistance until the early hours of Sunday. Police reportedly attempted to demolish the structure several times, while the supporters responded with slogans and refused to disperse. The operation eventually ended without the Jadavpur stall being demolished, although stalls associated with the Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) (SUCI) and the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) were reportedly dismantled.

What is unfolding is not simply a dispute over temporary structures during a religious festival. It is a confrontation over the right to disseminate political ideas without intimidation, the obligation of public authorities to act impartially and the danger of allowing cultural participation to become a test of ideological conformity.

When a bookstall becomes a political target

Jadavpur is not an isolated incident. Across West Bengal, Left parties have reported attacks, threats, vandalism and obstruction directed at their seasonal bookstalls during the weeks preceding Durga Puja. The Indian Express, reporting on the attacks on Left bookstalls, documented allegations by the CPM that its stalls had been targeted by BJP supporters. BJP state president Samik Bhattacharya denied his party’s involvement and called for complaints to be made to the authorities. The allegations must be investigated individually, and responsibility cannot be presumed merely from political affiliation. But the number and geographical spread of the reported incidents demand a serious response.

The Times of India has also reported that the CPM lodged at least 10 police complaints in Kolkata over alleged attacks, threats and attempts to prevent party-linked bookstalls from opening. The complaints reportedly included allegations of vandalism at stalls associated with the SUCI(C), the tearing of banners, the destruction of books and an assault in which a senior party member was injured. At Barasat, five CPM supporters were reported injured in an attack allegedly involving BJP supporters on Sunday. The police response and the outcome of investigations are crucial to establishing what occurred.

In Malda’s Chanchal, the CPM alleged that Bajrang Dal activists threatened its workers and forced the closure of a stall selling Marxist literature. Animesh Sinha, a CPM district secretariat member, said the party had submitted written intimation to the local police station and received an acknowledgement. A Bajrang Dal activist, by contrast, alleged that the party’s refusal to display an image of Goddess Durga amounted to disrespect towards Hinduism. That accusation exposes the troubling premise beneath the confrontation: that a political organisation selling books during a religious festival must demonstrate religious conformity to be permitted to participate.

A bookstall is not required to display a religious image to justify its existence. Nor should a political organisation have to affirm a particular religious identity before it can disseminate literature in a public setting. Unless a specific, lawful requirement applies, the demand that Marxist literature be accompanied by an image of a deity is not a neutral administrative condition. It is an ideological demand.

The controversy has also been fuelled by Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari’s reported September 10 warning that Durga Puja committees should not permit Left bookstalls that used the term Sharodotsav, or autumn festival, instead of explicitly referring to Durga Puja. As reported by The Telegraph, the warning called on committees to deny space to such stalls. The significance of the statement lies in the attempt to make access to a public cultural space conditional on the terminology used by a political organisation.

Durga Puja is a Hindu religious festival. Recognising that fact does not require reducing every public activity associated with it to a test of religious allegiance. Bengal’s Puja season has also become a major social and cultural occasion, with neighbourhoods hosting art, literature, performances, public gatherings and political discussion alongside religious observances. The presence of bookstalls selling Marxist, socialist, liberal and other literature is part of this wider cultural life.

The right to disseminate ideas cannot depend on whether those ideas are congenial to the political establishment or to the most vocal section of a crowd. Left parties have maintained a longstanding presence at Puja venues, with bookstalls selling political writing, literary works and other publications. As the Indian Express has reported, the present season has seen disputes over these stalls across the state. The CPM and other Left parties say they have traditionally informed the police and paid applicable civic fees; the authorities have disputed whether certain stalls possessed the necessary permissions, according to Alt News.

The administrative power to remove a stall is not the power to suppress an idea

The controversy brings the constitutional principles of freedom of expression, equality before the law and the rule of law into sharp focus. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, subject to the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). Article 19(1)(g), subject to Article 19(6), is also relevant to lawful commercial activity. The precise rights engaged will depend on the circumstances, including the nature of the site, the permissions required and the conduct of the authorities.

A political bookstall does not possess an unconditional right to occupy any public space. Municipal bodies can regulate public land, pedestrian access, electricity connections, safety and licensing. But the authority to regulate a public space is not an unrestricted authority to decide which political ideas may circulate within it.

Where a dispute concerns permissions, the authorities should identify the specific rule allegedly violated and provide a consistent, reviewable basis for their decision. Where a stall has valid permission, officials must explain the lawful grounds for any action that interferes with it. Where there is a threat of violence, the police must protect those exercising their lawful rights and investigate credible allegations of intimidation.

The earlier Bongaon proceedings underscore the importance of that standard. On Thursday, October 15, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the Superintendent of Police of Bongaon Police District and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon police station to ensure public order and deploy adequate security so that the CPI(M) could erect its bookstall and sell books during the Durga Puja festivities. The permission extends to a location within a 100-metre radius of the party office, which is situated near the pandal. The police have also been directed to prevent others from disrupting the party’s activities and to submit a compliance report at the next hearing on November 23. According to the report of LiveLaw, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies was welcome in a democracy, making it “fruitful, deep-rooted and mature”. The subsequent division-bench stay changed the position in that litigation.

The reported attacks expose the danger of allowing private political groups to police cultural participation. A demand that a bookstall close because its literature is Marxist, or because it does not display a particular religious image, is not a substitute for lawful regulation.

The historical warning

The history of Hitler’s Germany offers a sobering warning about the consequences of allowing political repression to become normalised. The comparison should not be used to claim that every contemporary confrontation is equivalent to Nazism, nor to suggest that West Bengal is already living under a Nazi dictatorship. The historical circumstances are different. What merits attention is a specific and documented feature of the Nazi seizure of power: the systematic targeting of political opponents, particularly communists, followed by the dismantling of constitutional protections and the destruction of political pluralism.

When the bulldozers sent by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demolish book stalls set up by the CPI(M) were turned back by people’s resistance, the BJP took a leaf out of the Nazi playbook and sent in armed police personnel, along with BJP-RSS goons, to smash the book stalls. The priorities of the BJP government are evident when it deploys a huge police force to destroy books, while 19 people, including a child, lost their lives in Chorbagan due to the lack of adequate police arrangements to control crowds and ensure public safety.

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 18, 2026

On February 27, 1933, the German parliament, the Reichstag, was set on fire. The Nazi leadership exploited the incident by portraying it as evidence of a communist conspiracy, although the claim that the fire represented a planned communist uprising was false. The following day, President Paul von Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended important constitutional protections, including safeguards for freedom of speech, the press and assembly. It enabled the arrest and detention of political opponents, the suppression of publications and the removal of restraints on police powers. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum documents the decree as a decisive step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. The assault on communists was not an incidental consequence of this process. It was central to it.

Following the decree, communist deputies were arrested or prevented from participating freely in political life. On March 23, 1933, the Nazi government secured passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler’s cabinet to legislate without parliamentary consent, including in ways that violated the existing constitutional order. The Nazi leadership used intimidation and persecution to secure the measure, preventing all 81 Communist deputies and 26 Social Democratic deputies from taking their seats. The Act became the cornerstone of Hitler’s dictatorship, as documented by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The destruction of German democracy did not begin with the persecution of every group that would subsequently be targeted by the Nazi state at the same time or in the same way. It involved a progressive dismantling of opposition, civil liberties and institutional restraints. Communists were among the first and most prominent political targets. Their suppression helped create the conditions in which the Nazis could move against other political opponents, independent organisations and, ultimately, entire communities.

There is a difference between a government disagreeing with communists and a political environment in which communist literature is treated as something that should not be allowed to circulate. There is a difference between enforcing a neutral municipal rule and using administrative machinery in circumstances that raise credible questions about selective treatment. There is a difference between a religious community celebrating its traditions and insisting that participation in the surrounding public culture requires ideological or religious conformity. Those differences must be preserved precisely because history demonstrates what can happen when they are erased.

Bengal’s intellectual history has been shaped by competing and sometimes conflicting traditions: religious reform, anti-colonial movements, rationalism, humanism, Marxism, social criticism and a wide range of literary and political currents. A society does not demonstrate confidence in its religious or cultural traditions by suppressing literature that challenges them. A festival does not become more meaningful by excluding citizens whose political beliefs differ from those of its organisers. And a democracy does not become stronger by allowing the loudest group to determine which voices can be heard.

Related:

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Bombay High Court orders Maharashtra DGP to review arrest forms, flags failure to communicate grounds of arrest

‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune

The post Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From the 2020 crackdown on student activists to today’s protests, they discuss generational resistance, the role of ordinary citizens and the hope for a better India.

The post “Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three were among 14 CJP members who allegedly climbed over a locked gate and barricades to enter the area, unfurled the national flag and raised slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest was part of the CJP’s continuing agitation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Cockroaches with the Tiranga sneaked into Jantar Mantar early this morning before they were picked up by Delhi Police.

@AshutoshRanka, @SauravDassss, @AjinkyaCJP along with other team members have been detained.

You cannot denotify the resistance, @narendramodi https://t.co/x7B40akCVO

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) October 13, 2026

The Delhi Police has justified the arrests by citing alleged trespass, obstruction, breach of bond conditions and repeated attempts to disturb public peace. But the sequence of events is significant: after Jantar Mantar was stripped of its designated protest status, activists attempting to demonstrate there were detained, and two were sent to judicial custody under preventive proceedings. The case raises questions about the increasingly coercive response to political mobilisation and dissent in the capital, particularly when the protest concerns the functioning of a constitutional institution and the exercise of a fundamental right.

Waving the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar in a peaceful protest is not a crime. Jailing youth for it is an act of cowardice.

Students. Youth. Journalists. The INDIA bloc. Different banners, one cause. All protests are one: citizens demanding their constitutional rights.

Jantar Mantar belongs to the people of India. We will reclaim it.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 14, 2026

SEM orders five-day judicial custody

In an order dated October 14, Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena remanded Das and Ranka to five days of judicial custody under preventive proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The order records that notice under Section 130 BNSS was to be issued to the two respondents and that the matter would be listed for further inquiry on October 19.

The order relies on the account presented by Sub-Inspector Mohit Bhati, who alleged that CJP members entered the area through premises associated with the Janata Dal (United) office at around 9 am on October 13, raised slogans and created a disturbance. The police also alleged that the group had used social media to mobilise people to assemble at Jantar Mantar despite its denotification.

The SEM recorded that preventive proceedings had previously been initiated against the leaders following their detention on October 10, when they arrived in Delhi for a proposed protest. They were subsequently released after furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

According to the police, the leaders’ subsequent mobilisation and their October 13 entry into the area violated those undertakings. The SEM accepted the material placed before it as sufficient to proceed with preventive action. The order also cited the absence of what it described as “sound surety” as a reason for remanding Das and Ranka to judicial custody.

Jantar Mantar denotified as protest site

The arrests followed the Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. The order was issued on October 11, following recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as reported by Hindustan Times. The decision came amid denial of permission to protest to left parties, CJP, opposition parties and student groups demanding accountability from the ECI over the SIR exercise. 

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

According to the police account cited in media reports, 14 CJP members entered the area on October 13 by climbing over a locked gate after approaching through premises associated with the JD(U) office. Videos shared by the group show members carrying the Tricolour and raising slogans, including “Inquilab Zindabad” and “Gyanesh Kumar Isteefa Do”, before police personnel detained them.

The police have alleged that the group surveyed the area in advance to identify an entry route and that some members jostled with officers attempting to stop them. These allegations remain distinct from any final determination of criminal liability. As reported by Hindustan Times, the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court that the denotification followed consideration of alternative venues where citizens could exercise their democratic rights without compromising public safety. The authorities have identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative protest locations. However, naming alternative venues does not, by itself, establish that the right to protest remains practically accessible. 

CJP alleges denial of access to lawyers

The Delhi Police has registered two cases in connection with the October 13 incident, according to Hindustan Times. One was registered at Connaught Place police station and the other at Parliament Street police station. Reported allegations include disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant, trespass and criminal conspiracy.  The police described the leaders as having made repeated attempts to disturb public peace and violate the law. It also said their social media activity, which allegedly encouraged others to participate in similar actions, had been taken into consideration.

Delhi police lied in front of court today that a call was given for other protesters to join at Jantar Mantar yesterday.

Absolutely false! No public call was ever made.

I feel bad that police has to act on orders from “top”- itni wafadari!

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 14, 2026

Before the remand order was passed, CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh alleged that Das, Ranka and Shinde had been denied access to their lawyers until late on Tuesday night. In posts on X, Singh said the leaders had been moved to Parliament Street Police Station during the early hours of October 14 and were expected to be produced before the SEM. Singh further alleged that lawyers and volunteers had been prevented from meeting the detained activists despite repeated attempts. 

#BREAKING: Delhi Police arrests Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka, and Ajinkya Shinde at Parliament Street Police Station in today’s Jantar Mantar case.

Trespass, bond violation, obstruction of public official’s duty, etc.

They’ll be produced before the SCM Court in the morning. A possibility of Judicial Custody (JC) in the Tihar Jail is possible.

They were not allowed to meet their lawyers till late at night. They were brought to Parliament Street PS at 3 AM in a private van.

Despite these illegal actions, their spirits are high.

@Cockroachisback

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 13, 2026

Rahul Gandhi backs CJP leaders

The remand has drawn criticism from opposition leaders. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said that waving the national flag during a peaceful protest was not a crime and described jailing young people for doing so as an “act of cowardice”.

“Students. Youth. Journalists. The INDIA bloc. Different banners, one cause. All protests are one: citizens demanding their constitutional rights. Jantar Mantar belongs to the people of India. We will reclaim it,” Gandhi said in a post on X.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke also condemned the remand, questioning whether unfurling the Tricolour had become an offence and accusing the government of using coercive tactics against dissent.

The last time I remember Indians being jailed for waving the Tiranga at a public place was under colonial rule, when foreign rulers saw us as inferior and treated us as such.

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) October 14, 2026

VIDEO | Delhi: CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke arrives in Delhi and says, “Is unfurling the Tricolour in this country a crime? Ashutosh and Saurav have been sent to jail for five days. Why? Because they went to Jantar Mantar and unfurled the Tricolour. The last time this happened was when the British ruled us. During British rule, freedom fighters who unfurled the Tricolour in public places were arrested and jailed. Narendra Modi is doing something similar.”

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 14, 2026

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal questioned whether waving India’s national flag could be treated as a crime, while Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and DMK chief M.K. Stalin also condemned the action.

We, and many generations before us, have fought strongly for our democratic rights. We must continue to do so.

I strongly condemn the arrest of Ashutosh and Saurav of the CJP. These moments are about us all, pledging and standing up to fight unitedly to protect our great democracy. This is an attempt to intimidate and silence an entire generation. This is unacceptable.
We must never surrender our constitutional rights.

This murdering of democracy is happening in many parts of the country. At this moment, 14,000 of our people in Bengal are facing the brunt of police and political atrocities.

A government that has forgotten that ‘it is of the people, by the people, for the people’ is nearing its end.

To the millions of young people I say: Your Didi is with you – today and forever! Let us stand together and save our Mother India.

Jai Hind!
Vande Mataram!
Joy Bangla!

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) October 14, 2026

— Derek O’Brien | ডেরেক ও’ব্রায়েন (@derekobrienmp) October 14, 2026

Is waving our own flag in our own country a crime? This is absolutely ridiculous

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) October 14, 2026

How many protestors can this government detain? How many young voices can the BJP silence?

The more young people they jail, the more ordinary citizens, with no political affiliation, will take to the streets and show them the true power of the people!

Solidarity with @AshutoshRanka and @SauravDassss! The DMK stands ready to provide them with all necessary legal representation and support.

#CJP #GyaneshKumarMustGo

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) October 14, 2026

Related:

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most decided Form 7 requests resulted in deletion

The Wire examined annexures R/1 and R/2 of the Election Commission of India’s counter-affidavit in proceedings brought by Prasenjit Bose. The data covered claims and objections received between December 17, 2025, and August 7, 2026. Form 7 can seek deletion from the electoral roll, including through an objection by another person; Form 6 concerns inclusion. Of the 6,39,049 Form 7 applications, 5,72,330 resulted in deletions and 14,506 were rejected. Together, these decisions accounted for 91.83% of the applications received. Almost every decided request—about 97.5%—resulted in removal.

The Form 6 figures were different. Of 34,13,481 applications, 7,07,606 resulted in additions, 14,079 were separately recorded as accepted, and 7,26,660 were rejected. The analysis also identified 4,86,395 applications marked unprocessed. An application marked accepted is distinct from a name recorded as actually added to the roll.

The share of all applications resulting in an actual roll change was more than four times higher for Form 7 than for Form 6. The figures show how many applications reached a recorded outcome, but do not show how long each application took to decide.

Large gaps across constituencies

Dabgram-Fulbari recorded 16,514 deletions from 16,559 Form 7 requests, compared with 1,056 additions from 31,976 Form 6 applications. Bagda recorded 15,307 deletions from 15,561 requests and 4,826 additions from 29,831 applications. These were the two largest totals of completed Form 7 deletions in the analysis, followed by Sonarpur Uttar with 9,354.

Rajganj recorded 3,866 deletions from 3,891 requests, but only 143 additions from 18,528 inclusion applications. Just ten deletion requests were rejected in Dabgram-Fulbari, three in Bagda and one in Rajganj.

Chopra recorded 948 deletions from 954 requests, while only 28 names were added from 28,701 inclusion applications. It also recorded 1,570 rejected inclusion applications and 3,600 unprocessed claims.

Several other constituencies recorded few additions compared with the applications received. Kaliaganj added 24 names from 14,477 applications and had 5,191 unprocessed claims. Basanti added 54 from 12,195; Swarupnagar 71 from 12,106; Madhyamgram 115 from 17,717; and Islampur 439 from 16,767. Noapara added 187 names from 17,403 applications, with 9,249 marked unprocessed. These were the recorded outcomes for the period examined; they were not final decisions on every application.

The gap remained when the comparison was limited to applications that had been allowed or rejected. In Chopra, only 1.75% of those inclusion applications succeeded. Kalyani recorded 585 additions and 6,097 refusals, giving an inclusion rate of 8.75% among those outcomes. It recorded 9,063 deletions and only 21 rejected deletion requests.

Nakashipara recorded 934 additions against 9,339 refusals, alongside 3,214 deletions and eight rejected deletion requests. Matigara-Naxalbari recorded 2,264 additions against 9,754 refusals, while 8,491 deletion requests succeeded and 55 were rejected. The data records these differences but does not provide the reasons for every decision.

Border seats and areas with large Scheduled Caste populations

Across the 24 district units analysed, none recorded a higher share of successful inclusion applications than successful deletion requests. Uttar Dinajpur recorded additions from 8.16% of inclusion applications and deletions from 96.11% of deletion requests. The corresponding figures were 8.21% and 98.59% in Jalpaiguri, and 10.58% and 87.71% in Murshidabad.

The gap also appeared in districts with higher inclusion rates. Jhargram recorded 52.16% for inclusion and 62.52% for deletion; Kolkata South 42.91% and 85.91%; and Purbo Medinipur 42.20% and 66.70%.

In 43 constituencies classified as border seats, 30.62% of inclusion applications had been decided, and 34.70% of those decided cases were allowed. For deletion requests, 95.37% had been decided and 99.67% were allowed. These seats recorded 6.28 additions and 10.57 deletions for every thousand electors on the pre-SIR roll.

Non-border constituencies recorded 9.76 additions and 6.92 deletions per thousand electors. Among decided applications, the reported approval rates were 51.83% for inclusion and 96.96% for deletion. Thus, non-border seats recorded more additions than deletions, even though deletion requests had a much higher approval rate.

A similar gap appeared in 31 constituencies where Scheduled Castes made up at least 40% of the population. Of the inclusion applications, 31.19% had been decided and 36.82% of those were allowed. For deletion requests, 95.52% had been decided and 99.67% were allowed. These constituencies recorded 6.12 additions and 13.76 deletions per thousand electors.

Across the lowest and highest Scheduled Caste population bands, additions fell from 12.62 to 6.12 per thousand electors, while deletions rose from 5.74 to 13.76. The analysis noted that several of these constituencies also fall in border areas and the Matua belt. The figures therefore do not show a separate effect attributable to caste composition alone.

In constituencies with larger minority populations, the reported gap concerned inclusion. Additions fell from 9.89 per thousand electors in areas with low minority populations to 7.14 where minorities made up at least 60%. The analysis did not find a similar concentration of Form 7 deletions in Muslim-majority seats.

Low registration among young voters

Age-wise figures in the Commission’s affidavit, reported by The Hindu, showed low registration among young adults. Against a projected population of 22,26,101 people aged 18 or 19, only 5,23,229 were registered—23.5%.

Registration was reported at 70.3% for people aged 20–29, 92.7% for those aged 30–39 and 99.9% for those aged 50–59. The final roll of about 6.45 crore represented 84.9% of the State’s projected adult population of 7.59 crore, within a projected total population of 10.40 crore.

For people aged 60–69 and 70–79, the ratios were 104.5% and 109.1%. These figures compare electoral entries with population projections, rather than an exact population count. The low registration rate among young adults is not a count of young voters deleted during SIR.

The Hindu reported the case of Faruk Kazi, a 19-year-old labourer in Rejinagar, who registered in 2025 but could not vote in the Assembly election after his name was excluded. He had linked his entry to his grandfather Hossain Ali in the 2002 roll because his parents registered later. His parents and elder brother remained on the revised roll. When the report was published, his tribunal appeal was undecided, putting his participation in the October 6 by-election in doubt as well.

Appeals remain largely undecided

The Form 6 and Form 7 figures are one part of the wider revision process. Other concerns voters whose cases went before judicial officers and who later appealed against the decisions.

On February 20, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to bring judicial officers into the verification exercise. Officers from West Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand examined unresolved cases under arrangements made through the Calcutta High Court.

On March 10, the Court directed the creation of an appellate mechanism. Nineteen single-member tribunals were established later that month. The Hindu reported that they began functioning around April 13. An April 16 Supreme Court direction provided for successful appellants to be included through supplementary lists.

Assembly polling began on April 23. According to the same report, only 136 names had been cleared by then. Two tribunal judges later resigned for personal reasons and were replaced.

In its September 18 submission to the Supreme Court, the Commission said 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed: 22.21 lakh challenged deletions, while 16.10 lakh challenged inclusion and sought removal of names. Only 1.26 lakh appeals had been disposed of by September 10.

That disposal figure covers both categories and does not indicate how many voters were restored. A later Hindu report described 22.21 lakh deletion appeals as pending, but the material cited does not provide separate disposal figures for each category.

Fresh enrolment drive and pending tribunal cases

The Commission’s October 1 letter to Chief Electoral Officers instructed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to compare current rolls with pre-SIR rolls, identify people whose names were missing, visit them and help eligible voters apply through Form 6.

A senior Commission official told The Hindu that cases already before Bengal’s appellate tribunals would be treated differently because they were under adjudication. Voters with pending tribunal appeals would therefore continue through that process, while other eligible people could seek enrolment through Electoral Registration Officers. The report said Form 6 applications were to be cleared within one or two months.

Before the October 6 by-elections in Nandigram and Rejinagar, West Bengal Congress leaders said more than 6,000 appeals in Nandigram and 12,000 in Rejinagar remained pending. They said these voters could miss another election.

As reported by The Times of India, Pradesh Congress president Shubhankar Sarkar and the party’s SIR committee chairperson Prasenjit Bose asked the Commission to provisionally restore the 22.21 lakh appellants until their cases were decided or treat their appeals as Form 6 applications before the respective Electoral Registration Officers. The reports cited did not record acceptance of either proposal.

Judges report problems with the appeal portal

Judges of more than a dozen of the 19 tribunals discussed problems with the appeal system at an August 11 meeting. The minutes were sent to the Election Commission and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, according to The Indian Express.

The judges reported that the Commission’s portal lacked a common system for serving notices, obtaining additional documents, holding virtual hearings and giving appellants copies of orders. Some judges had approved a notice format in May, but it had still not been implemented by August.

Where documents were incomplete or did not match the enumeration form, tribunals had no proper mechanism to seek further material. Individual tribunals were trying to communicate through District Magistrates and District Election Officers, but the minutes recorded poor responses.

The portal also did not allow a disposed appeal to be reopened when a judicial direction or another reason required it. This was a problem with reopening proceedings on the portal, separate from the question of restoring a voter’s name.

Appellants could neither download tribunal orders nor obtain certified copies through the portal, the judges said. This made it difficult for them to obtain the reasons for a decision. The minutes also recorded uncertainty over the handling and digitisation of physical appeals submitted to district authorities.

An April 6 Supreme Court order had referred to appeals being submitted through ECINET or at designated district and sub-divisional offices, which were required to digitise and upload them promptly. An April 1 order had required tribunals to revisit records and communicate reasons.

The August meeting followed an earlier warning. On May 22, a tribunal judge wrote to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice that the lack of a notice mechanism was slowing disposal. The judge also alleged that incorrect disposal figures were being circulated to the press through unnamed Commission sources without explaining the administrative difficulties.

The Indian Express said it sought responses from the Commission and the High Court’s Registrar General on October 1 but received none by publication. Its account documents repeated complaints; it does not establish whether every problem recorded in August remained unresolved in October.

Deletions at different stages of SIR

The report Inside the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), prepared by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Vote for Democracy (VFD), records several stages of exclusion and verification in Bengal. At the stage it examined, it recorded a draft electorate of 7,08,16,630 and cumulative deletions of 63,66,952, including removals before the draft and further deletions before the final roll.

It separately recorded 60,06,675 cases under adjudication. Those cases were still pending at that point and were not all confirmed deletions. Later reporting on 27.16 lakh deletions following judicial scrutiny described a subsequent stage, taking the reported overall figure to nearly 91 lakhs.

The Hindu reported that 58,20,898 names were excluded from the December 16, 2025, draft roll under the Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD) categories. Its rounded breakdown was 24.16 lakh marked dead, 32.65 lakh shifted or absent, and 1.38 lakh duplicates.

Separately, 31,68,424 people were identified as “unmapped”, meaning they could not be linked to the 2002 electoral roll. Approximately 1.36 crore were flagged for “logical discrepancies”. Notices and hearings followed, but around 60 lakh cases remained unresolved when the final roll was published on February 28.

The CJP–VFD report describes discrepancies involving fathers’ names, ages, family relationships and entries linking more than six children to one person. It also reports difficulties with Bengali names transliterated into English and with matching current details to older records.

The report recounts the Supreme Court’s January 19 directions to display discrepancy lists locally, allow submissions through authorised representatives, provide additional time and enable affected people to be heard. Its account of the February 24 order explains that supplementary lists could follow the February 28 final roll, with subsequently included voters treated as part of that roll.

Voters describe spelling and family-record problems

Several voters interviewed by The Hindu said differences in names or family records had led to exclusion despite their attending hearings or supplying documents.

Imamuddin Sheikh, 53, an elected panchayat member in Rejinagar, said his father Wahab Sheikh appeared as Kalu Sheikh in the 2002 roll. Kalu was his father’s nickname, he said, and the EPIC number matched. Nevertheless, Imamuddin’s name was deleted.

Najmatara Khatoon, a 29-year-old Anganwadi worker in Samserganj, said her father’s name appeared as Abdul Haq Sheikh in the old roll and Abdul Haq elsewhere. She said she attended a hearing and submitted documents but was excluded. Both she and Imamuddin approached the tribunal. Khatoon also said local officials questioned her nationality when she sought help.

Md. Mojahar Hossain, a 39-year-old teacher who served as a BLO in Samserganj, said six other people were linked to his father in the old records, although he had one sister and three brothers. His father’s surname was also recorded as “Hosen” instead of “Hossain”, despite a matching EPIC number. His three brothers remained on the roll, while he, his sister and his father were excluded. He said three other teachers at his school who had performed BLO duties also lost their entries.

Md. Alauddin Sheikh, 47, who contested an election in 2021, described deletions affecting his brothers and their wives despite their attending hearings. He alleged political targeting, but the newspaper account did not independently establish that allegation.

Md. Shamim Akhtar, a 49-year-old retired Indian Air Force Wing Commander in Entally, said both his and his father’s names appeared in the 2002 roll. His case nevertheless went under adjudication in February, and his name was missing from a March supplementary list. He said he received neither a hearing nor an explanation of how to resolve the problem.

In Medinipur, 24-year-old student S.K. Riaz said a discrepancy in his father’s name affected the family’s entries. Their cases remained unresolved despite repeated visits to officials when they spoke to the newspaper.

VFD: Earlier findings on mapping and documentation

The CJP–VFD report cites a December 2025 SABAR Institute study examining unmapped voters. The 20 constituencies with the highest proportions of unmapped voters reportedly had an average Muslim population of 13.75%, while the 20 with the lowest proportions averaged around 40%.

Full report can be accessed here

It also describes documentation difficulties faced by Matua families, particularly in North 24 Parganas and Nadia, and reports pressure on members of the community to apply through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act route. These findings concern mapping and documentation at an earlier stage and are separate from the later Form 6 and Form 7 results.

The report records complaints about tight deadlines, digital uploading problems, language barriers and the workload of teachers and Anganwadi workers carrying out BLO duties alongside their regular work. Its Bengal accounts include the reported deaths by suicide of Rinku Tarafdar in Nadia and Shantimoni Ekka in Jalpaiguri, discussed in the context of work-related pressure.

It also records deaths and distress among voters facing documentation problems. Broader death estimates in the report are attributed to political leaders and are not an independently verified official total. The accounts do not establish a single cause for every reported death.

Ask for public access to revision records

An April 11, 2025, memorandum to the Election Commission, reported by SabrangIndia, called for public access to electoral rolls and revision records. Coordinated through VFD and endorsed by 83 individuals, it followed a three-hour national consultation and an earlier notice issued in July 2024.

The memorandum sought searchable past and present electoral rolls showing additions and deletions; booth-wise Form 17C records and aggregate vote counts; searchable revision records in Forms 9, 10, 11, 11A and 11B; public inspection of EVM source code; disclosure and independent technical oversight of Symbol Loading Unit contents; and a revised VVPAT system in which voters would manually deposit slips in a separate box, with all slips counted and results based on those records.

Signatories included M.G. Devasahayam, Madhav Deshpande, Harish Karnick, Justices D. Hariparanthaman and B.G. Kolse Patil, Aruna Roy, E.A.S. Sarma, Venkatesh Nayak, Anjali Bhardwaj and Teesta Setalvad. The accompanying campaign raised concerns about Commission independence, enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and unexplained changes to electoral rolls. Its demand for searchable revision records would allow the public to examine additions, deletions and the steps taken before those decisions.

Separately, a September investigation by The Indian Express reported 14 objections raised by two Election Commissioners over ten months, including restricted ECINET access for officers responsible for electoral rolls. The Commission subsequently announced a committee, including an independent expert, to examine the system and its compliance with the law.

The Supreme Court’s March 10 order had also recorded technical difficulties faced by judicial officers and called for prompt repairs and logistical support. The later tribunal minutes set out specific problems with notices, documents and access to decisions while large numbers of appeals remained undecided.

Related

A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC! 

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast

The post SIR West Bengal: Most Form 7 requests lead to deletions; Form 6 additions remain low appeared first on SabrangIndia.