According to sources in The Indian Express, the operation began following a nationwide verification exercise and has seen immigrants rounded up from states as far apart as Gujarat, Delhi, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Goa. Most of them are then flown by Indian Air Force aircraft to border states such as Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam — where they are held in makeshift camps, handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF), and “pushed back” across the border into Bangladesh, often within hours.

A senior government official confirmed to The Indian Express that Gujarat initiated the first round of detentions and currently accounts for nearly half of all deportations. “All states with major economic hubs are identifying such illegal immigrants after document verification. The instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs are clear — the states are complying,” the official said, noting that the crackdown accelerated after the April Pahalgam attacks.

But the scale and method of these deportations suggest clear departures from legal norms. Under Indian law and international obligations, deportation must follow due process — including formal orders, access to legal aid, and verification by Foreigners Tribunals or equivalent mechanisms. None of this appears to be happening in these pushbacks.

The BSF, according to reports in The Hindu, has pushed back over 1,200 people from just one sector of the West Bengal-Bangladesh border. Delhi Police alone has deported at least 120 people since January, followed by Maharashtra (110), Haryana (80), Rajasthan (70), Uttar Pradesh (65), Gujarat (65), and Goa (10). Many of these individuals were transported in secrecy and denied access to legal representation.

Several were reportedly handed some Bangladeshi currency and food before being left at the border, a practice that not only flouts legal protections for non-citizens but also risks statelessness and chain deportations. Alarmingly, a significant number of people, fearing arrest, are voluntarily approaching border regions in panic, indicating the deep fear triggered by the nationwide campaign.

These coordinated actions across states, in the absence of transparent procedures, point to a disturbing trend: a pan-India, informal deportation regime operating outside the bounds of the law, with little accountability or oversight.

1. Uttar Pradesh: 90 alleged Bangladeshi Nationals detained from Mathura kilns amid state-wide deportation drive

On May 17, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura district detained 90 individuals—suspected Bangladeshi nationals—including 35 men, 27 women, and 28 children, from Khajpur village under the Nauhjheel police station. The detentions were part of an identity verification drive targeting migrant labourers working in the area’s brick kilns.

According to Mathura SSP Shlok Kumar, the detainees claimed they had been living in Mathura for the past 3–4 months and had migrated there from a neighbouring state. “All of them are being interrogated, and other investigative agencies have also been roped in,” he told ANI, suggesting that legal proceedings may follow. However, no clarity has been provided on whether these individuals were produced before a magistrate or allowed access to legal aid, raising due process concerns.

The detentions align with a larger, intensified campaign launched by the Uttar Pradesh government to identify and deport what it calls “infiltrators” — targeting primarily Bangladeshi and Rohingya communities residing in the state. Officials have also indicated that action had earlier been taken against Pakistani nationals, and similar efforts are now directed at undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya residents.

According to the report of Indian Express, state-wide directive from the Chief Minister’s Office has instructed all District Magistrates, SSPs, and Police Commissioners to accelerate the identification and removal of undocumented migrants, particularly in areas where many are believed to be living under changed or forged identities. Simultaneously, authorities have begun operations against so-called illegal settlements and unauthorised structures, especially in districts bordering Nepal.

The Uttar Pradesh government has publicly claimed to be the first in the country to achieve the deportation of all undocumented Pakistani nationals. “The Chief Minister himself oversees the process,” said a CMO statement, as per the ANI report.

While the state presents this as a national security achievement, rights advocates warn that such sweeping actions, especially those involving families with children, may sidestep critical legal safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing, protections under the Foreigners Act, and India’s obligations under international human rights law.

Uttar Pradesh’s operation is just one piece in a growing national trend that appears to be functioning as a shadow deportation regime, with opaque procedures, little to no judicial oversight, and significant risk of wrongful or arbitrary expulsions.

2. Delhi: 700 alleged undocumented migrants deported under ‘pushback’ drive

In the last six months, nearly 700 undocumented migrants have been deported from Delhi to Bangladesh as part of the Union government’s intensified “pushback” strategy, according to a report by The Indian Express. The pace of deportations notably accelerated in the wake of the April Pahalgam terror attack, triggering a capital-wide verification and detention campaign.

Following the attack, the Delhi Police launched a coordinated drive and identified around 470 individuals as undocumented Bangladeshi nationals, along with 50 foreigners who had overstayed their visas, The Indian Express reported. These individuals were then flown from the Hindon Air Base in Ghaziabad to Agartala in Tripura, from where they were deported via land routes across the Bangladesh border.

Police sources revealed that 3–4 special flights were used over the past month for transporting the detainees. According to The Indian Express, Delhi Police also set up around five makeshift detention centres, coordinated with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and arranged the transfers with the Border Security Force (BSF).

On May 16, thirteen Bangladeshi nationals, including five minors, were detained in Auchandi village in outer Delhi for allegedly living without valid documents, according to an ANI report. They were apprehended during a targeted operation following intelligence inputs, said Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aditya Gautam. On interrogation, the detainees reportedly admitted to being Bangladeshi citizens without any legal documentation permitting them to stay in India.

A week later, on May 23, the Delhi Police detained 121 Bangladeshi nationals suspected of unlawful residence in the capital and initiated deportation proceedings through the FRRO, according to The Hindu. In the same operation, five Indian nationals were questioned for allegedly facilitating the illegal entry and stay of these foreign nationals. A case was registered at Narela Industrial Area police station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 14 and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been formed to probe a suspected syndicate that is believed to have assisted in providing accommodation, jobs, and forged Indian identity documents to the immigrants. Authorities are now examining suspected fabrication of Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, and electricity meter connections, and have issued notices to relevant departments. Legal action has been promised against any official found complicit.

These developments mark a sharp escalation in Delhi’s deportation efforts and reflect the broader national push under Operation Sindoor to track, detain, and remove undocumented migrants, often through processes lacking judicial oversight.

3. Delhi-Ghaziabad: Mass deportations continue as government allegedly sidesteps due process

On Sunday, May 25, around 160 undocumented Bangladeshi migrants, including women and children detained from outer Delhi, were airlifted from Ghaziabad’s Hindon Air Base to Agartala in Tripura to be deported to Bangladesh, according to a report by The Hindu.

Officials told the newspaper that the transfer was in line with the Indian government’s directive to expedite deportations without waiting for formal processes, which are often “lengthy.” This reflects a growing trend of informal and accelerated removals, especially following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

Since the attack, more than 500 individuals have reportedly been sent back through India’s eastern border. Across the country, police forces have been conducting verification drives to identify alleged undocumented immigrants. Once detained, the migrants’ biometrics are recorded, and any Indian identity documents, such as Aadhaar cards, are cancelled. These biometrics are reportedly used to prevent re-entry and re-enrolment in Indian systems.

After biometric capture, the migrants are handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and pushed back across the border. The Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a letter sent on May 8, raised concerns over these forced entries and called on India to respect formal repatriation mechanisms.

Earlier, on May 4, two Air India planes transported around 300 undocumented migrants, including 200 women and children who had been detained in Gujarat, to Agartala. They were subsequently sent across the border to Bangladesh.

At a press conference on May 26 in Dhaka, Brigadier General Md. Nazim-ud-Daula of the Bangladesh Army condemned these deportations as unacceptable “push-ins.”

In just one month since the Pahalgam incident, Delhi Police identified and deported 470 undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and 50 foreign overstayers, flying them from Hindon to Tripura before pushing them across the land border.

An officer from Delhi Police told The Hindu that the Ministry of Home Affairs had instructed city police as early as late 2024 to begin verification drives targeting Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. Between November 15, 2024, and April 20, 2025, about 220 undocumented migrants and 30 overstayers were identified, taken by train and road to eastern states, and deported via land borders through the FRRO.

However, after the Pahalgam attack, the process intensified. “Over the last one month, around 3–4 special flights went from Hindon air base to Agartala,” a senior officer said. In total, about 700 individuals have been deported from Delhi over the past six months, he added.

Initially, Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) from all 15 districts were tasked with identifying undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. A first battalion of Delhi Police, along with FRRO officials, would accompany detainees via rail and road to West Bengal, from where the BSF completed the deportation process, according to a government source cited by The Hindu.

4. Gujarat: Over 1,000 detained in state’s largest crackdown, hundreds airlifted and pushed back across border

On April 26, Gujarat Police executed what officials described as the state’s largest-ever operation targeting undocumented migrants, detaining 1,024 suspected Bangladeshi nationals, 890 in Ahmedabad and 134 in Surat, amid allegations of fake documents and criminal activity, as per Deccan Herald. The state Home Minister hailed the operation as a “historic victory,” warning that those harbouring such individuals would face strict action, and confirming plans to swiftly deport the detainees, as per the report of Hindustan Times.

Just over a week later, on May 4, two Air India flights carried some 300 of the detained migrants, including around 200 women and children, to Agartala in Tripura. From there, they were “pushed back” across the land border into Bangladesh, bypassing lengthy legal deportation procedures, as per the HT report.

These actions followed a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs after the Pahalgam terror attack, streamlining mass deportations with rapid airlifts and border pushbacks, according to Times of India report. Authorities have flagged concerns about detainees’ alleged links to drug and human trafficking ring, and even extremist sleeper cells, as justification for the sweeping operation, as per the New Indian Express.

The Gujarat operation, which involved specialized units from Ahmedabad Crime Branch, SOG, EOW, and local police divisions, also uncovered widespread use of forged IDs sourced from West Bengal, a network that is now under investigation as per the Indian Express report.

These developments underscore a troubling trend: a coordinated and expedient deportation campaign that circumvents due process, with authorities opting for air-bridge removals and cross-border pushbacks in lieu of formal court procedures.

5. Rajasthan: 1,000 marked for deportation as Indian migrant workers from Bengal detained for “Speaking Bengali”

On May 14, 2025, Rajasthan’s Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel announced that around 1,000 suspected Bangladeshi nationals had been identified across the state. Speaking in Jaipur, he confirmed that the first group of 148 detainees had been moved to Jodhpur and then flown to Kolkata, from where they would be deported to Bangladesh. According to The Hindu, most of these individuals were originally detained in Sikar district, and the Village Development Officers’ Training Centre in Jodhpur had been temporarily converted into a holding facility for the deportation process.

As per the report, Patel further stated that the state would continue similar operations in the coming days to facilitate further removals.

However, the state’s aggressive crackdown also resulted in wrongful detentions. On May 13, Rajasthan Police released 13 migrant workers, including children and two families from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, who had been held for nine days on suspicion of being Bangladeshi infiltrators, solely because they spoke Bengali. The group had been picked up by personnel from the Patan Police Station in Sikar district, and were detained in a guest house under police watch, despite being Indian citizens.

According to The Telegraph, their release came only after sustained communication from West Bengal government officials, who intervened when alerted by concerned families and local leaders. Samirul Islam, a TMC Rajya Sabha MP and head of the Bengal government’s migrant worker welfare board, confirmed that state officials had been in touch with their counterparts in Rajasthan to secure the workers’ release. A senior Cooch Behar official reportedly called Rajasthan Police directly, following which the detainees were let go.

Obaydul Khandakar, a resident of Purba Jaigir Balabari village in Cooch Behar’s Dinhata-II block, who had been detained along with his wife Beauty Bibi, told the newspaper: “Despite being Indian citizens, we were detained for nine days just because we spoke Bengali.” The families had been working at a brick kiln near Sikar and returned there after their release. Khandakar said he planned to settle his dues and was now uncertain about returning to Rajasthan for work, shaken by the experience.

6. Tripura: Over 2,800 arrested for illegal entry since 2022 amid ongoing crackdown

On June 9, the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Tripura arrested one Bangladeshi national and one Indian tout during separate operations at Agartala railway station, according to a report by EastMojo. In the first incident, Pranajit Ray (35), a resident of Sylhet district in Bangladesh, was intercepted during a joint operation conducted by the GRP, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and other agencies. Police said he had illegally crossed the border and was planning to travel to Kolkata. “We seized some documents and Indian currency. We are examining these,” an officer told the outlet.

In a separate case, an Indian trafficker from Chanipur in West Tripura district was also arrested as part of a similar joint operation.

The arrests come amid a growing number of detentions in the state. Between January 1 and February 28, 2024, a total of 816 Bangladeshi nationals, 79 Rohingya, and two Nigerians were arrested in Tripura, according to the Tripura Police’s own data cited by EastMojo.

Additionally, Chief Minister Dr. Manik Saha, who also holds the Home portfolio, recently informed the Assembly that 2,815 Bangladeshi nationals were arrested for illegally entering Tripura between 2022 and October 31, 2024. Out of these, 1,746 were “pushed back” across the border, while 1,069 remained either in jail, temporary detention centres, shelter homes, or out on bail, as per a report by The Indian Express.

7. Maharashtra: Four alleged Bangladeshi nationals held in Pune following military intelligence tip-off

In Maharashtra, four suspected Bangladeshi nationals were detained from a labour camp in Pune’s Khondwa area on June 13 in a joint operation conducted by the police and Military Intelligence, according to a report by The Hindu. The arrests were made following a tip-off from the Southern Command of Military Intelligence, which led authorities to intercept the individuals as they were allegedly attempting to flee the area.

Upon preliminary verification, the four men were identified as Swapan Mandal, Mithun Kumar, Ranodhir Mandal, and Dilip Mondal, and were found to be citizens of Bangladesh. Defence sources cited in the report confirmed that the individuals will undergo joint interrogation by multiple agencies.

8. West Bengal: Seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals caught trying to return home after years in India

On Saturday, seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, were apprehended by police in Nadia district of West Bengal while attempting to cross back into Bangladesh after reportedly spending four years working in various Indian cities, according to a report by Hindustan Times.

“These individuals had entered India illegally through the North 24 Parganas border around four years ago and have since worked in Mumbai, Delhi, and several cities in Gujarat,” said Somnath Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Ranaghat Divisionm as per the HT report. They were caught in the Hanskhali police station area, the same location where another Bangladeshi woman was arrested earlier last week. She had reportedly entered India in 2024 and also worked in Mumbai.

The arrested individuals are said to be from Khulna, Jessore, Cox’s Bazar, and Kushtia districts in Bangladesh. According to officials, the group was attempting to return to Bangladesh with the help of an agent who is currently absconding.

With these arrests, the total number of alleged Bangladeshi nationals detained in various districts of West Bengal since December 2023 has reached approximately 100, as per police estimates. The Border Security Force (BSF) and other agencies have stepped up surveillance along the Indo-Bangladesh border since 2024 in response to the ongoing political unrest in Bangladesh.

State Pushback: When governments step in to stop unlawful deportations

While the Union government’s crackdown on undocumented migrants has unfolded across states with unprecedented coordination and speed, a few state governments have pushed back, not against migrants, but against what they allege are unlawful deportations of Indian citizens. In rare but telling instances, state authorities have intervened to halt or reverse deportations, particularly where those detained turned out to be bona fide Indian nationals. Most notably, the West Bengal government has led efforts to trace, verify, and bring back its residents who were mistakenly or illegally pushed into Bangladesh, raising urgent questions about due process, documentation, and the risks of communal or linguistic profiling in the ongoing campaign.

1. West Bengal Government brings back seven men wrongly deported to Bangladesh

In a striking instance of state-level intervention against what is being called unlawful deportation, the West Bengal government has successfully facilitated the return of at least seven Indian citizens who were allegedly picked up by Maharashtra Police during anti-immigration drives and pushed across the Bangladesh border, despite holding valid Indian documents.

The men, most of whom are residents of Murshidabad district, were working as daily wage labourers or masons in Mumbai and Thane. They were detained between June 9 and 11, and within days, without due legal process, transported across the border and abandoned in Bangladesh, according to The Indian Express.

One of the deportees, 36-year-old Mehbub Sheikh, who worked as a mason in Thane, was detained on June 11 and pushed into Bangladesh from a BSF camp in Siliguri by the early hours of June 14, despite his family and local police submitting documentation, including Aadhaar, voter ID, and land records, to prove his Indian citizenship. Another youth, Shamim Khan, also from Murshidabad, was picked up around the same time and met the same fate.

Following urgent appeals from families and local authorities, the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, under instructions from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, intervened. The Board’s chairman and TMC Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam told The Indian Express that the state government had taken the matter up directly with the Union government and the BSF. “Our government coordinated with central agencies and ensured five individuals were brought back by Sunday, and two more by Monday. We are continuing efforts to identify if others from Bengal have also been wrongfully deported,” he said.

According to a statement by Murshidabad SP Kumar Sunny Raj, upon receiving alerts from families, district police initiated local verification and coordinated with the BSF. Once the individuals’ Indian nationality was confirmed through supporting documents, the BSF held a flag meeting with Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and repatriated the youths. “They were handed over to Raiganj police station by the BSF and will be taken back to their respective villages,” added SP Md Sana Akhtar of Uttar Dinajpur as per the report.

The deported men include Mehbub Sheikh (Bhagwangola), Shamim Khan (Hariharpara), Minarul Sheikh (Beldanga), Nazimuddin Mondal (Hariharpara), and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh (Monteswar, Purba Bardhaman). Additionally, Fazer Sheikh and his wife Taslima from Bagda in North 24 Parganas were also returned. All were among the over 130 people transported by BSF aircraft from Pune to Agartala, and then dropped off at the border with minimal belongings, a packet of food, and 300 Bangladeshi Taka, according to multiple returnees.

Speaking to The Hindu, Nazimuddin Mondal, 34, recalled: “We were herded like cattle. At 3 am, the BSF jawans drove us toward the border, told us not to return. We walked into complete darkness.” After being chased away by Bangladeshi locals and beaten by BGB personnel, the group wandered for hours in paddy fields with mud up to their knees, before the BSF called them back the following evening and took them to Kokrajhar.

Nazimuddin’s brother Musarraf Mondal said the family had frantically submitted documentation to both local police in Murshidabad and the authorities in Mumbai, but were ignored. “Only after my brother managed to call from Bangladesh did, we know what had happened,” he said.

According to Samirul Islam, this is not an isolated event. “There is growing concern that Bengali-speaking Indian citizens, especially migrant workers, are being wrongly profiled and deported in BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra,” he told The Telegraph. “This is illegal, and our Chief Minister has written to the Centre about this.”

The return of these individuals was made possible through urgent coordination between state police, BSF, and BGB, as confirmed by Mekhliganj Police Station OC Mani Bhusan Sarkar, who received prior alerts from Murshidabad and Bardhaman police about missing residents. After verifying identities, a flag meeting at the Mekhliganj border enabled their return on Sunday afternoon.

As The Hindu reports, these cases come amid a wider trend of the Indian government “pushing back” undocumented migrants across the Bangladesh border, especially following Operation Sindoor, launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack in April. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has officially raised objections, stating such pushbacks violate diplomatic protocols.

For the seven men from Bengal, the ordeal has left lasting scars. “We were taken from one police station to another in Mumbai. We had no phones, no belongings. No one listened to us,” said Nazimuddin, still shaken after returning to his village in Taratipur, Murshidabad. “Only the state government listened.”

Here is a detailed and paraphrased version of the UP detention and Bengal police intervention story, rewritten with improved flow and source attribution:

2. West Bengal police intervene to secure release of six detainees from UP, wrongly suspected as Bangladeshis

In yet another instance that underscores growing concerns around the profiling of Bengali-speaking migrant workers, six residents of West Bengal, including two drivers, were detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police on May 5 in Deoria district, allegedly on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. The detainees, five from Beldanga in Murshidabad and one from Krishnaganj in Nadia, were travelling by bus when they were stopped and taken to Lar police station, according to a report in The Telegraph.

The situation was resolved only after swift intervention by Murshidabad Superintendent of Police Kumar Sunny Raj, who contacted senior UP officials and facilitated the release of the group. A police officer in Bengal, speaking to the media, confirmed that local authorities had been alerted to the detentions around noon. “As soon as we were informed, our SP reached out to his counterparts in Uttar Pradesh. The issue was resolved the same day,” the officer stated.

Family members of the detainees said they were advised to keep their local police stations informed while travelling outside the state, especially in light of recent incidents of wrongful detention. “We had notified the Beldanga Inspector-in-Charge as a precaution. The prompt response of our local police ensured the group was not subjected to further harassment,” said Din Muhammad, a relative of one of the men, while speaking to The Telegraph.

Samirul Islam, Trinamool MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, condemned the incident, calling it part of a worrying trend of systemic suspicion and profiling of Bengali-speaking Indians in BJP-ruled states. “This has to stop. Speaking Bengali does not make someone a Bangladeshi,” Islam said. He further noted that despite the six men producing valid photo ID cards, they were still detained, an act he described as “deeply discriminatory.” He added that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had already written to the Centre raising concern about the growing frequency of such incidents.

Police confirmed that the group was released by the evening of May 5 and arrangements were made for them to return to their homes in Bengal the following day. (Detailed report may be read here.)

When the Courts Intervene: Stays and interim protection

Amid a wave of detentions and swift deportations, many allegedly carried out without due process, constitutional courts across India have intervened to halt or question such actions. In several instances, the Supreme Court and High Courts have granted interim protection or stay orders, preventing the deportation of individuals flagged as “illegal migrants” or declared foreigners under the Foreigners Act. These judicial interventions have not only delayed state action but have, in some cases, forced authorities to re-examine the legality and fairness of their deportation processes.

1. Supreme Court grants interim protection to woman declared ‘foreigner’ amid concerns over opaque deportation processes in Assam

Amid growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary deportation practices in Assam, the Supreme Court on June 24, 2025, granted interim protection from deportation to Jaynab Bibi, a woman declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal’s two-page 2017 order had summarily dismissed her extensive documentary evidence, including the 1951 NRC, multiple electoral rolls, land records, and local certificates, on grounds of minor inconsistencies in names and testimonies. The Gauhati High Court upheld this finding in February 2025 and revoked her interim protection, but the Supreme Court has now stayed all coercive steps against her, including deportation, while issuing notice in her special leave petition. The case is next listed for August 25.

Represented by Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai, Jaynab’s petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s own observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (July 2024), where the Court cautioned against opaque and suspicion-based declarations under the Foreigners Act. Jaynab, who claims Indian citizenship by birth and residence in Nagaon district, contends that her identity was rejected without due process. The Court’s intervention, though interim, sends a strong signal against mechanical adjudications and underscores the central role of constitutional safeguards in proceedings that could result in loss of nationality and expulsion. (Detailed report may be read here.)

2. Bombay High Court grants bail over custodial rights violation

In a significant judicial intervention affirming procedural safeguards even in cases involving alleged undocumented immigrants, the Bombay High Court on May 7, 2025, granted bail to 34-year-old Sabnam Suleman Ansari, accused of entering India illegally, after finding that she was produced before a magistrate well beyond the constitutionally permitted 24-hour window following her arrest. Justice Milind Jadhav, while granting her bail on a surety of ₹5,000, observed that Ansari was arrested on January 28 at 12:30 PM and produced only on January 29 at 4:30 PM. The delay, the judge ruled, constituted a prima facie breach of her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. According to the order, “It is the duty of the Bail Court to step in,” when such violations are apparent.

The prosecution alleged Ansari had entered India through an unauthorised route from Bangladesh and lacked valid travel documents. However, Justice Jadhav rejected the State’s reliance on an earlier division bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing the facts and affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to grant bail in cases of illegal detention. The Court also noted the indifference of police authorities toward elementary but statutory safeguards under Section 50 of the CrPC and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, underscoring that constitutional protections remain non-negotiable, even in immigration-related prosecutions.

3. Bombay High Court intervenes in detention of Indian teen following father’s deportation

In another crucial instance of judicial scrutiny over policing under the Foreigners Act, the Bombay High Court on June 3, 2025, ordered the immediate release of 18-year-old Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, who had been detained by Mumbai’s Mankhurd police following her father’s deportation to Bangladesh on allegations of illegal migration. Despite being born in India and possessing valid Indian documents, Ruksar was held in custody without any independent proceedings initiated against her. A vacation bench comprising Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking protection from coercive state action and possible deportation.

According to the petition, while the younger siblings were released to their mother soon after it was filed, Ruksar remained confined at the Nirbhaya Cell in Mankhurd, prompting the Court’s urgent intervention. The bench observed that her continued detention was unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, especially when she was not the subject of any conclusive or independent inquiry under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness cannot be dispensed with, particularly in cases involving minors or Indian-born individuals whose rights risk being subsumed by broad and indiscriminate enforcement drives.

4. Gauhati High Court orders immediate release of bail-compliant man detained as ‘Foreigner’

In a forceful assertion of constitutional liberty, the Gauhati High Court on June 16, 2025, ordered the immediate release of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Goalpara, who had been unlawfully detained by the Assam Border Police despite being out on High Court–granted bail since 2021. The Court declared his detention “expressly illegal,” noting that no bail cancellation had been obtained and the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration against him remained sub judice. Rejecting the State’s plea for adjournment due to lack of instructions, the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stated, “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and reminded the State that liberty cannot wait for bureaucratic coordination. The order came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee’s mother, Mozida Begum, which documented the detainee’s weekly police reporting and absence of any new judicial order justifying re-arrest.

The Court had earlier stayed any deportation and verified that Hachinur was held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. His arrest on May 25, 2025, triggered widespread concern, especially as he had regularly reported to Goalpara Police Station per the conditions of his 2021 bail, granted under the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 guidelines. During the hearing, Advocate A.R. Sikdar emphasised that no fresh legal proceedings had been initiated, and the arrest was both unconstitutional and unjustified. The Court agreed, holding that the State should have sought a judicial order if it believed fresh grounds existed. “Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout,” Justice Surana said. With that, the Court directed immediate release, reinforcing that executive action cannot override existing judicial protections or suspend liberty at will. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Deported in Silence: India’s mass expulsions of alleged Bangladeshis without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

Issues raised by the expert:

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

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a body that has come increasingly under public scrutiny for not just its opaqueness and reluctance for transparency, but worse, been patently guilty of violations of both the Constitution (Articles 324-326) and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 is now using yet another method, e-voting on the mobile phone—the Voting App—that is vulnerable of several counts. The violations of the fundamental rights to privacy could be violated with the method of storing data collected. The constitutional right of asserting free will in an election and the principle of a secret ballot also stand threatened.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Indian spices

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Establishment

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

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

Board Committees

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

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

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

Aakar Patel

 

Mandal distribution related works

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

Mandals research related work

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

Mandal’s work in new sector

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: CounterView

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His post on “X” states:

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

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

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

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

I ask @MohanMOdisha

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

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

I am utterly shocked seeing this video.

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

— Naveen Patnaik (@Naveen_Odisha) June 30, 2025

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

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

The text of the open letter may be read here:

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

Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signatories:

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

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

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

Using 2003 rolls when names are not listed

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

The mandate and dynamics of electoral roll revisions

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

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

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

Commencement and operational aspects of SIR in Bihar

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

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

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

Past revisions and political discourse

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

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

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

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

Challenges to ECI’s authority and historical precedent

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: CounterView

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

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

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

Opposition and civil society leaders stand together

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

1 of 9

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

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

From every corner of Maharashtra, a message of resistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 30, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original title:

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

Amended title:

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

Analysis:

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

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

II. Advisory Board: Erosion of judicial independence

Original Clause 5(2):

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

Amended Clause:

Now allows appointment of:

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

Analysis:

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

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

III. Investigating Officer Rank: Cosmetic bureaucratic adjustment

Original Clause 15(1):

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

Amended Clause:

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

Analysis:

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

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

IV. Structural defects the Committee has deliberately ignored

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

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

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

Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

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

Section 10(1): Confiscation of moveable property

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

Section 12: Bar on district-level legal remedy

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

Sections 14 & 15: Blanket immunity to officials

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

This report must be rejected in its entirety!

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

The bill:

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

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

Note prepared by Team Citizens for Justice and Peace

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article further demands:

Has CEC Gyaneshwar Kumar been appointed to:

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

Does the CEC have the Constitutional Authority under Law:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enormity of the new task to be accomplished in one month

STATE WISE NUMBER OF ELECTORS – BIHAR

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

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

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

Let us examine the said provisions.

Article 324 in Constitution of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The said Clause 21 reads as under:

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

2[(2) the said electoral roll—

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

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

i) shall be prepared in the prescribed manner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same are reproduced here as under:

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

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

(b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency,

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) is not a citizen of India; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ground realities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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