For any real correctional institutional autonomy to emerge, each and all of these issues need addressing, substantially and procedurally

The Election Commission of India (ECI), constitutionally entrusted under Article 324 with the superintendence, direction and control of elections, has faced sustained allegations since 2024 concerning electoral transparency, voter registration, counting data, access to election records and the administration of electoral-roll revisions. The controversies have intensified with the reported dissent of two Election Commissioners over the manner of its over-centralised functioning: the large-scale SIR deletions, the hijacking of powers over the electoral roll statutorily with the local EROs and the integrity of the software employed in the SIR process.

Ten crucial pointers over the corrosion in India’s Election Commission:

1. Internal dissent within the ECI: 14 recorded objections by two Election Commissioners

On September 23, 2026, The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over ten months to decisions and orders concerning the Commission’s functioning. The objections reportedly concerned voter registration, deletion and restoration, Form 6, database access, West Bengal appeals and communications issued in the ECI’s name without their knowledge or approval. Four objections were reportedly made on one day. The report also stated that the two Commissioners approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes affecting the integrity and oversight of the IT system.

What do the Election Commission’s own records reveal about disagreements within the poll panel?@RitikaChopra__‘s latest #ExpressInvestigation examines 14 formal objections raised by two Election Commissioners — and what they reveal about decisions on electoral rolls, voter… https://t.co/vADIixRnoq

— The Indian Express (@IndianExpress) September 23, 2026

One central objection concerned the July 2026 change to Form 6, the application used by new voters. The revised form asked whether the applicant, or their parents or grandparents, appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. According to the report, Sandhu and Joshi had objected that the change could not be introduced without the relevant rule being amended; Sandhu later described it as “unauthorised and illegal” and sought its removal. Amending a rule requires the collective deliberations of the legislature that is Parliament.

The Commissioners also raised concerns over the centralisation of electoral-roll database. Contrary to its constant defence of actions over past months on the manipulation of electoral rolls which was to say that the process of roll preparation is decentralised, the IE probe showed that through the ERONet and thereafter ECINet software controlled centrally the ERO’s access to the list was being restricted and that both Commissioners have repeatedly questioned this centralisation. (Each constituency’s voters’ list is prepared and controlled by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority on the ground. Usually, the ERO is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate).

2. Electoral-roll software and the Goa episode: when an officer’s decision was not implemented

A follow up story for the same paper, Indian Express, revealed that this bypassing of federal principles and over-centralisation was witnessed in Goa. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) reportedly found 97 voters eligible after examining their documents, but the software in the central ECI’s digital electoral-roll system did not provide the mechanism needed to reverse their earlier deletion! The Goa Chief Electoral Officer’s office reportedly wrote eight times between February 11 and 17 seeking a rollback facility. The facility was not enabled in time, and the 97 voters remained outside the final roll!!

The issue is not simply the number of voters involved. It is whether a statutory officer’s decision can be rendered ineffective because the central software does not permit its implementation. The reported concerns of Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi about centralised database control, access credentials and the authority of the IT division assume particular significance in this context.

The episode raises a direct accountability question: when a voter is found eligible by the officer empowered to decide the matter, who is to be held responsible if the system despite this, denies him the right to be registered as a legitimate voter?

From the ballot box to the electoral record: what VFD analysed

The sharp citizen’s scrutiny of electoral transparency did not begin with SIR. Vote for Democracy (VFD), a Maharashtra-level citizens’ platform formed in 2023, began a continuing examination of electoral data, polling, counting and electoral-roll processes, publishing a series of reports and analytical documents from 2024 onwards.

Its principal Lok Sabha Elections 2024 report, “Conduct of Lok Sabha Elections 2024: Analysis of ‘Vote Manipulation’ and ‘Misconduct during Voting and Counting”, examined alleged irregularities in polling and counting, changes between initial and final turnout figures, discrepancies between EVM votes polled and votes recovered/counting figures, Form 17C-related transparency, Returning Officer conduct and selected closely contested constituencies. VFD argued that its calculations were based primarily on official ECI data and reported a cumulative increase of 4, 65, 46, 885 votes between the polling-day turnout figures and subsequently released final figures, and identified 79 Parliamentary Constituencies where its calculated increase exceeded the winning margin; it also examined discrepancies in 350+ constituencies, including seats with margins below 50,000 votes, and highlighted cases such as Mumbai North-West and Farrukhabad.

On July 19 2024, VFD and associated organisations served a notice on the ECI seeking explanations regarding turnout data, Form 17C, alleged injection of votes, counting procedures, Returning Officers and other alleged irregularities.

The inquiry continued with VFD’s November 19, 2024 Draft Report on the Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir Assembly Elections, which analysed the ECI’s refusal to release absolute voting figures before counting, changes in turnout percentages, projected/extrapolated votes in Haryana, district-wise turnout changes, alleged discrepancies between EVM votes polled and votes recovered, post-counting changes, voters remaining in queues after closure of polling, and EVM battery and vote-count issues.

In 2025, VFD expanded the examination through its report on the Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024, analysing 95 Assembly Constituencies for mismatches between EVM votes polled and recovered, what it described as an unexplained 7.83% hike in voter turnout after 5 PM, constituencies with margins below 26,500, district-level data mismatches, seats with margins below 3,000/5,000/10,000 votes, additions of voters between 2019 and 2024, discrepancies between ECI and CEO Maharashtra elector data, and the addition of 29,219 electors in Nagpur South-West between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.

Its August 12, 2025 Bihar SIR analysis, followed by the expanded report, examined the deletion of approximately 65 lakh electors, the categorisation and changing granularity of deletion data, “untraceable” and deceased elector categories, district-level concentrations, the chronology of SIR data released by the ECI, and the potential impact across 243 Assembly Constituencies.

Thus, taken together, VFD’s reports present a continuing analytical thread: who can independently verify the numerical journey of the vote, the completeness of the electoral roll, and the records through which the ECI’s final figures are reached?

These are VFD’s calculations, interpretations and allegations, not judicial findings that elections were manipulated. The importance of the record, however, lies in the fact that a numerical discrepancy does not automatically establish wrongdoing; it creates a question capable of being resolved only when the underlying statutory and electoral records are sufficiently available for independent reconciliation. The 2024–25 VFD reports therefore shifted the debate from an isolated question about voting machines or turnout percentages towards a broader question of electoral traceability: whether the public record permits the vote, the voter and the final result to be independently followed and verified.

None of the questions raised in either these reports or the July 19, 2024 Notice to the ECI were answered.

3. Votes polled vs. Votes counted: unanswered questions in the ECI’s electoral data

Vote for Democracy’s (VFD) 2024 Lok Sabha election report raised concerns over discrepancies between EVM votes polled and votes counted. Separately, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in its report dated July 29, 2024, identified 5, 89,691 votes in discrepancy across 538 constituencies, based on ECI-published data. The ECI has maintained that votes recorded in EVMs are matched with Form 17C and that final turnout is reconciled by Returning Officers after scrutiny. However, these explanations leave public scrutiny focused on constituency-wise reconciliation, timely disclosure and transparent clarification of the discrepancies identified.

4. Maharashtra Assembly elections: VFD’s further allegations of data discrepancies

VFD’s 2025 report on the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections examined 95 constituencies for alleged mismatches between EVM votes polled and recovered, a reported 7.83% increase in turnout after 5 PM, district-level data mismatches and constituencies with narrow victory margins. It also examined additions to the electorate between 2019 and 2024, discrepancies between ECI and Chief Electoral Officer data, and the addition of 29,219 electors in Nagpur South-West between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.

VFD’s larger August 2025 report, “Dysfunctional’ Election Commission of India & Weaponisation of India’s Election System”, brought together its analysis of the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Maharashtra Assembly elections and Bihar SIR. It also raised questions concerning EVM/VVPAT/SLU architecture, Forms 17A and 17C, election-data publication, videography, preservation of CCTV footage and the Rule 93 amendment. The allegations collectively placed the ECI under scrutiny over the availability and consistency of the records needed to verify electoral data. The reports’ findings remain attributed to VFD; numerical discrepancies, without examination of the underlying records, do not by themselves establish deliberate wrongdoing.

5. Rule 93 amendment: reduced public access to election-related electronic records

Soon after the Lok Sabha polls of 2024 that had significantly reduced the seats of the ruling party, citizens groups had begun questioning the ECI’s functioning especially on non-release of the Form 17C data. All in all the role of the ECI was being interrogated and individual candidates of the Opposition who were victim to the deliberate lapses were demanding EVM Verification and CCTV Footage.

Unilaterally, even surreptitiously, on December 21, 2024, the Union Government amended Rule 93 (2) (a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, following an ECI recommendation. The amendment changed the framework governing public inspection of election-related papers and affected access to certain electronic records, including CCTV, webcasting and video recordings. The stated rationale included preventing misuse of electronic records and protecting privacy. In fact, however, this amendment, without involving public debate or the Opposition’s view, ensured absence of scrutiny and transparency.

The concern raised in the supplied material is that restrictions on inspection can weaken the ability of candidates, political parties, researchers and citizens to independently examine the conduct of elections. The amendment narrowed the category of election records that the general public can inspect. CCTV footage, webcasting and similar electronic records are not automatically available for public inspection merely because they relate to an election. Candidates continue to have access, and courts may order disclosure where appropriate. Therefore, the concern is that independent verification by citizens, researchers and other stakeholders may become more difficult, particularly when electronic records are important for examining allegations concerning the conduct or accuracy of an election.

The criticism is directed at the transparency framework and its practical consequences, rather than establishing that the amendment itself proves manipulation.

6. Bihar SIR: an intensive revision that placed a fresh documentary burden on existing electors

On June 24, 2025, the ECI ordered a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, where the electorate stood at approximately 7.89 crore. The Commission relied on Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, citing demographic change, migration, unreported deaths and duplicate entries as reasons for revision. Unlike routine updating, the exercise required existing electors to participate in enumeration and, depending on their circumstances and earlier records, produce documents relevant to eligibility.

During Bihar’s SIR, the ECI initially prescribed (one of) 11 documents for establishing eligibility-related particulars, excluding Aadhaar from the list. On September 8 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Commission to accept Aadhaar as the twelfth identity document for consideration in the inclusion or exclusion of names from Bihar’s revised electoral roll, while clarifying that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and its authenticity may be verified.

The supplied material questions whether this shifted an excessive burden onto already registered voters, particularly those whose documentary trail was incomplete, whose families had migrated, whose names differed across records or who could not be located during enumeration. It also alleges that categories such as “untraceable”, “shifted” and “not found at address” disproportionately affected Muslims, Dalits, migrant labourers and economically marginalised communities, whose circumstances may make documentation and enumeration more difficult. These are serious allegations of discriminatory impact contained in the material; they require category-wise evidence and individual-level scrutiny to establish their extent.

The material further alleges that, for electors unable to satisfy the documentary demands under paragraph 5(b) of the ECI’s June 24, 2025 order, deletion was coupled with referral to a “competent authority” as suspected foreigners, without prior judicial determination. The criticism is that administrative verification risked turning documentation gaps into exclusion from the electoral roll, with immediate consequences for voting rights. The central issue is whether adequate notice, hearing, alternative-document options and timely restoration were available before the relevant election.

The most problematic structural issue of the Bihar 2025 SIR and the subsequent ones held in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are the they were held at virtual gun-point with no adequate procedural time for imminent elections. The result was that arbitrarily excluded voters were summarily denied their constitutional right to universal franchise.

7. SIR figures: mass deletions and the failure alleged in category-wise reconciliation

The Bihar SIR began with approximately 7.89 crore electors. The ECI’s figures recorded about 65 lakh deletions at the draft stage, 21.53 lakh additions through Form 6, and a further 3.66 lakh deletions after claims and objections. The final roll published on September 30, 2025, contained approximately 7.42 crore electors—a net reduction of about 47 lakh from the pre-SIR electorate. The supplied analysis argues that the disclosed additions and later deletions do not, on their own, fully explain the movement from the original roll to the final figure.

A June 2026 SabrangIndia’s “Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?” analysis of VFD’s examination of official data from 14 States and Union Territories put the pre-SIR electorate at 61.38 crore, final deletions at 5.29 crore and additions at 1.87 crore. On that arithmetic, the expected final electorate would be approximately 57.96 crore, while the published aggregate was reported as 55.17 crore—a difference of about 2.79 crore. The analysis alleges that the ECI did not publish sufficient category-wise data to reconcile the difference, including how many electors were deceased, permanently shifted, duplicates, restored or newly registered. This is an external analysis of official figures, not a judicial finding that 2.79 crore people were unlawfully disenfranchised. Its core allegation is that the public data are insufficiently reconciled to permit independent verification.

The supplied material also identifies state-level discrepancies, including Bihar and West Bengal, and questions the unexplained additions between draft and final rolls in Uttar Pradesh. The allegation is not that every deletion or addition is necessarily improper, but that the ECI’s published figures do not provide a sufficiently transparent, reproducible account of the movement of electors through the revision process. In an exercise involving crores of names, the absence of a complete, category-wise reconciliation is a substantial accountability concern.

8. West Bengal SIR: mass deletions, a huge appeals backlog and questions over authorisation

In West Bengal, around 60 lakh electors were flagged for “logical discrepancies” and examined through a judicially supervised process. Approximately 27 lakh voters were subsequently deleted. The ECI informed the Supreme Court that 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed: 22.21 lakh seeking restoration of deleted voters and 16.10 lakh seeking deletion of voters who had been included. The scale of these appeals raised concerns about the accessibility and timeliness of remedies for people whose names had been removed.

The issue was compounded by questions about who authorised appeals seeking deletion of voters included through the adjudicatory process. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu questioned the authorisation and recorded that neither he, Joshi nor the then West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer had been informed of the basis or process by which those appeals were initiated. Later reporting showed that only a small fraction of the appeals had been disposed of, leaving a substantial backlog.

The allegations against the ECI therefore concern both the initial deletion process and the effectiveness of the remedy. Where a voter must appeal to regain inclusion, an unresolved appeal can mean exclusion continues in practice. The questions are whether each deletion was supported by adequate reasons, whether appeals were properly authorised, and whether restoration could be secured before the election.

9. Electoral exclusion and its consequences: welfare concerns and the Supreme Court’s limited validation of SIR

The supplied material records concerns that deletion from electoral rolls was being linked to loss of welfare benefits. In West Bengal, government statements reportedly connected electoral-roll deletion with eligibility for certain schemes, while reporting described ration-card and cash-transfer consequences for affected beneficiaries. In Bihar, Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary reportedly stated that persons deleted from the roll would be ineligible for ration and other welfare schemes and raised the possibility of cancelling bank passbooks. Such measures raise a distinct concern: electoral-roll exclusion must not automatically be treated as a final determination of citizenship or entitlement to unrelated benefits.

The Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 judgment upheld the ECI’s authority to conduct Bihar SIR under the constitutional and statutory framework. However, the Court distinguished the ECI’s limited inquiry into electoral eligibility from a formal citizenship determination under the Citizenship Act, 1955. It also directed referrals to the competent authority in specified cases and required notice and an opportunity of hearing. The Court’s decision therefore affirmed the Commission’s authority to revise rolls; it did not judicially certify every individual deletion or establish that every excluded elector was ineligible.

The supplied material criticises the judgment for not adequately resolving the practical consequences of exclusion before final citizenship adjudication, and invokes Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) in support of procedural fairness and the presumption attaching to existing electoral registration. These are criticisms of the judgment and the SIR framework, not the Court’s own conclusions. The concern remains that an elector may lose the opportunity to vote while a separate determination or appeal is still pending.

10. Expansion of SIR and the unresolved accountability test

The ECI’s SIR exercise has expanded beyond Bihar to a much larger electorate. The supplied material identifies Phase III as covering 16 States and three Union Territories, involving approximately 36.73 crore electors. It argues that this expansion is taking place while questions from earlier phases—including unexplained data movements, deletion categories, restoration mechanisms and the practical burden on voters—remain unresolved.

Taken together, the controversies since 2024 concern more than any single election or revision exercise. VFD’s reports raised questions about the traceability of turnout and counting data. The Rule 93 amendment narrowed aspects of public inspection of electronic election records. SIR brought scrutiny of documentation, deletions, appeals and the reconciliation of electoral-roll figures. The Goa episode and the reported objections of two Election Commissioners added questions about who controls the software and whether decisions taken by statutory officers can actually be implemented.

The central allegation running through these episodes is that the ECI has not consistently provided a sufficiently transparent, verifiable and accountable record for consequential electoral decisions.

The allegations do not all have the same evidentiary status, and not every discrepancy establishes manipulation or illegality. But in the absence of transparency and accountability or any consultation with citizens or the Opposition, the Commission’s conduct remain suspect. The Commission’s constitutional responsibility requires more than a general assertion that procedures were followed. It requires records that identify the authority for a decision, explain the basis for it, permit an affected elector to challenge it, and make correction possible when an error is established.

The latest reported internal objections make this demand especially pressing. When two of the three Election Commissioners reportedly question decisions concerning voter registration, deletion, database access and institutional authorisation, the issue is no longer confined to criticism from political parties or civil-society organisations.

It concerns the functioning of the constitutional body itself. The essential test is whether the ECI can account for every consequential change to the electoral roll and every stage of the electoral process through records that are complete, accessible and capable of independent scrutiny. 

ECI’s Defence of Unanimity: A Press Note That Seeks to re-assure, but Leaves Critical Questions Open

In response to The Indian Express investigation, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, the Election Commission of India (ECI), through its Press Note dated 23.09.2026 (No. EC/PN/119/2026), asserted that it functions under Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions as a multi-member constitutional body.

Official Press Note pic.twitter.com/xIQvXHqMSt

— Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) September 23, 2026

The Commission stated that written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks and balances are standard practices intended to ensure transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour; that all official orders, decisions and administrative directions carry legal sanction and follow statutory procedures under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023; and that operational queries or inputs raised during draft stages are routine measures aimed at safeguarding voters’ rights and improving electoral processes. It further maintained that differing views are a normal part of deliberation, that every Commission officer is authorised to offer suggestions, and that highlighting selected internal notes over 10 months presents only “one part of the picture.”

The ECI emphasised that it had taken numerous decisions, introduced around 40 initiatives, undertaken electoral reforms—including SIR—and conducted major election-related exercises in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal, asserting that all decisions during the preceding year were unanimous decisions of the full Commission. It also defended ECINet and other digital platforms as operating under strict data-security protocols, while affirming that Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers exercise their statutory powers under law.

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

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

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

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

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

The post A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Teesta Setalvad speaks with Saurav Das about youth activism, intergenerational solidarity, “School Thik Karo”, social audits of government schools, police accountability and the right to protest.

They discuss the Supreme Court’s intervention on protest-related FIRs, the violence faced by protesters, and why citizens must keep questioning institutions meant to serve them.

And then, humour: why satire, irreverence and a refusal to be solemn became part of the movement itself.

A conversation about young citizens, public institutions and the courage to ask questions.

The post This Regime Is Anti-Fun; Humour Can Strip Its Legitimacy | Saurav Das | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, this citizens’ convention that was attended by over 300 eminent personalities from various fields has demanded immediate completion and publication of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) prepared on the basis of the 2014 electoral roll, and expressed complete oppose to the highly controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Assam.

The convention was held on September 20 at the L. Baruah Sadan, Guwahati, at the call of eminent citizens, writers, poets, social workers and the leader of various social organization under the initiative of the Forum for Social Harmony. It was presided over by Dr. Ghanashyam Nath, Senior journalist Munin Bayan, Farmer Organizer Jayanta Gogoi and Professor Taiz Uddin Ahmed, and the days agenda was conducted by Harkumar Goswami, Debajit Choudhury and Arup Baishya. Harkumar Goswami explained the objectives of the convention on behalf of the Forum.

The programme began with the lighting of lamps before the portraits of Zubeen Garg and Dr. Bhupen Hazarika by retired Gauhati University professor Dr. Abdul Mannan. A minute’s silence was observed in memory of Zubeen Garg and in memory and honour of the working-class people in Assam who have recently died untimely deaths or by suicide due to state neglect. The convention condemned the government for not declaring September 19 a special day and a public holiday this year and demanded that September 19 be declared ‘Zubeen Divas’ every year. The Zubeen Sankalpa was recited by eminent Assamese young artist Shanku Niranjan Nath.

The discussions were divided into thematic sessions. Speaking on the recent floods in Upper Assam, the withdrawal of environmental protection in Kaziranga, and what was seen by many participants as ‘corporate loot’, Dr. Padmalochan Nath, social worker Manoram Gogoi and former Mayor of Jorhat Prashanta Bora said the recent floods are the result of indiscriminate plunder of natural resources with government patronage. They also strongly criticised the government for failing to take adequate measures for the rehabilitation of the affected people. Manoram Gogoi added that even small markets dependent on Assam’s own produce are coming under the control of large pan-Indian business houses, which is devastating Assam’s agrarian economy and threatening its distinct regional existence.

Eminent writer and advocate Arup Borbora elaborated on how civil rights are being curtailed one after another and how the threat of authoritarian rule is intensifying.

Several speakers highlighted the citizenship issue. They apprehended that by keeping the NRC pending and effectively ‘throwing it into the dustbin’, the Government of India intends to impose another mode of bureaucratic harassment, the SIR in Assam! Activist associated for close to a decade with the Citizens for Justice and Peace, Nanda Ghosh spoke on Citizenship, cited examples of case histories that revealed the inhuman plight of marginalised and working peoples, especially women during the NRC process (2009-2019). He also presented a realistic, ground-level picture of human rights violations taking place through the D-Voter, Foreigners Tribunal, and pushback mechanisms. He said the NRC in Assam was not carried out to end political debate over the foreigner issue; rather, it was used to create a reign of fear and to establish a relationship where citizens are treated as slaves to the state and mere subjects of the rulers. Nanda Ghosh demanded the immediate issuance of Rejection Slips to the 19 lakh excluded people and completion of Tribunal proceedings within a fixed time frame. Since there are no specific rules governing Tribunal proceedings, they can drag on for decades. Therefore, the process should be concluded quickly based on the revised 2014 voter list, which was revised using 1971 as the base year.

Significantly, the convention firmly rejected the government’s anti-people move to impose SIR in Assam. Ghosh also suggested building a body of all-India public opinion against SIR jointly with organisations like ‘Vote for Democracy’. The original charter of demands for the convention had clearly stated that SIR must not be allowed in Assam. He also explains the day-to-day ground reality on citizenship gleaned by e team members of the Citizenship for Justice and Peace (CJP)’s with heir experience in 19 districts of the state.

Advocate Shantanu Borthakur spoke out against the indiscriminate and unlawful evictions being carried out by government authorities, without following any law or the Constitution, using force to hand over Assam’s water, land, forests and cheap labour to corporates. The government’s promise of land rights and pattas is nothing but a form of deception.

Advocate Kishor Kalita observed that land rights, eviction and citizenship are interlinked, and that all people’s rights are in crisis due to the aggressive role of the state.

Prabhat Das Panika, a leading organiser of tea workers’ and state-wide Adivasi struggles, Nilim Dutta, and Dhrubajyoti Asom, leader of gig workers, spoke on the plight of tea workers and gig, platform-based and app-based workers. They said the government is indifferent to their income and social security because it is more interested in serving corporate owners.

Prominent Political Analyst and activist Arup Baishya offered an excellent political analysis of the events and drew an outline of an action plan on how to confront fascism.

The convention analysed how the relationship between citizen and worker on the one hand, and between state and citizen on the other, is being restructured. To uphold citizens’ rights, workers’ rights and democracy, greater unity between intellectual and manual workers is essential to build an effective and successful resistance. The condition of lakhs of new workers in the service sector — transport, gig economy, construction, projects and women workers — is extremely miserable, as evidenced by the untimely deaths of many migrant workers.

Almost all speakers emphasised that the nexus between politics and corporate capital and the resulting centralisation of power in Delhi has undermined the constitutional structure and devastated Assam’s federal regional identity. The only way to establish civil rights, mass rights and democracy is to rise above all narrow divisions and build united resistance.

A powerful five-minutes long protest dance-drama was performed by the “Oikatan Sanskritick Gosthi” which added a distinct dimension to the programme.  During the break, poems were recited and protest songs were performed by Laynu Das Kalita, Prahallad Mili and Nilab Saurav.

The meeting conveners subsequently decided to undertake outreach programmes around the demands raised at this day-long convention. The convention concluded with a brief address by the presidium.

Related:

SIR Phase 3: 1.58 crore names deleted from draft rolls across 12 States and UTs

Supreme Court issues notice on plea for time-bound reverification of Assam NRC over “large-scale errors”

Assam FT deems Assam NRC to be final NRC

The post Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC!  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Open letter may be read below:

To

The Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal Lok Bhavan, Kolkata

Your Excellency,

We are senior academics from various institutions in West Bengal and elsewhere in India. We are writing to express our deep concern about the West Bengal Universities and Colleges (Administration and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The bill was passed in the Assembly on 10 September 2026. It would allow transfer of academic and non-academic staff between various state universities.

The reasons for our concern are both academic and procedural. The crucial academic issues are as follows:

1. Each university is a distinct organic entity with its own rationale, structure and programmes of It appoints its faculty in accord with these factors. To move staff from one institution to another would impair the structural balance of both institutions and hamper their teaching and research programmes. Such programmes cannot be readily revised or interchanged.
2. Taught courses and research orientation programmes are planned by and for particular teachers and would be impeded if they were transferred. Research work would be no less affected. A university has specialized faculty who attract fresh researchers in that field. Laboratory and library facilities are developed to provide for those special If those faculty members are transferred, young research students would be left without resort. The material resources would lie unused or underused, while the human resources – i.e., the relevant faculty – would be underemployed at a new institution.
3. Major research funding is invariably linked to the assurance of expert faculty members as Principal Investigators. No funder would agree to fund a project without this assurance. Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional projects would be especially On the other hand, the presence of core senior faculty in the field ensures a succession of projects, creating a node of research excellence. This is the case with many of our older universities. Transfer of faculty would impair the working of these research nodes.
4. At this point of time, even those older universities are impoverished of resources, material and human. Hundreds of posts are lying This is a particularly bad moment to deplete them of their remaining faculty.
5. We are anxious that the new universities should be developed productively, but this cannot be done by sporadic transfer of faculty from elsewhere. At present, all or most of the new universities are grossly lacking in staff, infrastructure and facilities. Some of them have no full-time teachers at all. These needs must be met with due planning and sufficient funding, with extensive recruitment of permanent staff at all Unless this is done, a handful of teachers brought in on transfer would be left to operate in a vacuum.
6. A more fundamental issue must also be Any such move would spell the end of academic autonomy. All the universities would be brought under centralized administrative control. They could no longer develop freely, each according to its bent. Academic productivity would suffer seriously if university faculty felt they could no longer control their own affairs. This is an intangible factor, but its importance cannot be overstated. We would particularly request you to consider this earnest appeal, made based on our lifetime’s experience.

Needless to say, there would also be endless procedural problems in coordinating the different terms of employment at various universities. Above all, there is the fundamental issue of whether faculty originally appointed to non-transferable posts could be subjected to this radical change in their terms of employment. We are not expanding on these legal and administrative issues as we wish to stress the dire academic consequences of the change.

In short, it is our strong opinion that this change, if implemented, would severely affect the functioning of the older and more established universities without material benefit to the new ones. We earnestly appeal to you to consider our arguments and refrain from giving your consent to the bill.

Yours faithfully

(Names in alphabetical order)

Amita Chatterjee, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University, and former Vice-Chancellor, Presidency University

Amitava Raychaudhuri, former Palit Professor of Physics, University of Calcutta and former Director, Harish-Chandra Research Institute (DAE), Prayagraj

Anup Sinha, former Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta

Anupam Basu, Raja Ramanna Professor, Jadavpur University; former Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur; former Director, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur

Ashok Ranjan Thakur, former Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal State University and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology

Partha Chatterjee, former Director, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

Partha P. Majumdar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Statistical Institute, and former National Science Chair

Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, former Vice-Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University

Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Professor Emeritus, former Director and Distinguished Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Samaresh Bhattacharya, Former Professor, Department of Chemistry, Jadavpur University and recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar prize

Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, former S.N. Banerjee Professor of Political Science, University of Calcutta

Siddhartha Datta, former Professor of Chemical Engineering and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Jadavpur University

Sukanta Chaudhuri, Professor Emeritus, Jadavpur University Supriya Chaudhuri, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University

Related:

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

I AM MALALA! Afghanistan or Ahmedabad why are fundamentalists wary of the right to education?

Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture

The post Refrain consent to WB University & Colleges Amendment Bill, 2026, will affect autonomy & functioning: Academic to Governor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Paul had been arrested on August 7, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 464/2026 registered at Trombay Police Station over an October 12, 2025, event at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act, with a maximum prescribed punishment of five years. The bail came after Paul spent more than a month in jail.

The case arose from a campus gathering organised to commemorate the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba. According to the FIR, students participating in the event raised slogans including “Rest in power G.N. Saibaba” and slogans demanding the release of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Nine people were booked in connection with the incident, with Paul named as accused No. 3.

From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links

The prosecution sought to portray the gathering as something far more serious than a student commemoration. It alleged that the event was part of a pre-planned conspiracy intended to create ideological divisions among TISS students and disturb law and order. It further alleged that Paul had deleted secret groups, WhatsApp chats and the Signal application from his phone and that he had threatened witnesses and police personnel.

The prosecution also relied heavily on material recovered from Paul’s mobile phone, including PDFs of books concerning Maoism. It argued that these materials demonstrated support for Maoist ideology and suggested the possibility of links with banned organisations. The police went further, alleging that documents relating to the Purba Bangla Maoist Party indicated the possibility of cross-border connections and a larger organised network. The Court, however, did not accept that an ideological or political inference could simply be converted into criminal culpability.

The Magistrate noted that the investigation had sought to connect Paul’s activities to threats against national unity and the possibility of creating hatred in society. Yet, after examining the material placed before it, the Court found no prima facie incriminating material establishing his involvement in activities against the nation. His membership of the Progressive Students Forum, participation in the commemoration and raising of slogans did not, by themselves, provide sufficient material to establish the alleged Maoist connection. Most significantly, the Court rejected the attempt to draw a Maoist connection merely from the presence of Maoist literature in digital form.

“The allegations against the accused as per FIR is prima facie of conducting activity of commemoration of death anniversary and slogan and during investigation, it appears that the investigating officer has made suspicious activities of the accused by connecting with nation and made suspicion that the possibility of creating hatred in the community and in the society. Therefore, the investigation was undertaken on the said aspect, however, prima facie there is no incriminating material on record to justify involvement of the accused against the nation and only because accused is member of Progressive Students Forum of TISS and participation in the activity of commemoration and the uttering slogans along with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer prima facie does not found supporting material that the accused has got benefit of social network and prima facie no material to connect the accused with the mind set of Maoist merely because of finding of pdf books the inference of connection with the mind set of Maoist cannot be drawn.” (Para 15)

Reading books is not evidence of criminal association

The order draws an important line between possession or study of literature and proof of participation in a banned organisation or criminal activity. Relying, among other things, on the Bombay High Court’s reasoning in Jyoti Chorge v. State of Maharashtra, the Magistrate noted that literature which is not itself banned cannot automatically become incriminating merely because of its ideological content. The Court recognised that students may read and collect material as part of their academic engagement and pursuit of knowledge, and that such conduct cannot, without more, establish participation in a Maoist or Naxal movement.

This distinction is crucial in the present case. The prosecution’s case sought to move from what Paul allegedly read, what slogans he allegedly raised and which student organisation he belonged to an inference about his ideological allegiance and, ultimately, his supposed threat to national unity. But the Magistrate found that the evidentiary bridge between those facts and the criminal allegations had not been established.

The Court specifically recorded that there was no material demonstrating that Paul had used social networks to obtain a benefit for, or establish a connection with, a banned organisation. Nor did the material placed before the Court establish that merely possessing the PDFs meant that Paul shared the “mind set” of Maoists.

Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone

The Court also considered the length and purpose of the investigation. Paul had initially obtained interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court in October 2025, which continued for several months. His anticipatory bail application was ultimately rejected on August 7, 2026, after which he was taken into custody. His mobile phone and laptop had already been seized and he had been interrogated.

The Magistrate found that the investigating agency had already been given sufficient time to investigate the allegations. In the Court’s assessment, the subsequent custodial interrogation had not produced material capable of establishing the alleged Maoist or anti-national connection.

“It is material to note that while consideration of ABA 2071 of 2025 and the aspect of involvement of the accused in the light of investigation was considered and the application of the accused was rejected for custodial interrogation to extract truth, however, prima facie except suspicion there is no material to link the activities of the accused with mindset of Maoist or against the nation or associating with banned organization against the India. The interrogation against the accused is carried out for sufficient period and in such circumstances, no further custody of the accused is required, therefore, in such circumstances, in comparative to the order passed in favour of accused Kamakhya Das by the Hon’ble High Court, the present accused has made out ground to release him on bail with imposing conditions to monitor the activities of the accused and safeguard the objection of prosecution.” (Para 17)

The Court consequently held that further custody was not required. It also took note of the Bombay High Court’s August 14, 2026, order granting protection to co-accused Kamakhya Das in connection with the same allegations. The High Court had, prima facie, considered whether participation in the event and the alleged slogans constituted an offence and granted protection subject to conditions, including attendance before the police for investigation.

Keeping him behind bars would not be just

The Magistrate also placed weight on Paul’s age and educational circumstances, observing that continued incarceration in the absence of incriminating material could adversely affect his career. The Court concluded that, where the investigation had had sufficient time and the material before it remained at the level of suspicion, keeping the young accused behind bars would not be just.

Paul has accordingly been granted bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, with one or two sureties of the same amount. He was also directed to furnish provisional cash security of ₹1 lakh for two weeks and report to the DCB CID Unit-06 every Wednesday between 10 a.m. and noon until the filing of the chargesheet. The order also imposes conditions against influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing a similar offence and leaving India without the Court’s permission.

The order is, of course, confined to the question of bail and does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case. The Magistrate expressly clarified that the prima facie observations made while deciding the bail application should not influence the final adjudication of the case.

Yet the reasoning is consequential. At least at the stage of bail, the Court has refused to treat political or ideological suspicion as a substitute for evidence. The presence of Maoist literature on a student’s device, participation in a campus commemoration, membership of a student forum and the raising of slogans may invite investigation, but they cannot, without supporting material, automatically establish association with a banned organisation or an offence against the nation.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad

Satya Niketan Collapse: When students and neighbours had to rescue students from a system that had failed them

Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case

The post Ex-TISS student gets bail as Mumbai Court rejects Maoist link based on ‘suspicion’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this context, the NAPM, the NACEJ and the AIRF have stated that they see the recent case registered by CBI against Ms. Bhanu Tatak, as part of a series of repressive measures by the Government over years, to quell democratic resistance by the indigenous communities and farmers. The FIR by CBI against Bhanu, which alleges violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), state the NAPM and NACEJ, “is a means of intimidating, discrediting and weakening a peaceful people’s movement.” The nationwide forums have saluted the Siang Indigenous Farmers Forum Youth Wing (SIFFYW) that has resolutely stood with Bhanu, in the face of intimidation and divisive tactics of the Government, calling her true daughter of the Abor land. 

Instead of dialoguing with the local communities and wider Siang people’s movement, it is unjustifiable that an FCRA investigation has been instituted as an instrument of intimidation against Ms. Bhanu Tatak, a young woman indigenous leader, reads the detailed statement. “The timing and circumstances of this FIR are particularly troubling because they come amidst intensified efforts to advance surveys and pre-feasibility activities for the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP), in the backdrop of sustained opposition from affected communities.”

Most crucially, the networks of people’s organisations have emphasised that a democratic people’s movement cannot be treated as a ‘security problem’ by the government.  In this context, the much criticised “FCRA is being increasingly weaponised to intimidate people’s organizations and harass their leaders. It is in fact the free flow of foreign funding for toxic infrastructure projects enabled by the Government (for ex. the disastrous SHANTI Act to privatize nuclear power generation) that poses a major risk to the people and environment in India. It is such decisions of the Government that need to be strongly questioned.”

Background: A retrospective amendment to the FCRA Act, 2010 through the Finance Bill, 2016, validated the foreign funds received by political parties after September 26, 2010. To avoid scrutiny before this date, the Government introduced another amendment in the Finance Act, 2018 to cover the period beginning August 5, 1976 – the date the original FCRA law came into existence. These amendments were done to counter a landmark judgement of the Delhi High Court in 2014, in a case filed by EAS Sarma and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The judgement found that the BJP and INC had taken donations from Vedanta & its subsidiaries, registered in England and Wales. 

The central question that people’s movements are asking today is: When a political party illegally takes foreign funds from corporates, is found guilty, amends the law to legalize its actions, and then weaponizes the FCRA to intimidate people’s movements, which are legitimately and democratically protesting the terrible environmental and social cost of ill-conceived projects, which only benefit corporates in the name of ‘development’, who is actually guilty of taking foreign funds to harm the interests of the country?

For years, communities of the Siang valley have raised fundamental objections to mega-dam construction. The proposed SUMP – described as a 12,500 MW project in recent reporting, would have profound implications for ancestral settlements, forests, agricultural land, riverine ecosystems and the cultural landscape of the indigenous Adi people. The opposition to these projects is neither ‘sudden’ nor an ‘externally manufactured phenomenon’. Resistance to large dams in the Siang basin has a history stretching back decades. Academic research published in 2025-26 documents the long-standing conflict between state-led hydropower development and indigenous communities in the valley.

The communities have repeatedly been at the forefront of the opposition. In 2025, villagers and the SIFF protested the deployment of Central Armed Police Forces in and around areas where SUMP-related pre-feasibility activities were being undertaken. Reports documented the presence of armed forces in multiple villages like Beging, Geku, Yingkiong and Boleng, while project-affected communities demanded their withdrawal. In September 2026, SIFF again publicly objected to the deployment of security forces for SUMP-related PFR activities and reported that project-affected families were demanding both the withdrawal of security forces from the villages and reversal of actions against community-level representatives.

Outlining in detail this background to how state power and the deliberate weaponisation of the FCRA law is being used to criminalise legitimate citizen’s protests, interventions and activity, the NAPM, the NACEJ and the AIRF have given detailed reasons for the reasoning behind this statement.

“Villages inhabited by citizens of India should not become militarized spaces simply because their inhabitants oppose a harmful “development” project. The presence of armed personnel around communities resisting a dam creates an unmistakable atmosphere of coercion. It risks transforming a question of democratic consent, indigenous rights, ecological protection and displacement into a question of law-and-order and national security. That is a completely wrong and unconstitutional approach.

“The Siang is not an ‘empty valley’.  For the Adi people, the Siang is not merely a water resource waiting to be converted into electricity. The river, forests, mountains and agricultural landscapes constitute an interconnected living cultural and ecological system. The Adi community has described the Siang as ‘Ane Siang‘ – the sacred river. The Adi Bane Kebang has also demanded the scrapping of SUMP and withdrawal of the Central Armed Police Forces deployed for project-related activities.

“Project-affected communities have repeatedly raised concerns over displacement, loss of ancestral land, destruction of forests, disruption of livelihoods and damage to cultural identity. Independent research also records the profound importance of these territories to indigenous agro-ecological systems and cultural continuity.

“Reports have also documented opposition to other mega-dam projects across Arunachal Pradesh, including projects in the Dibang and Siang/Siyom river systems. The experience of the Dibang Multipurpose Project, where indigenous communities have long resisted the project because of its implications for forests, land and livelihoods, should be a warning against repeating the same model of ‘development’ elsewhere.

“Consent cannot be replaced by force. We strongly reject the proposition that ‘development’ can be secured by deploying military personnel first and seeking people’s ‘consent’ later. If the government claims that local communities genuinely ‘support’ SUMP or similar mega-dam projects (as the govt propaganda states), the answer is simple:  Let the affected communities speak freely. And let their views and rights be respected and given precedence, instead of the vested interests of the dam-builders and corporations.”

Hence the forums have demanded:

• An immediate end to all oppressive measures against the local communities, SIFF, Bhanu Tatak, Ebo Mili and other community leaders and activists, including by misuse of the FCRA law against Bhanu Tatak.

• Immediate withdrawal of all armed forces / military personnel from the indigenous villages, de-militarization and restoration of space for democratic participation by communities in Government decisions that affect their livelihoods, ecology and futures.

• Free, fair and transparent public consultations at the village level must be held in the presence of neutral observers.
• Revocation of all clearances and permissions granted to the hydro-electric and power projects in the region, in violation of law and democratic processes.

Related:

Voices of resistance: Indigenous peoples’ struggle against the Siang Mega-Dam in Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh University students join protests against CAB; Show Support to NESO

The post Climate, riverine & indigenous movements from across India express full solidarity with the democratic anti-dam struggle in Arunachal Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident, which took place on September 18 and continued into the early hours of September 19, followed a September 15 kite-flying event organised in solidarity with children in Gaza. The event formed part of the Global Gaza Kite Weekend, an international campaign in which participants flew kites to draw attention to the situation of Palestinian children.

According to the citizens’ collective Indian People in Solidarity with Palestine (IPSP), police personnel arrived at the residence of Harshada Borade, a student, artist and volunteer associated with the group. The organisation alleged that some personnel were in plain clothes and initially did not provide identification, a warrant or written notice explaining the basis for the intervention.

Borade told media organisations that as many as 15 police personnel were present at one point. The search reportedly began at around 5.30 pm and continued until approximately 2.30 am. Scroll reported that five activists who were at the residence were allegedly prevented from leaving while the search was underway, while a sixth person was questioned at Bandra police station and released later that evening.

The allegations go beyond a prolonged search. Borade told Hindustan Times that police examined books, personal diaries and other belongings at her home, while two people accompanying her allegedly had their phones taken and subsequently returned. The group said that books relating to Bhagat Singh and Savitribai Phule were among the material examined by the police.

Borade has also alleged that two friends who were present at the residence were handcuffed, that their phones were confiscated and that officers checked the data stored on the devices. These allegations have also been reported by The Times of India, which said Borade claimed the search lasted from around 5 pm on September 18 until the early hours of September 19.

The police subsequently prepared a panchnama, a record of the observations and material documented during a search. According to IPSP, the panchnama linked the police action to the September 15 kite-flying campaign and recorded material found at Borade’s residence. What makes the episode particularly concerning is the apparent disconnect between the nature of the activity and the intensity of the police response. The activists were participating in a public campaign involving kites, Palestinian flags and posters as a symbolic expression of solidarity with children in Gaza. The police, however, have said that the organisers had not obtained permission for the gathering and that they were investigating the people involved after videos of the event appeared on social media.

Speaking to Hindustan Times, police officials said they had identified videos showing people flying kites and displaying pro-Palestine posters near Otters Club in Bandra West. They said the participants had not obtained permission and were not cooperating with police teams, following which the people involved were questioned and their homes searched for material, including books and other items.

A senior police official subsequently said that an inquiry was underway “as per the procedures established by law” and maintained that nobody had been illegally detained. The police, however, did not immediately clarify whether the searches were principally connected to the alleged absence of permission for the gathering, the display of pro-Palestine material, or both.

The question here is not merely whether police may investigate an event for which they believe permission was required. The more fundamental issue is how far the State can intrude into a citizen’s home, personal belongings, communications and associations in response to an act of political expression. A search of a private residence lasting more than nine hours, coupled with the alleged examination of books and personal diaries and the seizure and inspection of mobile phones, raises serious questions about proportionality, procedural safeguards and the constitutional protection of privacy and freedom of expression. Those questions become particularly significant when the underlying activity consisted of a symbolic act of solidarity rather than an allegation of violence.

IPSP has described the police action as an assault on democratic rights and civil liberties and alleged that it violated Borade’s right to privacy and freedom of expression. The organisation has demanded action against the personnel involved. Siasat reported the group’s allegation that the search was conducted without a warrant or other written authorisation and that those present were intimidated and, in some cases, allegedly manhandled.  The latest reporting has also highlighted the absence, so far, of an FIR against Borade. The Times of India reported on September 21 that Mumbai Police were gathering information and conducting an inquiry, while DCP (West Zone-2) Mohit Garg said the matter was being examined in accordance with established procedures.

The episode therefore raises an uncomfortable question about the threshold at which political expression begins to attract coercive State scrutiny. Flying a kite, displaying a Palestinian flag or possessing books by Bhagat Singh or Savitribai Phule cannot, by itself, establish criminality. If the police believe that an offence was committed during the September 15 gathering, the basis for that belief, the specific offence under investigation and the legal authority for the subsequent searches and seizures ought to be capable of being clearly articulated.

The concern is particularly acute because a police investigation cannot become a substitute for procedural safeguards. Nor should the absence of immediate criminal charges leave citizens uncertain about why their homes were searched, why their personal belongings were examined or why their phones were taken. At the heart of the controversy is therefore not simply a kite-flying event in Bandra. It is the question of how a democratic State responds to dissent, political expression and solidarity with a foreign people, and whether the exercise of police power remains bounded by legality, necessity and proportionality.

The Mumbai Police have said that an inquiry is underway. That inquiry must consequently address not only what the activists did on September 15, but also what legal basis authorised the subsequent searches, whether the required procedural safeguards were followed, what material the police were actually investigating, why personal books and belongings were examined, and under what authority mobile phones were seized and accessed. Until those questions are answered transparently, the nine-hour search of a young activist’s home following a symbolic act of solidarity will continue to raise serious concerns about the expanding reach of police power into the private sphere and the space available for peaceful political expression in Mumbai.

Related:

Women journalists who were attacked prevented from reporting, protest attacks

“If I Believe in Democracy, How Can I Give Up Hope?”| Umar Khalid: 2,190 Days | Banojyotsna | Teesta

‘Subjective Satisfaction’ Cannot Be Built On Conjecture: Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary

Anatomy of a Censoring Mob Threatened by Book Reading in Public

Deaths, Denials and Delayed Action: The Balaghat crisis

The post Palestine solidarity kite event followed by nine-hour police search in Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protest, organised at the call of the Sachetana Nagarik Manch, brought together political leaders, environmentalists, human-rights activists, journalists, lawyers, social workers and representatives of various people’s organisations.

Demand for Release of Movement Leaders

One of the major demands raised at the protest was the immediate and unconditional release of Lad Sikaka, president of the Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti; Lingaraj Azad, national president of the Samajwadi Jan Parishad; and Hiramal Nayak, leader of the Maa Mati Mali Suraksha Manch.

The protesters alleged that people involved in movements to protect land, forests, water and other natural resources were being targeted through arrests and criminal cases. They described the alleged action as repression of democratic people’s movements.

Focus on Gram Sabha Rights

The protesters demanded recognition of the constitutional rights of Gram Sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas, particularly in matters concerning land, forests and mineral resources.

They also opposed what they described as a restrictive interpretation of Gram Sabha powers by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The protesters said local communities should have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their land, livelihoods and natural resources.

Opposition to MMDR Amendment

The gathering also expressed opposition to the reported 2026 amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

According to the protesters, the amendment could have implications for the state’s taxation rights and control over mineral-bearing areas. They further alleged that provisions facilitating the export of minerals could encourage greater extraction of Odisha’s mineral resources.

The protesters demanded withdrawal of the amendment and called for greater protection of the rights of mineral-rich communities.

NHPC Communication Raises Concern

The protesters also raised concerns over a communication involving the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC).

They alleged that the communication sought to limit the authority of Gram Sabhas in matters concerning the transfer of land and forests. The protesters argued that any weakening of Gram Sabha powers could affect the rights of tribal and forest-dependent communities.

‘Not Just an Environmental Issue’

Speakers at the demonstration said the ongoing struggles over land, forests and water should not be viewed merely as environmental campaigns.

According to the organisers, the issues are closely connected with the livelihoods of thousands of people, the rights of tribal communities dependent on natural resources and the interests of future generations.

They said protection of natural resources and community rights required wider public participation and democratic mobilisation.

Appeal to Opposition Parties

The organisers appealed to opposition parties in Odisha to raise their voice against what they described as unconstitutional and anti-tribal policies concerning the rights of Gram Sabhas and local communities.

They also called for a broader people’s movement to oppose policies that, according to them, could facilitate large-scale exploitation of the state’s natural resources.

Activists, Journalists and Political Leaders Attend

Several prominent political and social figures, activists, journalists, environmentalists, human-rights campaigners and representatives of various civil society organisations participated in the demonstration.

Those present included senior journalist Rabi Das; senior Congress leader Niranjan Patnaik; noted environmentalist Prafulla Samantara; human-rights activist Bishwapriya Kanungo; researcher Anil Dhir; environmental activist and member of the Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights, Srimant Mohanty; writer Ranjana Padhi; Narendra Mohanty of the Anti-False-Cases Campaign; Professor Birendra Nayak; Debi Pusti; poet Lenin Kumar; human-rights activist Pramodini Pradhan; Baghambhar Patnaik; Rakesh Kanungo; trade-union leader Mahendra Parida; Pradipta Nayak; senior journalist Sudhir Pattnaik; Rajesh Mahapatra; political leaders Bhajaman Behera, Bansidhar Parida and Siddharth Routray; columnist Rangacharan Pradhan; transgender leader Meghana Sahu; Deb Prasad Ray of the Lohia Academy; members of the Basti Suraksha Manch, along with Narayan Lenka; documentary filmmaker Debaranjan; Dandapani Mohanty of the Jan Adhikar Manch; social activist Siddharth Kar; Kisan Patnaik; Sharat Pal; Sasmita Jena; Malay Tripathy; Akanksha; advocate Gyan Ranjan; Bijay Panda; Subhasis; Rashmi Ranjan Jena; Khirod Rout; Pratima Das; Sharmistha Nath; spokesperson for the people’s movement Prashant Paikaray; tribal leader Chamburu Soren; people’s movement leader Batakrishna Swain; Surendra Tapsu; Rumita Kundu; Debi Prasanna Rath; Mohan Naidu; Bichitra Biswal; Gourachandra Tripathy of the Dandakaranya Suraksha Manch; Laxmi Reddy; Soni Nayak; Shubhashree Pradhan, Swagatika; and RTI activist Prakash Kumar Samant Singhar.

More than a hundred activists, representatives of various organisations and concerned citizens also participated in the demonstration.

Prakash Kumar Samantsinghar (Email: educarexpert@gmail.com) is a Human Rights Defender and RTI activist based in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. He works on the resettlement and rehabilitation of slum dwellers, land and housing rights, environment & climate change, issues affecting SC, ST, and minority communities, and promoting transparency in government welfare programmes.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org

The post Mass Protest in Bhubaneswar Against Mining-Linked State Repression appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Sept 16, 2026, a young woman reporter Kavita Bishnoi was reportedly threatened by an angry mob of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) supporters in the Delhi University campus. It was election eve and several reporters were covering the students’ union elections.

Ms Bishnoi has courageously put out a video recounting how a goon came right up to her, yanked at her stole and accused her of being a leftist since her ajrakh scarf had a red border, states the DUJ.

She denied the accusation as did some of her colleagues. She was later accosted again, with two girls demanding to check her mobile phone. She reports that none of the reporters present who saw the mob of over a hundred people armed with sticks and stones were allowed to take photos or videos.

Quoting from Ms Bishnoi’s video, the DUJ statement says that police present on the spot were passive spectators while anyone who dared take pictures were attacked and had their cameras broken. She says that only the fact that she was female saved her from being beaten up.

DUJ regrets the escalation of violence in the city’s once peaceful universities and demands that Delhi police maintain law and order without bias and without infringing on the right of peaceful democratic protest.

Every reporter’s right to freely cover events without undue pressure and every student’s right to vote peacefully must be protected.

The statement has been issued by DUJ president, Sujata Madhok, its vice-president S.K,Pande and general secretary, DUJ, A.M. Jigeesh.

Related:

Attack on journalists in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha condemned: DUJ

Whither Freedom: The Chhatisgarh attack on journalists

Attack on journalist Nikhil Wagle: Despite evidence, CP, Pune Amitesh Kumar denies attempt to murder charge (S 307)

The post Reporter attacked on DU Campus, DUJ condemns assault appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The advise offered by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri (Parchiwale baba, whom Prime Minister Modi calls his younger brother) in this regard, evoked reactions in fish and meat-eating West Bengal. The state is on the eve of celebrating its biggest festival, Durga Puja. The BJP swept to power in in West Bengal in early-mid 2026. Even before this, the visibility of BJP’s political assertion in the state has been accompanied by promotion of Lord Ram (over Maa Kaali/Durga). This is a move which had previously yielded rich electoral dividends for it in North India, also affecting the electoral scenario in India as a whole.

As the BJP government settled in to ‘governance’ in the state, the season for the annual Durga Puja came. And the party in power invited Shastri of Bageshwar Dham as its passport to vegetarianism. This was a testing tactic, a well-honed technique tried by the far right sangh parivar, to test its schemes before an all-out imposition.  He visited West Bengal for a ‘Hanuman Katha’ in Howrah’s Liluah. He advised the people to keep non-vegetarian food away from Durga idols during the Puja. Similar advice was already proffered by the RSS affiliate, the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP). This triggered a storm among Bengali Hindus, including those calling themselves “Hindu nationalists”. There were statements and protests from prominent Bengalis that Shastri should not teach them how to celebrate Durga Puja and what to eat and what not.

The reaction was due to the fact that fish in particular but goat-meat too, during the Durga festival are almost mandatory to the menu. Many of them underlined that fish is very crucial to Bengali culture and the broad umbrella of Hindu religion has many tendencies where non-vegetarian food is part of the ritual. Many from former Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy to journalists and content creators, people from a diverse section, including those who described themselves as “Bengali Hindu nationalists”, retaliated. “Don’t tell a Bengali how to celebrate Durga Puja,” Kolkata-based content creator Shreyasi Biswas Banerjee wrote on Facebook. In the video (link attached), Biswas underlined that an “outsider” was prescribing rules for a festival embedded in Bengal’s distinct religious and culinary traditions. A few people even tore down posters of Shastri.

Suvendu Adhikari who had earlier received Shastri with great warmth thereafter attended a ceremony at a Durga temple and was seen consuming ‘Fish Prasad.’ A clear mitigatory gesture! Many right-wing sympathisers and detractors even stated that the core value of fish in Bengali culture.

India is a country full of diversities in all matters, food, clothing, language and religion. Hindus also have many sects and many diverse food habits. We have Kashmiri Pandits for whom Mutton dishes are as an inalienable part of their culture. The food habits are decided by multiple factors, geographical location being an important part of that. In Coastal areas, sea food is an important part of their diet.

However, the ruling regime has persisted this vegetarian imposition.

In the recently held BRICS meeting, in the Gala dinner (mid-September 2026), only vegetarian food was served. Indecently Xi Jing Ping skipped this dinner, whatever be his reasons! While serving only vegetarian food for international guests was criticised by the opposition parties, Kiran Rijiju, the minister and loyal handyman of the most powerful in the government, defended it by saying that the guests appreciated the menu.

The Uttar Pradesh (UP) Government (its chief minister is Yogi Adityanath) recently published a map of important food items of all districts of UP. In this culinary map, the much loved and savoured Lucknow’s Tunde kabab was missing!! Only vegetarian items were presented, as if UP consumes only the vegetarian food.

In yet another incident 14 Muslims were put behind the bars (some months ago) for having chicken biryani at their private Iftar party on a boat ride in Ganga River. Interestingly some Hindus who consumed liquor during another private boat ride were left un-policed.

Despite knowing the fact that nearly 70% of Indians are non-vegetarians, vegetarianism is being promoted by the BJP Governments, and at some places successfully. In Gujarat where BJP has been in power for the past three decades, non-vegetarian joints have been selectively invisibilised. Many people go to the restaurants near Gujarat border and satisfy their craving for non-vegetarian food.

This remains a dilemma for the majoritarian BJP: a balancing act between Indian’s prevalent food habits and their agenda of imposing vegetarianism. At every possible chance they and their cohorts try to push forward vegetarianism. Somehow BJP associates’ non-vegetarianism with Muslims (and Christians) in particular, never mind what history tells us about the food habits of early India. This bypassing of non-vegetarian food, an essential part of Indian food habits, irrespective of religion of the people is facing this dilemma. They get away with this aggressive vegetarianism in places like in Gujarat, however in WB, they are facing an opposition.

Human society has evolved through various stages, and food habits have always been very diverse. The aim of RSS-BJP and their political-cultural supporters remains to glorify vegetarianism purely for ideological reasons. There may be some other reasons for promoting Veganism or vegetarianism, but respect for people’s food habits is the starting point for a democratic society.

How much does this regime believe in democracy is free for all to see.

Related:

Non veg food ‘ban’: Student group plans protest at Delhi’s Hansraj College

Most Indians Non Vegetarian; Men More Than Women, South & East Most

Can majoritarian societal pressure re-write the rulebook? The illegality behind forced non-veg shutdowns during festivals

The post Politics through a forced imposition of food habits appeared first on SabrangIndia.