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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 163 of BNSS flagged over restrictions on assembly

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

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

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

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

Experts recall March detentions and alleged enforced disappearances

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

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

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

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

Experts across 16 human rights mandates issue warning

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

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

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

The complete statement may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A backdoor for the Sangh Parivar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) October 17, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does the Census need so much personal information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The shortage-of-staff argument is no excuse

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision follows discussions between student representatives and a university-appointed committee, which also yielded assurances on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, a review of contentious provisions of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual and the withdrawal of proctorial enquiries initiated during earlier campus protests. Hindustan Times reported that the university has also agreed to constitute committees with JNUSU representation to review the disciplinary provisions, examine the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) and address hostel reservation issues. The developments mark a breakthrough in the prolonged standoff, with further discussions also covering hostel infrastructure, library timings and the opening of a canteen at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG).

At the heart of the confrontation is the suspension and rustication of elected representatives of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), alongside the administration’s continued enforcement of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual, which students argue imposes punitive restrictions on protests and collective gatherings. The dispute also raises questions about the university’s response to students exercising their right to protest, particularly when disciplinary action has excluded elected representatives from the institution they are mandated to represent.

The Hindu reported that CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas had sought intervention from President Droupadi Murmu and Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi as the hunger strike has reached a critical point amid concerns about the deteriorating health of participants. Brittas, a former JNU student, has called for the revocation of the rustication orders and an expedited resolution of the students’ grievances.

Rustication of elected representatives lies at the centre of the dispute

JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president Gopika Babau and other students have participated in the indefinite hunger strike. As reported by Outlook, JNUSU joint secretary Danish Ali said the union, along with former president Nitish Kumar, was rusticated in February 2026 following protests against the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Central Library. Ali said the union and Nitish were rusticated for a year and fined ₹20,000 each, while eight other students were fined ₹19,000 each for their alleged presence at the protest.

The university had earlier suspended five students and declared them “out of bounds” in connection with the alleged vandalism of the facial recognition technology gates in November 2025. The administration has maintained that public property worth ₹20 lakh was damaged.

However, the continuing exclusion of elected student representatives has become a central concern in the present agitation. In his letter to President Murmu, Brittas argued that keeping elected representatives off campus directly affects the functioning of the students’ union and weakens the mechanism through which students collectively articulate their grievances.

The issue goes beyond the individual penalties imposed on the students. When elected representatives are barred from the university, their ability to represent constituents, participate in campus discussions and negotiate with the administration is significantly curtailed. Disciplinary action against individual students can therefore have consequences for the wider student body, particularly when it affects the functioning of an elected representative institution. JNUSU has maintained that its office-bearers represent a student constituency of approximately 9,000. Its demand for the revocation of the rustication orders is therefore tied to the question of whether students can meaningfully exercise their collective voice through an elected union.

CPO Manual and the shrinking space for campus dissent

The students’ have called for the withdrawal of objectionable provisions of the CPO Manual, alleging that its disciplinary framework enables the administration to impose substantial penalties and restrict assemblies and protests. The agitation follows a university general body meeting (UGBM) on October 3, which reportedly passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the manual. The students have argued that its provisions undermine legitimate democratic expression by exposing those who protest to punitive action.

Brittas raised similar concerns in his letters to the President and the Union Education Minister. As reported by The Hindu, he warned that disproportionate disciplinary measures could deter students from raising legitimate grievances for fear of punishment. He also invoked JNU’s foundational commitments to social justice, secularism and a democratic way of life, as reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.

President Droupadi Murmu, as Visitor of the university, has been asked to intervene under Section 8 of the Act. Brittas has urged her to facilitate the withdrawal of the rustication orders, address the disputed provisions of the CPO Manual and ensure that the outstanding grievances are resolved.

Students dispute the administration’s account of medical care

The disagreement has also extended to the provision of medical assistance to students participating in the hunger strike. In a statement reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit said that a committee headed by Professor Vivek Kumar, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, had held discussions with protesters on October 9 and October 14. The first meeting reportedly lasted more than four hours. According to the administration, two groups subsequently ended their hunger strikes after receiving assurances, while discussions with other protesters continued.

The administration has also maintained that the university’s Chief Medical Officer has monitored the health of hunger strikers and that medical check-ups have been conducted twice daily. It said medical assistance was extended to rusticated students on humanitarian grounds.

JNUSU, however, has disputed this account. In its statement, the union alleged that its rusticated office-bearers were denied medical check-ups during the first six days of the protest and that their vital signs were monitored through a private laboratory instead. The allegations directly contradict the administration’s claim that medical care was provided to rusticated students from the beginning of the agitation.

The union has also questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s visit to the hunger strike site at approximately 9 am on October 16. It alleged that the visit, which took place without prior intimation, risked creating the impression that only a small number of students were participating. The administration, meanwhile, stated that a representative had visited the site at approximately 8.50 am but found no students sleeping there.

A wider charter of demands remains unresolved

The agitation encompasses a broader set of concerns about the university’s academic environment, infrastructure and institutional accountability. Students have demanded the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), which was replaced by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As reported by Outlook, a student identified as Dhananjay argued that GSCASH offered a more inclusive platform, while students were in the minority under the ICC structure.

The demand places the question of gender justice alongside the wider dispute over student participation in university governance. The charter also includes a demand for an Equal Opportunity Cell under the proposed Rohith Vemula Act, an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, improvements to deteriorating campus infrastructure and the reinstatement of the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) in place of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Students have also opposed the introduction of recorded video lectures through the Siddhanta Foundation, alleging that the arrangement undermines the quality of teaching and the possibility of holistic academic development.

Related:

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

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

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

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

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government cannot hide behind the legality of SIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An institution weakened by the way its guardians are chosen

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

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

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

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

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

That is precisely the wrong response.

This is how democratic erosion occurs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

Office of the Chief Public Relations Officer

Jamia Millia Islamia

Important Press Release

JMI Constitutes a High-Level Committee to Address Students’ Grievances and Restore Normalcy on Campus

New Delhi, October 19, 2026.

A meeting of senior university functionaries, Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), Prof. Mazhar Asif; Registrar, JMI; Prof. Md. Mahtab Alam Rizvi; Controller of Examinations, Prof. Ahteshamul Haque; Deans of Faculties, Dean of Students’ Welfare, Dean, Academic Affairs; Chief Proctor; Provosts of all Hostels; Chief Public Relations Officer; and other officials of JMI, was held last evening to deliberate on the demands raised by students who have been sitting on a hunger strike and staging protests.

Following detailed discussions during this meeting, the university has constituted a high-level 7-member committee comprising senior Deans and Professors, to engage in dialogue with the protesting students, examine their demands, and take necessary steps towards restoring peace and ensuring a return to normalcy on the campus.

The University administration remains committed to resolving the matter through constructive dialogue and deliberation, grounded in mutual trust and understanding. It seeks the same spirit of cooperation from the protesting students and other stakeholders. It is worth noting that union elections were dissolved in JMI in 2006, following recurrent incidents of violent clashes, attacks on teachers, and the occasional disruption of classes during that period. In the intervening years, in view of the well-documented history of violent disruptions and frequent shutting down of the campus, the courts have issued no directions to the university. Most recently, in 2022, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court accepted the argument and submission of the Standing Counsel, JMI, and disposed of the matter, giving no directions to the university to conduct elections of Students’ Union, in light of the rampant history of violent clashes on campus in and after 2006.

Nonetheless, the present administration, which assumed office in October 2024, remains committed to finding an amicable resolution to the two-decade-old impasse. It is also important to place on record that Jamia Millia Islamia has instituted a robust and democratic system of subject association elections in each of its departments and centres. Under this system, students vote by secret ballot to elect three office-bearers, namely, the Vice-President, General Secretary, and Joint Secretary in their respective departments and centres. This system has served the students very well through these past years.

The administration reiterates that collaboration is essential to fostering and conserving peace and harmony on campus and ensuring that the academic environment remains conducive and enabling for all students, faculty members, and staff. The present administration calls upon all stakeholders and students to work towards safeguarding the name, reputation, and high national and international ranking of the 106-year-old university.

Prof. Saima Saeed

Chief Public Relations Officer

@EduMinOfIndia
@rashtrapatibhvn @PMOIndia @ugc_india @PTI_News @ANI

— Jamia Millia Islamia (NAAC A++ Grade Central Univ) (@jmiu_official) October 19, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi | Jamia Millia Islamia’s students continue their protest demanding reinstallation of JMI Student Union, revocation of disciplinary action against protesting students and chief proctor’s resignation over the 17 October incident. https://t.co/TLrsMNRanA

— ANI (@ANI) October 18, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi | NSUI National President Vinod Jakhar says, “…Today we have arrived at Jamia University. The students of Jamia have a single demand; they have been on a hunger strike for the past 7 days… They are demanding that student union elections be held at the university. We stand with them and fully support their demands. However, the Jamia administration has remained completely indifferent; despite the hunger strike entering its seventh day, neither the Vice-Chancellor nor any other administrative official has come to check on the well-being of these students… Student union elections must be reinstated at Jamia. If they are not, we will intensify and strengthen this movement further…”

— ANI (@ANI) October 18, 2026

The agitation, which began on October 12, has revived a question that has remained unresolved for nearly two decades: who speaks for Jamia’s students? University-wide students’ union elections have not been held since 2006, when the administration discontinued them, citing incidents of violence and disruption on campus. The current protesters argue that departmental subject associations cannot replace an elected university-wide body capable of representing students across academic departments and collectively raising concerns about admissions, hostel facilities, access to campus resources and administrative decisions.

Delhi: Students continue to protest at Jamia Millia Islamia University, demanding that student union elections be held. Some students are on a hunger strike to press for their demands. https://t.co/LEHYgfVeev

— IANS (@ians_india) October 13, 2026

Restore Jamia Students’ Union! Stop the Repression of Students!

At around 5:30 AM today, Jamia administration acting at the direction of the Chief Proctor, forcibly removed students on hunger strike demanding the restoration of the students’ union and threw them out of the campus. The campus lights were switched off, they were beaten, manhandled and harassed, dragged out, and then handed over to the Delhi Police. All the detained students have since been released.

We strongly condemn this brutal assault on students exercising their democratic right to protest. The administration must immediately stop its repression of students and restore the Students’ Union.

HQ, CPIML LIBERATION

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) October 17, 2026

The three demands of the #Jamia Students are:–
1. Immediate reinstatement of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMISU).

2. Revocation of all ongoing disciplinary action against students involved in the protest and an end to any further punitive action against them.

3. Resignation of the Chief Proctor, who the students hold responsible for the events of October 17, when protesters were allegedly forcibly removed from the campus.

#jamiamilliaislamia
@santwana99
@NewIndianXpress

— Ifrah Mufti (@ifrahmufti) October 18, 2026

The confrontation has also brought the university’s handling of dissent under scrutiny. While the administration maintains that demonstrations must comply with campus rules and has defended its actions in the name of security and academic functioning, students have alleged physical manhandling during the eviction and questioned the disciplinary measures imposed on them. The issue, therefore, extends beyond the immediate question of whether student union elections will return. It concerns students’ ability to organise, question administrative decisions and seek accountability within an institution that shapes their academic lives.

Students have been protesting at Jamia Millia Islamia for the restoration of its elected student union, which was dissolved in 2006. Some of them have been on a hunger strike for the past week. At around 5 am today, the campus security guards, accompanied by the chief proctor, violently disrupted the protest, dragging students away. As students began demanding the proctor’s resignation, the university administration locked the campus gates. Around ten protesters were detained by the police, but have since been released.

The gates were eventually opened, but the streetlights inside the campus were turned off. Some two hundred protesters have assembled on the Ghalib Lawns, with heavy police deployment outside.

Videos by Shahid Tantray (@shahidtantray)

— The Caravan (@thecaravanindia) October 17, 2026

From hunger strike to alleged forcible eviction

The hunger strike began at the university’s designated protest site near Gate No. 18 before moving to Gulistan-i-Ghalib Garden, near Gate No. 7. By the time the agitation intensified, five students had joined the indefinite strike, demanding the restoration of the union and a formal mechanism for collective student representation.

The confrontation escalated in the early hours of October 17, when protesting students alleged that university security personnel and Delhi Police officers forcibly removed them from the site. Students described being dragged, pushed and physically manhandled. The Times of India reported that some students also alleged that women protesters were prevented from entering the campus and were assaulted when they attempted to join the demonstration.

According to Outlook India, students described security personnel dismantling their temporary shelter and alleged physical mistreatment during the October 17 incident. The university’s subsequent public statement announcing the committee did not address these specific allegations.

Rustication and campus bans deepen the dispute

The alleged eviction was followed by disciplinary action against students participating in the agitation. On October 16, the university issued orders rusticating Ebin Basil, a BA LLB student, for one year and imposing six-month campus bans on Mohammad Jasim Khan and another student, according to report by Hindustan Times.

The disciplinary orders reportedly accused the students of participating in unauthorised gatherings, obstructing university personnel and violating campus rules. The university also cited allegations concerning interference with CCTV installation. The students have challenged the disciplinary measures and demanded their withdrawal, alongside an inquiry into the alleged use of force.

What happened to the students’ right to representation?

Jamia discontinued university-wide students’ union elections in 2006. The administration has cited recurring incidents of violence, clashes involving students and teachers, and disruptions to academic activities as reasons for the decision. It has also argued that elected departmental subject associations provide students with alternative channels of representation.

In its October 19 announcement, the university reiterated its intention to seek an amicable resolution to the long-standing impasse. It also referred to the Delhi High Court proceedings that concluded in 2022 without a direction requiring the university to hold union elections. The absence of such a body has become especially contentious amid allegations concerning admissions, hostel facilities, access to libraries and sports infrastructure, and restrictions on student gatherings. As The Indian Express reported on October 17, the protesting students argue that, without an elected university-wide body, they lack a formal platform to raise concerns ranging from basic campus amenities to larger academic and administrative decisions.

Admissions, hostel food and the everyday costs of having no collective voice

The demand for a union is also rooted in the everyday realities of campus life. Students have raised concerns about the admission process, hostel conditions, drinking water, washrooms, access to sports facilities and the use of university spaces for academic and student activities.

In August, students protested over alleged irregularities in spot admissions for the 2026–27 academic session. They questioned the decision to conduct the process offline, following online admissions in previous years, and alleged that some candidates lower on the merit list had secured places while higher-ranked candidates remained on waiting lists. The university rejected the allegations as baseless and maintained that its admission process was transparent.

In September, residents of the Jammu and Kashmir Girls’ Hostel protested over alleged contamination and poor quality of mess food. Students reported finding insects and other foreign objects in meals, including allegations of worms in food and glass shards in vegetables. The university subsequently assured residents that the mess contractor would be removed and that food quality and hygiene would be improved.

A committee is a beginning, not a resolution

In its October 18 report, Hindustan Times reported that the university shut the Dr Zakir Husain Library and the Old Library, citing security concerns amid the escalating protests. The closure added another dimension to an already tense situation, particularly for students who depend on university facilities for their studies.

Students have also alleged restrictions on access to sports facilities and university venues, as well as difficulties obtaining permission for group activities and academic discussions. Some have questioned the location of the designated protest site, arguing that its distance from the administration’s offices makes it harder for their grievances to receive attention.

The seven-member committee announced on October 19 comprises senior faculty members and deans, including the deans of Humanities and Languages, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Students’ Welfare and Academic Affairs, alongside two other faculty members. The university has said the committee will engage with protesters, examine their demands and report to the Vice-Chancellor.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

The struggle to protect the right to know…

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

— Mayukh Biswas (@MayukhDuke) October 17, 2026

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

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

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 18, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a bookstall becomes a political target

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The historical warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

For Ajabha and her family, her release marked the end of an agonising wait. For CJP’s Assam team, it was a deeply significant milestone in 2026. But the relief was accompanied by a painful reminder of the many people who remain trapped in detention, separated from their families, their health deteriorating and their futures uncertain. Her freedom is also a reminder of what timely legal assistance can mean to someone who has been left without the resources to fight alone.

From a forgotten case to a sustained legal fight

On September 2, 2024, twenty-eight Bengali-speaking Muslims from Barpeta district were taken into custody and placed in a detention camp. When the CJP team met their families, it learnt that Ajabha’s family had not approached the Gauhati High Court on her behalf. The family was extremely marginalised and lacked the means to pursue the legal remedies available to her. At the family’s request, CJP took up Ajabha’s case, providing legal and paralegal assistance and helping bring her plight before the Gauhati High Court.

Detailed story may be read here.

On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation and sought the Foreigners Tribunal records to review the order declaring her a foreigner. The legal challenge, however, remained pending, and Ajabha continued to be held at Matia.

Detailed piece may be read here.

The High Court proceedings were crucial, but the immediate reality remained stark: an unwell woman was still confined in a detention camp, separated from her family, with no certainty about when she would return home. Without timely legal intervention, Ajabha could have remained without effective recourse to challenge her situation, while the threat of deportation continued to hang over her.

CJP’s work did not end with bringing her case before the Court. The team continued to stand by Ajabha and her family, pursuing every available avenue to secure her release while her substantive legal battle remained unresolved.

Two years in detention. A new effort to bring her home.

On September 1, 2026, Ajabha completed two years in the Matia Transit Camp. Her illness and prolonged confinement made the urgency of securing her release all the more pressing. Although her case was still pending before the Gauhati High Court, CJP’s Assam team began exploring additional avenues for her release on the grounds of her two years in detention and her deteriorating health. The effort drew upon the Supreme Court’s and Gauhati High Court’s suo-motu proceedings concerning detention during and around the COVID-19 period.

From August onwards, the team intensified its efforts. Alongside its continuing legal work, it counselled family members, visited the detention camp, documented her circumstances and initiated the administrative process required to secure her release. CJP Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury contacted the relevant authorities and submitted an application through Ajabha’s son. The work that followed was painstaking and often bureaucratic: identifying suitable bailors, verifying their documents and preparing the necessary applications, affidavits and supporting papers for submission to the District Border Police Office.

By October, Ajabha had spent more than two years and one month in detention. After the documents were submitted to the District Border Branch, officials informed the team that they would be forwarded to Guwahati and that the remaining process would depend on a favourable response. A few days later, the team received word that the processing in Guwahati had been completed and that the next steps could begin.

The team continued to follow up with the authorities through the following week. On October 11, the process was finalised for Ajabha’s release on conditional bail. On October 12, the Border Branch informally indicated that transportation difficulties could delay her release, but that an alternative arrangement might make it possible for her to leave the following day. CJP immediately coordinated with the Border Police and Ajabha’s family to ensure that the arrangements could be made. After more than two years of waiting, October 13 would finally bring her home.

October 13: The long journey back to freedom

CJP Team Assam with Ajabha Khatun after being released

The day began before dawn. At 3:40 a.m., Nanda Ghosh, on behalf of CJP’s Assam team, and office driver Ashikul Hussain set out for Barpeta. The journey involved multiple stops: the Border Branch police quarters, the local police station and Ajabha’s home, where family members had to be brought together with the police for the journey to the Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. They reached Matia at around 9:30 a.m. After completing the required formalities, the team accompanied Ajabha out of the camp and began the return journey to Barpeta.

By around 1:30 p.m., after hours on the road without food, Ajabha, the CJP team and the three police personnel accompanying them stopped to eat. It was a small, ordinary moment, but one that underscored how much had gone into making this day possible. The journey continued to the Barpeta District Border Branch at the Superintendent of Police’s office, where Abhijeet Choudhury had already begun the necessary work. CJP’s Barpeta District DVM, Jafar Ali, and the two bailors were also present.

Once the team arrived, the remaining formalities involving Ajabha and the bailors were completed, and the Border Police handed her over to the bailors. There was one more official requirement. The team accompanied Ajabha, the two bailors and a family member to Barpeta Sadar Police Station, where she is required to report once a week under the conditions of her release. Only after all these formalities were completed could the team finally take Ajabha home.

“The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain.”

As soon as Ajabha got into the car, the weight of her long ordeal began to surface. Overcome with emotion, she struggled to find words to express her gratitude to the CJP team. “Baba, may God bless you all!” she said.

Then, speaking about her time in detention, she described the suffering she had endured. “What can I say about the suffering in that detention camp? It is a hell. The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain!”

But even in that moment of relief, Ajabha was thinking of someone she had left behind. She told the team about Sehera, a visually impaired woman from Barpeta district who remains in the detention camp. Ajabha had cared for her during their time together, bringing her food, washing her clothes and plate, and making her bed.

“Baba, there is a blind woman there who cannot see. She suffers a lot. I used to bring her food, wash her clothes, wash her plate and make her bed. Her name is Sehera. She is from Barpeta district itself, but I don’t know exactly where. I only know her name. Can you please get her released, Baba?”

Ajabha recalled that as she was leaving, Sehera had hugged her and wept. She had asked Ajabha to appeal to the people who had helped secure her release to do the same for her. When I was leaving, she hugged me and cried a lot. She told me to request those who got me released to get her released too. Please get her out of that detention camp just like me. Allah will surely bless you,” Ajabha pleaded.

The request was heartbreaking. After 772 days of confinement, after enduring illness, separation and the uncertainty of her own future, Ajabha’s first concern was for another woman still inside. The CJP team knew Sehera only by name. They assured Ajabha that they would make every effort to trace her and explore the legal avenues available to help secure her release, while acknowledging that they could not guarantee the outcome. Ajabha had finally found her way out. Yet, even as she returned to freedom, she carried with her the anguish of someone who had not.

A village waits. A family welcomes her home.

 

As the sun began to set, the CJP team reached Koetkuchi village with Ajabha. Word of her return had drawn almost the entire village to her home. The moment the car arrived, people rushed forward. Tears, cries and overwhelming emotion filled the scene. After such a long separation, the sight of Ajabha returning home proved almost too much to bear. She fainted several times amid the emotional upheaval.

The team finally handed her over to her family, urging them to take particular care of her physical and mental well-being over the coming days after her prolonged confinement and the strain of the journey. Ajabha’s son, Buddu, works as a migrant labourer in the coal mines of Meghalaya. Unable to be present throughout the release process, he called the team by telephone and expressed his heartfelt gratitude to CJP for helping bring his mother home.

For a family that had spent months grappling with uncertainty and helplessness, her return offered a moment of immense relief. Yet Ajabha knows that her release is conditional and that her case before the Gauhati High Court remains unresolved. Before the team departed, she folded her hands and made one final plea. “I pray that my case ends permanently, Baba, as soon as possible, so that I never have to go to the camp again!”She prayed to Allah for the CJP team.

It was around 9 p.m. when the team finally began its journey home. The day had been long, physically exhausting and emotionally overwhelming. For months, the distress of Ajabha’s family had weighed heavily on the team as it worked to find a way to bring her home. That night, there was finally some relief.

It was not the end of the legal battle. It was not yet the permanent resolution Ajabha desperately wants. But it was a moment when sustained legal work, careful documentation, administrative follow-up and the determination to stand by a marginalised family had helped make a tangible difference.

The fight is not over

Ajabha Khatun’s release is an important milestone for CJP’s Assam team in 2026. It demonstrates the importance of legal assistance that does not stop at filing a petition, but continues through the practical, often exhausting work required to secure relief for a person who may otherwise struggle to navigate the system alone.

Her case also brings into focus the human consequences of prolonged detention for people declared foreigners, particularly those who are ill, economically marginalised and separated from their families while legal proceedings remain pending.

For Ajabha, freedom has meant returning to her village, embracing her family and sleeping once again under the open sky. But her relief remains shadowed by the knowledge that Sehera and others continue to endure detention.

As CJP’s team celebrates Ajabha’s return, it also carries forward the responsibility her plea has placed before it: to try to trace Sehera, explore the available legal remedies and continue working towards relief for those still confined.

After 772 days, Ajabha is home. Her legal case must still reach its conclusion, and the conditions of her release must be respected. For now, a family has its mother back, a village has welcomed one of its own, and a woman who endured the suffering of detention has found the strength to speak for someone still inside. Her freedom is a milestone. Her plea for Sehera is a reminder of the work that remains.

Related:

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

The post After 772 Days in Detention, Ajabha Khatun Returns Home: CJP helps secure her release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

According to ThePrint, the parents were detained at around 3:45 am and released at approximately 5 am. Several Congress leaders who had joined the sit-in were also detained and subsequently released. Reports and videos carried by ANI, PTI and The Times of India documented the police action, which brought the overnight protest to an abrupt end.

#WATCH | 2022 Ankita Bhandari murder case: Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi meets Ankita Bhandari’s parents at India Gate in Delhi

They are protesting against the appointment of BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as the Governor of Sikkim https://t.co/ZdiuPvaSZp

— ANI (@ANI) October 14, 2026

चार साल से अंकिता भंडारी के परिवार को इंसाफ नहीं मिला, लेकिन एक ‘VIP’ आरोपी को संरक्षण और संवैधानिक पद का इनाम ज़रूर मिला।

जहां बलात्कारियों और हत्यारों का फूल-मालाओं से स्वागत होता है और अपराधियों को सत्ता की ताकत से नवाज़ा जाता है – उस महिला-विरोधी BJP से कोई उम्मीद की भी नहीं जा सकती।

आज, अंकिता के माता-पिता अपनी बच्ची के लिए न्याय की गुहार ले कर, अपने घर से मीलों दूर, India Gate पर बैठे हैं।

मैं और कांग्रेस पार्टी उनके साथ खड़े हैं – उनके दुख में भी और इंसाफ की इस लड़ाई में भी।

#JusticeForAnkitaBhandari

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 14, 2026

4 AM. INDIA GATE. MODI-SHAH SENT THE POLICE!

Ankita Bhandari’s parents were sitting peacefully, demanding justice for their murdered daughter.

And at 4 in the morning, Modi-Shah sent Delhi Police to remove them and the Congress leaders standing with them.

A Governor’s chair for Dushyant Gautam. Police action against Ankita’s grieving parents.

Modi-Shah, is this your idea of justice for India’s daughters?

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) October 14, 2026

सुबह के 4 बजे। जब दुनिया सो रही थी, तब अंकिता भंडारी के माता-पिता को हिरासत में ले लिया गया।

उनका गुनाह? वे इंडिया गेट पर चुपचाप बैठे थे – बोझिल कंधों के साथ, बिना किसी हंगामे के और सिर्फ़ इतना माँग रहे थे कि CBI जाँच पूरी होने तक दुष्यंत गौतम को सिक्किम का राज्यपाल न बनाया जाए।

कल मैं और प्रियंका इन माता-पिता से मिले थे।

जिस जाँच का नतीजा आया नहीं, उसके पहले ही नियुक्ति की जल्दी और सवाल पूछने वाले माँ-बाप को रात के अंधेरे में उठा लिया गया।
इस सरकार की पहचान यही है: पीड़ितों की आवाज़ दबा दो, सवाल करने वालों को हटा दो।

पर न्याय की लड़ाई न दबेगी, न रुकेगी।
कांग्रेस अंकिता भंडारी के परिवार के साथ खड़ी है, और खड़ी रहेगी – जब तक उन्हें न्याय नहीं मिलता।

#JusticeForAnkitaBhandari

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 15, 2026

#WATCH | Ankita Bhandari murder case | Delhi | Ankita Bhandari’s mother says, “We want to state that we will remain steadfast until his (Dushyant Gautam) appointment is revoked… If we are not permitted to sit here, we will sit on a hunger strike in our own homes…”

Her father says, “We give the government a 24-hour ultimatum: the appointment of Dushyant Kumar as the Governor of Sikkim must be cancelled. If it is not revoked, the people across the entire country will take to the streets, and the government will be held responsible”

— ANI (@ANI) October 15, 2026

#WATCH | Ankita Bhandari murder case | Delhi | On the detention of Ankita Bhandari’s parents, Congress leader Supriya Shrinate says, “What kind of action is this? A heartless act against helpless parents who have been seeking justice for four years. Instead of granting them justice, the main accused is being appointed as a Governor, and on top of that, these parents are being treated with such cruelty. Like cowards, they arrived before six in the morning and dragged the young women away from here. What kind of conduct is this from the Delhi Police? The Delhi Police should be ashamed!”

— ANI (@ANI) October 15, 2026

The detention came hours after Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra met Ankita’s parents at India Gate on Wednesday evening, October 14, and expressed solidarity with their demand for an investigation into the alleged VIP connection. After the Congress leaders left, party MPs, office-bearers and workers continued the sit-in alongside the family and activist Yogita Bhayana.

A 24-hour ultimatum and a demand for accountability

As police moved to detain the protesters, Ankita’s father, Virendra Bhandari, issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the government, demanding that Gautam’s appointment be cancelled or put on hold until the CBI inquiry concludes.

“We give a 24-hour ultimatum to the government for the cancellation of Dushyant’s appointment. Nationwide protests will be launched if the government does not accept our demand,” he told the media, according to PTI.

Ankita’s mother, Soni Devi, also appealed to President Droupadi Murmu to intervene. She warned that if the authorities did not allow the family to continue protesting, they would resort to a hunger strike, including at their home. The parents have also sought an appointment with the President to place their concerns before her directly.

The family has repeatedly insisted that the investigation must examine the alleged VIP angle rather than merely revisit the roles of the three men already convicted of Ankita’s murder. Her father has sought a focused investigation into the alleged motive and the possible involvement of others, as well as judicial oversight by a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge. The family has also demanded the identification of the alleged VIP and access to call-detail records relevant to the investigation.

The demand is not that the existing convictions be disregarded. It is that those convictions should not, by themselves, foreclose questions about whether the circumstances surrounding Ankita’s murder were fully investigated.

The alleged VIP connection remains unresolved

Ankita worked as a receptionist at the Vanantra resort in Uttarakhand’s Pauri Garhwal district, near Rishikesh. She was murdered on September 18, 2022, and her body was recovered from the Chilla canal several days later.

In May 2025, a sessions court convicted resort owner Pulkit Arya, son of former BJP leader Vinod Arya, and two resort employees, Saurabh Bhaskar and Ankit Gupta, of her murder. All three were sentenced to life imprisonment. The investigation and trial established their criminal responsibility for the killing, but the separate allegations concerning a possible VIP have continued to trouble the family and attract public scrutiny.

The alleged VIP angle centres on claims that Ankita was pressured to provide “extra services” or sexual favours to a guest at the resort and resisted those demands. Her family has maintained that the identity and possible role of the person allegedly connected to those demands must be investigated.

The controversy intensified in December 2025 after actor Urmila Sanawar, who has claimed to be the wife of former BJP MLA Suresh Rathore, released audio and video recordings purportedly connected to Rathore. The recordings were alleged to refer to a senior political figure in connection with the case. Sanawar identified Gautam as the alleged VIP, while Rathore subsequently disputed the authenticity of the material and claimed that the clips were fabricated or AI-generated.

Gautam, a former BJP national general secretary who served as the party’s Uttarakhand in-charge, has denied any involvement in Ankita’s murder. He has initiated defamation proceedings against people and political organisations linking him to the crime. The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of certain social media posts connecting him to the murder, observing that the allegations appeared prima facie defamatory, as reported by Hindustan Times. The police Special Investigation Team had earlier stated that it found no evidence establishing the involvement of an influential political leader in the murder, The Indian Express reported.

These facts are material and cannot be ignored. Gautam has not been named as an accused in the murder case based on the information available here, and the allegations against him have not been established. At the same time, the existence of denials and defamation proceedings does not eliminate the need to establish whether the CBI investigation has adequately examined the specific questions raised by the family.

Following renewed protests in Uttarakhand, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami announced that the state government would recommend a CBI investigation. The CBI subsequently registered a case against an unknown person to investigate the allegations surrounding the possible VIP connection. The family wants this inquiry to address the outstanding questions rather than simply reproduce the findings of the earlier investigation.

Political appointment amid an unfinished investigation

Gautam’s appointment as Governor of Sikkim, announced on October 12, has brought the unresolved controversy back into public view. Ankita’s parents are asking that he not assume the office until the CBI completes its investigation into the alleged VIP angle.

The Congress has accused the BJP of rewarding a leader whose name has been raised in connection with the allegations while the family continues to seek answers. Rahul Gandhi wrote on X that Ankita’s family had gone years without justice while an alleged VIP had been rewarded with “protection and a constitutional position”. He said the Congress would stand with the family in its demand for justice.

Congress general secretary K. C. Venugopal has also urged the President to reconsider the appointment. Uttarakhand Congress leaders have argued that proceeding with the appointment before the investigation concludes would deepen the family’s distress and undermine public confidence in accountability.

The BJP has defended the state government’s handling of the murder case. Mahendra Bhatt, Uttarakhand BJP president and Rajya Sabha MP, pointed to the arrests, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, the prosecution and the financial assistance of ₹25 lakh provided to the family. He also said the state government had acted on the family’s demand for a CBI inquiry. Those steps, however, do not answer the family’s central question: has the alleged VIP connection been adequately investigated? The convictions of the three men are significant, but the separate inquiry must be judged on the evidence it examines and the questions it resolves, not merely on the existence of those convictions.

Detaining the family does not resolve the questions they have raised

The pre-dawn detention has shifted attention from the substance of the family’s demands to the conduct of the authorities. According to report by ThePrint, police took Ankita’s parents into custody before releasing them shortly afterwards. Congress leaders, including Pawan Khera, Supriya Shrinate, Imran Pratapgarhi, Jothimani and Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib, were among those reported detained.

Rahul Gandhi condemned the action, writing on X that Ankita’s parents had been taken into custody while sitting quietly at India Gate and demanding that Gautam’s appointment be held back until the CBI investigation was complete. Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate also criticised the treatment of the parents, arguing that a family seeking justice had been met with police action rather than answers.

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke also condemned the detention. In a post on X, he said the treatment of Ankita’s parents should make people ashamed and questioned why the government was treating citizens seeking justice with such cruelty.

This should make us all ashamed!

Ankita Bhandari’s parents don’t deserve such inhuman treatment. Why is the govt treating its own citizens with such cruelty?

#JusticeForAnkitaBhandari

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) October 15, 2026

Related:

Uttarakhand: Will the Ankita Bhandari murder case, arrest of journalist, Negi affect the April 19 poll?

Ankita Bhandari Case: Protests for justice enters 7th day, victim’s parents leading the protestors, condemning the arrest of the journalist seeking action in Ankita’s case

The women India continues to ignore

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

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

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

The post Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai Police have spread themselves across IIT Bombay, hours ahead of a “March to IIT” call given by Ambedkarite leaders from AIISCA and other orgs who’ve been striking in support of Sahil Wakode’s parents. Two weeks since they’ve been on a hunger strike, @frontline_india https://t.co/SNyNpkjshl

— Greeshma Kuthar (@jeegujja) October 14, 2026

According to The Federal, police detained protesters demonstrating outside IIT Bombay following the call by Sahil’s father, Ravindra Wakode. IANS also reported the detention of demonstrators supporting the family. The police response was striking: a heavy deployment across the campus, restrictions on entry and the detention of people seeking to present their demands to the administration. Instead of facilitating a meeting with the delegation, the authorities prevented the protesters from proceeding.

#WATCH | Police detained protesters demonstrating outside #IITBombay over the death of second-year BTech student Sahil Wakode. The protest followed a call by his father, Ravindra Wakode, under the slogan ‘Chalo IIT Bombay.’ https://t.co/so5K3m4toG

— The Federal (@TheFederal_News) October 14, 2026

Mumbai, Maharashtra: Several organisations staged a protest outside IIT Bombay in support of student Sahil Wakode. Mumbai Police detained protesters demonstrating in support of the student https://t.co/1tIYTpjsff

— IANS (@ians_india) October 14, 2026

The question is unavoidable: if the administration has nothing to hide, why was a delegation seeking a hearing met with police restrictions and detention rather than an opportunity to be heard?

Police refuse entry, even as family seeks answers

Posts put across X by Greeshma Kuthar, an independent journalist, showed that police personnel had spread across IIT Bombay ahead of the march and were refusing entry to the campus. When asked why Sahil’s parents themselves were not being allowed in, a police officer reportedly responded, “Why will they come here?”

Mumbai Police have spread themselves across IIT Bombay, hours ahead of a “March to IIT” call given by Ambedkarite leaders from AIISCA and other orgs who’ve been striking in support of Sahil Wakode’s parents. Two weeks since they’ve been on a hunger strike, @frontline_india https://t.co/SNyNpkjshl

— Greeshma Kuthar (@jeegujja) October 14, 2026

The reported exchange is particularly disturbing given that Sahil’s parents have been undertaking a hunger strike since the past two weeks to demand accountability following their son’s death. Their struggle has not been met with the institutional engagement they seek. Instead, their supporters were reportedly prevented from entering the campus and approaching its administration.

Dalit-Bahujan students deserve more than institutional assurances

According to Maharashtra Times, student and Ambedkarite organisations have demanded an impartial inquiry committee, a clear response from IIT Bombay’s director and concrete action on alleged caste discrimination and student safety. They have also raised broader concerns about institutional discrimination, including previous disputes involving reservation rosters.

The protesters are asking a question that the institute cannot afford to evade: why do Dalit-Bahujan students continue to raise concerns about discrimination and safety within an institution that is expected to uphold equal opportunity?

An investigation into Sahil’s death must establish the facts independently and fairly. At the same time, the administration has a responsibility to address allegations of discrimination, examine institutional failures where evidence warrants it, and ensure that students’ complaints receive a credible response.

These obligations are not mutually exclusive. Calling for an impartial inquiry does not prejudge its findings. Demanding accountability does not amount to obstructing due process. And raising concerns about caste discrimination cannot reasonably be dismissed merely because they are being voiced through protest.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

The post Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation appeared first on SabrangIndia.