The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), left organisations, student organisations, opposition parties and their youth groups, and civil society groups have called for a protest over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Election Commission of India (ECI) maintains that the revision is intended to remove duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries. Critics, however, have raised concerns about the scale of deletions, the risk of eligible voters being excluded, and the transparency and independence of the electoral process.

This comes on the background of more than 130 million names being removed from electoral rolls during the revision exercise, although the ECI and the government dispute the allegation that the exercise is politically motivated. The scale of the deletions makes questions of verification, notice, appeal and effective remedy matters of democratic urgency, not issues that can be brushed aside as partisan agitation.

Yet, instead of treating dissent over electoral integrity as a legitimate part of democratic life, authorities across several states are accused of taking steps that could prevent people from travelling to Delhi, meeting fellow protesters or exercising their right to peaceful assembly. The distinction matters. A government may regulate a demonstration to protect public safety. It cannot treat the very possibility of mass dissent as a threat to be neutralised through preventive detention, surveillance, intimidation and restrictions that extend far beyond the protest site.

One must also not forget that with Delhi Police reportedly planning to shut entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations and all train services to and from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations set to be cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm on October 10, the national capital is bracing for extraordinary restrictions ahead of a protest demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. As reports emerge of activists allegedly detained, placed under house arrest or stopped from travelling to Delhi, the scale of the measures raises a disturbing question: is the state preparing to maintain law and order, or making it increasingly difficult for citizens to exercise their democratic right to protest? Is this an undeclared emergency?

The following incidents, reported by news organisations and raised by activists and student organisations, point to an increasingly disturbing pattern.

The incidents: A nationwide pattern of intimidation

Delhi: Delhi Police official enters an Old Delhi Mosque to discourage participation: A video circulated on social media, reported by ThePrint, purportedly shows a Delhi Police official inside a mosque in Old Delhi reading out an advisory asking people to keep their family members away from “unnecessary” protests. The official is heard saying: “Parivaar ko samjhayein ki unnecessary bheed ya protest mein hissa na lein, kyunki prashasan apna kaam kar raha hai.”

According to ThePrint, police officials confirmed that personnel had also approached other gathering places and marketplaces to discourage participation in what they described as unlawful assemblies.

This is troubling for reasons beyond the choice of venue. The police are entitled to communicate lawful restrictions and explain genuine safety risks. But when official messaging moves into community spaces to discourage people from joining a protest against the government and the electoral authorities, the line between public information and political demobilisation becomes dangerously thin.

Calling a protest “unnecessary” does not settle whether it is lawful, nor does it answer the concerns that brought people to the streets. The police cannot substitute their assessment of whether citizens ought to protest for citizens’ own constitutional judgment.

Delhi Police official goes to a mosque in Old Delhi, reads out text from his phone, asks people to not participate in CJP’s October 10 protest. “Parivaar ko samjhayein ki unnecessary bheed ya protest mein hissa na lein, kyunki prashasan apna kaam kar raha hai.”

Delhi Police official goes to a mosque in Old Delhi, reads out text from his phone, asks people to not participate in CJP’s October 10 protest. “Parivaar ko samjhayein ki unnecessary bheed ya protest mein hissa na lein, kyunki prashasan apna kaam kar raha hai.”

— Vijaita Singh (@vijaita) October 8, 2026

Rajasthan: CJP spokesperson Deepak Baliyan allegedly detained, assaulted and confined

The CJP alleged that Rajasthan Police detained its national spokesperson and organisational co-in-charge, Deepak Baliyan, from his home in Mankheda village, Kathumar tehsil, Alwar district, on the night of October 8.

According to statements by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and co-convener Ashutosh Ranka, Baliyan was taken away despite recovering from a fractured leg, allegedly dragged and injured further, and later released during the night. The organisation subsequently alleged that his phone was retained without a seizure memo or other documentation being provided.

On October 9, CJP and activists reported that around 20 policemen were stationed outside Baliyan’s home, preventing him from moving freely. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), through its president Kavita Srivastava, condemned the reported restrictions and demanded that the police withdraw from his residence.

CJP Org In-Charge Deepak Baliyan (26) Former Bhartiya Kisan Union Leader & close aide of Ashutosh Ranka was detained from his village Kathumar, Alwar. Latest info is that police now wants his family to come. If arrested a team will appear for him!

CJP Org In-Charge Deepak Baliyan (26) Former Bhartiya Kisan Union Leader & close aide of @AshutoshRanka was detained from his village Kathumar, Alwar. Latest info is that police now wants his family to come. If arrested a team will appear for him! https://t.co/ry5HStoLbM

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 8, 2026

Rajasthan: Sanju Verma allegedly taken away by Reengus Police

CJP activist Sanju Verma, from Reengus in Rajasthan’s Sikar district, was reportedly picked up by Reengus Police at around 9.30 am on October 9. The account supplied by activists alleges that police personnel pushed, pulled and dragged him away. The PUCL also reported that Verma had been taken to an undisclosed location and demanded his immediate release.

Rajasthan: Geegraj Jodli allegedly prevented from leaving home

Geegraj Jodli, a CJP activist from Neem ka Thana in Sikar district, was reportedly prevented from leaving his residence for work, with Sadar Police personnel stationed outside his home from approximately 8.30 am. PUCL described the action as an unlawful restriction on movement and demanded that police withdraw from the residences of Jodli and Baliyan.

Uttar Pradesh: Eighteen-year-old Arjun Sharma reportedly placed under house arrest

Arjun Sharma, an 18-year-old recent school graduate who had raised concerns about irregularities in the CBSE On-Screen Marking System, was reportedly detained by Uttar Pradesh Police in Ghaziabad at around 8.30 pm. An account circulated on X claimed that Sharma had not issued a call for the October 10 protest but was nevertheless placed under house arrest until Sunday.

Fresh school graduate Arjun Sharma (18) who raised CBSE On-Screen Marking System irregularities was detained by UP Police in Ghaziabad around 8:30 PM He didn’t give any 10th October call still under House Arrest till Sunday!

THREAD OF DETENTIONS & HOUSE ARREST

Fresh school graduate Arjun Sharma (18) who raised CBSE On-Screen Marking System irregularities was detained by UP Police in Ghaziabad around 8:30 PM

He didn’t give any 10th October call still under House Arrest till Sunday! https://t.co/Jyv1WqMr50

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 8, 2026

Maharashtra: Police allegedly demand written assurances that people will not attend

In a report published on October 9, The Indian Express documented allegations from activists in Mumbai, Thane, Nagpur and Pune that police had contacted them, visited their homes, questioned their travel plans and, in some cases, asked them to sign documents promising not to attend the Delhi protest.

Sadaf Raza Zaidi, a 31-year-old creative strategist from Santacruz, told the newspaper that officers visited her home, asked where she planned to go on October 10, sought information about other potential participants and asked her to sign a document stating that she would not attend the protest. She also said police asked for her live location, which she refused to share. Zaidi believed she had been approached because she had been detained during an earlier protest in July.

The Maharashtra Director General of Police’s office acknowledged that notices had been issued in a handful of cases but denied that detentions had taken place in the state.

Mumbai: Feroze Mithiborwala and Salim Saboowala reportedly detained and warned against protesting

Civil society activists Feroze Mithiborwala and Salim Saboowala, associated with Hum Bharat Ke Log, said police personnel from Mumbai’s MIDC police station took them to the police station on October 8 after visiting their homes. According to Hindustan Times, the activists said they were held for several hours and released after being warned against participating in the October 10 protest. The newspaper reported that a senior police official denied that the duo had been detained, describing the interaction as routine questioning.

Mumbai Police have started detaining Constitutional Activists. Saleem Saboowala and Feroze Mithiborewala have been detained at police stations in Mumbai.

@AshutoshRanka @AISFofficial @divy_bhraman @akshaylakra17 @aishe_ghosh From Tushar Gandhi : @TusharG

Mumbai Police have started detaining Constitutional Activists. Saleem Saboowala and Feroze Mithiborewala have been detained at police stations in Mumbai. https://t.co/PH3fQoP9Il

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 9, 2026

Maharashtra: Police reportedly track travel plans and seek information about other protesters

The allegations extend beyond the two Mumbai activists. The Indian Express reported that Mayur Sharma, a Thane-based AISF member, received calls from police personnel in Mumbai and Delhi seeking details of his journey to the capital. Sharma said he feared being stopped at Bandra Terminus and boarded a train from Borivali instead. He later received a call from Delhi Railway Police asking about his journey and the number of people travelling with him. He eventually got off near Faridabad rather than arriving at Hazrat Nizamuddin, where he feared police might be waiting.

In Nagpur, CJP volunteers alleged that Railway Protection Force personnel contacted them for the names and numbers of people travelling to Delhi and even offered to check the status of their waitlisted tickets. At least two volunteers were reportedly served notices under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh: AISF students allegedly targeted on the Goa Express

The All-India Students’ Federation (AISF) alleged that a group of its student delegates travelling from Pune to Delhi aboard the Goa Express faced an attempt by police to forcibly remove them from the train at Bhusawal railway station in Maharashtra.

According to a statement attributed to AISF Pune district convener Shravani, around eight to ten personnel, including Police Inspector Govind Pathak and woman police officer Minal Tayade, entered the compartment and attempted to detain and deboard the students. The students alleged that police failed to produce warrants, written orders or other legal documents authorising their detention. AISF said its members refused to leave the train and remained aboard after a confrontation lasting more than 30 minutes.

Separately, the organisation alleged that 22 women AISF activists were detained at Itarsi station in Madhya Pradesh after being assaulted by police and Government Railway Police personnel. Those named included Pune coordinator Shravani Buva and Pune committee member Preeti Londhe. The organisation demanded that authorities disclose the whereabouts of the detained students and explain the grounds for their detention.

Sixteen people from Maharashtra were on their way to Jantar Mantar to join the protest. In Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh, the police have detained all of them after disembarking them from the train.

महाराष्ट्र से 16 लोग प्रोटेस्ट में शामिल होने जंतर मंतर आ रहे थे। मध्य प्रदेश के इटारसी में पुलिस ने ट्रेन से सभी को उतारकर हिरासत में ले लिया है। https://t.co/eMqv3yzyWI

— Sachin Gupta (@Sachingupta) October 9, 2026

Over dozens of students onboard Goa Express and on their way to participate in protests in Delhi were detained by the local police in Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh.

Over dozens of students onboard Goa Express and on their way to participate in protests in Delhi were detained by the local police in Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh. https://t.co/cdw8ooVUGr

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) October 9, 2026

Madhya Pradesh: CJP volunteers from Telangana reportedly detained in transit

As reported by The Reuters, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that volunteers travelling from Telangana were detained by Madhya Pradesh Police aboard a train at Bhopal. The organisation also circulated footage purportedly showing young people inside a moving bus in Madhya Pradesh, with one person heard saying that police had detained them.

Delhi: Police reportedly enter the SFI national office carrying lathis

The Students’ Federation of India (SFI) alleged that Delhi Police personnel carrying lathis entered its central executive committee office at HKS Surjeet Bhawan in New Delhi and sought details of activists ahead of the October 10 protest. SFI also alleged that police personnel had visited activists’ homes and approached their families to discourage them from travelling to the capital.

A group of policemen carrying lathis arrived at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi, where the SFI Central Executive Committee office is located, searching for SFI activists. The police also tried to collect details of SFI activists coming to Delhi to participate in the protest.

SFI will not back down in the face of such intimidation tactics by the BJP-RSS using the police.

SFI will participate in large numbers in the 10^th October protest against Vote Chori.

Delhi Police, are you trying to scare us or silence us? Do you want to see how many of us will come?

Amit Shah ji, we will be in thousands.

Let’s wait and watch. Don’t panic.

A group of policemen carrying lathis arrived at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi, where the SFI Central Executive Committee office is located, searching for SFI activists. The police also tried to collect details of SFI activists coming to Delhi to participate in the protest.

SFI will not back down in the face of such intimidation tactics by the BJP-RSS using the police.

SFI will participate in large numbers in the 10th October protest against Vote Chori.

Delhi Police, are you trying to scare us or silence us? Do you want to see how many of us will come?

Amit Shah ji, we will be in thousands.

Let’s wait and watch.
Don’t panic.

#gyaneshitsdonebro #gyaneshkumarmustresign

— SFI (@SFI_CEC) October 8, 2026

Gujarat: Student activist Satyesha reportedly placed under house arrest

Former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Aishe Ghosh shared an account alleging that the SFI national vice-president, Satyesha, had been placed under house arrest in Gujarat.

1st video is from Delhi, where the police entered our National Office with sticks and enquired about the details of our activists. 2nd video is from Gujarat, where our National Vice President Satyesha has been kept on house arrest.

Coming From Former JNUSU President @aishe_ghosh :

1st video is from Delhi, where the police entered our National Office with sticks and enquired about the details of our activists.

2nd video is from Gujarat, where our National Vice President Satyesha has been kept on house arrest.

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 9, 2026

Chandigarh: Former IES officer Prempal Singh reportedly placed under house arrest

Prempal Singh, a former Indian Engineering Services officer who had joined the CJP’s July protest at Jantar Mantar, was reportedly placed under house arrest in Chandigarh ahead of the October 10 demonstration.

Prempal Singh, UPSC 2018 Ex IES who had joined the CJP’s call at Jantar Mantar in July has been put under House Arrest in Chandigarh.

@AshutoshRanka @AISFofficial @divy_bhraman @akshaylakra17 Prempal Singh, UPSC 2018 Ex IES who had joined the CJP’s call at Jantar Mantar in July has been put under House Arrest in Chandigarh. https://t.co/ECICfFmASQ

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 9, 2026

Delhi: Political Youth Congress president Divy Gaur reportedly confined to his home

Divy Gaur, president of the Political Youth Congress in Delhi’s Hari Nagar area, was reportedly placed under house arrest for several days because of his involvement in the “Vote Chori” campaign. The allegation was that the restriction was intended to prevent him from participating in the October 9–10 mobilisation.

Hari Nagar Delhi PYC President Divy Gaur has been placed under House Arrest for being vocal in the VoteChori campaign since 3 days now. Maybe they don’t want any movement from 9 to 10th October. 

@AshutoshRanka @AISFofficial Hari Nagar Delhi PYC President Divy Gaur has been placed under House Arrest for being vocal in the VoteChori campaign since 3 days now. Maybe they don’t want any movement from 9 to 10th October. https://t.co/Bp1LbtTh1B

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 8, 2026

Uttar Pradesh: Student and youth activists reportedly placed under house arrest

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) alleged that Uttar Pradesh Police had placed Democratic Youth Federation of India state secretary Raj Kumar, DYFI activist Kunal and SFI Sultanpur district president Salil under house arrest.

The party further alleged that SFI Saharanpur district convenor Arif had been detained at home and taken to a private location, while All India Kisan Sabha leader Daud Rao had also been detained at his residence. The organisation said the actions were intended to prevent them from reaching Delhi on October 10.

UP Police’s Repressive Measures Continue! Student and Youth Activists Targeted! DYFI Uttar Pradesh State Secretary Raj Kumar, DYFI activist Kunal and SFI Sultanpur District President Salil have all been illegally placed under house arrest by the UP Police. Earlier, the UP Police had detained SFI Saharanpur District Convenor Arif from his home and are keeping him at a private location. AIKS leader Daud Rao was also detained at his home yesterday. All this to prevent them from reaching Delhi on 10 October!

UP Police’s Repressive Measures Continue! Student and Youth Activists Targeted!

DYFI Uttar Pradesh State Secretary Raj Kumar, DYFI activist Kunal and SFI Sultanpur District President Salil have all been illegally placed under house arrest by the UP Police. Earlier, the UP Police had detained SFI Saharanpur District Convenor Arif from his home and are keeping him at a private location. AIKS leader Daud Rao was also detained at his home yesterday. All this to prevent them from reaching Delhi on 10 October!

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 9, 2026

Onground blanket restrictions

Police deny permission for the October 10 protest: The Delhi Police has refused permission for the CJP–All India Students’ Association (AISA) protest at Jantar Mantar, citing prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. As reported by The Times of India, police have argued that the organisers did not comply with the required notice period and had not followed directions during a previous demonstration. Authorities have also cited public safety, law and order, and traffic management concerns.

Authorities can impose proportionate conditions on a demonstration, designate routes and times, and take action against specific unlawful conduct. But refusing permission, while simultaneously restricting travel, monitoring prospective participants and preparing detention facilities, risks making the right to protest meaningless in practice.

Around 23,000 central armed police personnel and 10 detention centres reportedly prepared: According to The Indian Express, the Union Home Ministry made 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, comprising approximately 23,000 personnel, available to the Delhi Police for October 8–12. The report also said that around 10 detention centres were being prepared across the capital, including facilities at Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana and Chhatrasal Stadium.

The scale of the proposed deployment is striking. Security arrangements must be based on credible assessments of specific risks, not on the political significance of a demonstration or the number of people expected to criticise the government.

The preparation of detention facilities before a protest also raises a question of institutional intent. Authorities may reasonably plan for arrests if unlawful conduct occurs. But when detention capacity is presented as a central component of a pre-emptive security strategy, the public is entitled to ask whether the objective is to facilitate a safe assembly or to prepare for its mass dispersal.

Entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations reportedly targeted for restrictions: The Times of India reported on October 9 that Delhi Police had proposed closing entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations and reducing train frequency ahead of the protest. The proposed restrictions were to begin at 9 pm on October 9 and continue on October 10 until the situation normalised.

The report made clear that the police communication sought arrangements from the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation; it did not establish that every proposed restriction had been approved or implemented. Notably, the stations listed extend well beyond the immediate vicinity of Jantar Mantar and include major transport interchanges and stations serving residential, educational and commercial areas. Public transport is not merely a convenience for demonstrators. It is an essential service for workers, students, patients and commuters. Restricting it across a wide geographical area imposes costs on people who may have no connection to the protest at all. If individual stations require temporary restrictions because of a specific and immediate danger, authorities should explain the grounds and keep the restrictions as narrow and brief as possible.

Service Update

Due to security reasons, the entry and exit at the following metro stations will remain closed from 09:00 PM on 9th October, 2026 and continuing on 10th October, 2026 till further notice. However, interchange facility will remain available at all the concerned metro stations except New Delhi metro station.

— Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (@OfficialDMRC) October 9, 2026

Notably, in a significant intervention on October 9, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the Delhi Police’s move to close entry and exit gates at 57 Delhi Metro stations ahead of the October 10 protest. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana asked the government to take corrective steps and ensure that restrictions did not bring public life to a standstill. “You cannot bring everything to a halt,” the bench observed, stressing that its concern extended to thousands of ordinary commuters, including workers, students and senior citizens travelling to Delhi from Gurugram, Greater Noida and other parts of the National Capital Region. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that he would discuss the matter with the government and work towards proportionate measures.

The court’s intervention raises a fundamental question about the proportionality of the restrictions imposed in the name of maintaining public order. While authorities may regulate demonstrations and take lawful preventive measures, the potential disruption of essential public transport across large parts of the capital places an extraordinary burden on people who have no connection to the proposed protest. The court emphasised that maintaining law and order is not merely about protecting state property, but also about protecting people and ensuring that ordinary citizens can go about their lives. The intervention comes amid wider allegations of police detentions, house arrests and attempts to prevent activists from travelling to Delhi. However, the court also made clear that the right to protest must operate within the applicable legal framework, including questions of permission.

Train services to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin reportedly cancelled: In a report published on October 9, The Indian Express said that train services to and from New Delhi Railway Station and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station would be cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm on October 10. The report also identified the Howrah–New Delhi and Sealdah–New Delhi Rajdhani Express services among trains cancelled because of anticipated congestion around the stations.

The Ministry of Railways described the measure as precautionary, citing traffic congestion and the need to prevent passengers from facing difficulties reaching stations. The report also noted that approximately 5,000 passengers had missed trains on the preceding Thursday.

Those operational concerns cannot simply be ignored. But the cancellation of essential transport services on the day of a protest, with consequences extending to passengers travelling for entirely unrelated reasons, calls for a transparent assessment of necessity and proportionality. The state cannot treat the inconvenience caused by a protest as a reason to impose restrictions whose consequences are borne by the public at large. If the concern is congestion, targeted traffic management, alternative access routes and clearly communicated passenger arrangements should be considered before sweeping disruption.

Restrictions reportedly considered for taxis, hotels and guest houses: The Indian Express reported that police were coordinating with app-based cab operators such as Ola and Uber to regulate movement towards Lutyens’ Delhi. Police officials also said hotels, guest houses and other accommodation facilities in and around Central Delhi had been asked to restrict or stop fresh bookings for a specified period.

Such restrictions have consequences beyond the immediate protest. People may need transport to reach hospitals, workplaces, homes, railway stations or other essential destinations. Hotels and guest houses serve visitors with no connection to political mobilisation. If the police have evidence that particular vehicles or premises are being used to facilitate a specific offence, action should be directed at that conduct. Broad restrictions based on the possibility that protesters might use ordinary transport or accommodation risk turning routine urban infrastructure into a tool for controlling political participation.

Internet restrictions and action against citizen journalists reportedly under consideration: The same Indian Express report said internet restrictions might be imposed in areas where detainees were housed and potentially extended to parts of New Delhi and Central Delhi, depending on the security situation. It also reported that people recording or livestreaming the protest could face action if they obstructed police operations, violated restrictions or contributed to unlawful mobilisation. Journalists were asked to carry and prominently display valid press identification at barricades and sensitive locations.

Liquor outlets ordered to close on October 9 and 10: The Delhi government’s Excise Department ordered liquor stores to remain closed on October 9 and 10, citing public-order concerns and police inputs, according to report in Hindustan Times.

The constitutional question: Can the state prevent a protest before it begins?

The crackdown allegations have unfolded alongside police action against opposition politicians. Reuters reported that Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra were among those briefly detained during protests in Delhi over the electoral roll revision. Their detentions are part of a wider confrontation over the ECI’s conduct and the opposition’s demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

The Constitution does not grant an unconditional right to assemble anywhere, at any time, regardless of the consequences. The state may impose reasonable restrictions, regulate public spaces and intervene against credible threats to public safety. But these powers are not a licence to suppress peaceful dissent.

Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 19(1)(d) protects the right to move freely throughout India, subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions. These rights are essential to democratic participation, particularly when citizens seek accountability from public institutions.

In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Supreme Court recognised that the state may regulate public meetings on streets but cannot exercise its regulatory power in a manner that effectively destroys the right to hold them. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court considered the competing interests involved in demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the need to balance the right to protest with the rights of residents and the maintenance of public order. These principles matter in the present context. The existence of regulatory powers does not answer whether their use is lawful in a particular case. A blanket refusal of permission, restrictions on travel across several states, alleged confinement of activists, questioning of prospective participants and sweeping disruptions to public transport must each be justified on their own facts.

Section 163 of the BNSS, which empowers executive magistrates to issue urgent orders in cases of apprehended danger or nuisance, is not a free-standing authority to extinguish constitutional freedoms. Its application must satisfy the statutory conditions and remain open to legal scrutiny.

The question is especially acute when restrictions appear designed not merely to control the location or manner of an assembly but to prevent people from reaching it at all.

The central contradiction: Public order or the prevention of dissent?

The state has defended the SIR exercise as a lawful effort to clean electoral rolls. The Election Commission maintains that duplicate, deceased and ineligible entries must be removed. Those objectives can be legitimate. An accurate electoral roll is indispensable to free and fair elections.

But the legitimacy of cleaning electoral rolls does not place the process beyond scrutiny. Nor does it make questions about wrongful deletions, procedural safeguards, access to appeals or the independence of the Election Commission illegitimate.

The dispute has acquired greater urgency amid reports that more than 130 million names have been removed from electoral rolls. As Reuters has reported, the opposition and critics argue that the scale of the revision raises concerns about the possible exclusion of eligible voters, while the ECI and the government reject allegations of political manipulation.

The correct response to such concerns is transparency, accessible remedies and an evidence-based explanation of the revision process. It is not to treat those demanding answers as a public-order problem.

There is an obvious contradiction in claiming that electoral-roll revision is necessary to protect the integrity of elections while allegedly using the police to stop citizens from questioning how that revision is being carried out. The ECI’s decisions must withstand scrutiny, and citizens must be free to demand that scrutiny without being treated as enemies of public order.

The concern is not confined to the conduct of Delhi Police. The allegations span Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Chandigarh. If the reported interventions are established, their geographical spread would demand answers about coordination between police forces, the basis on which individuals were identified and whether lawful preventive powers were being used to obstruct political participation.

The police cannot become an instrument for deciding who may dissent

The police are not responsible for determining whether a political demand is correct, whether an opposition movement deserves public support or whether citizens should be persuaded to stay home. Their responsibility is to enforce the law impartially, protect life and property, facilitate lawful assemblies and intervene against specific unlawful conduct. Those responsibilities require professionalism and restraint, especially when a protest is directed against the government or a constitutional authority.

The reported use of police personnel to discourage participation through community spaces, visits to homes and inquiries about travel plans raises questions about institutional neutrality. So does the alleged use of preventive powers to restrict individuals who have participated in previous demonstrations.

If police action is justified by a credible threat, the authorities should disclose the relevant legal grounds and explain why the restrictions imposed were necessary. If a person has been detained, their whereabouts and legal status should be made clear. If a restriction is imposed on movement, its legal basis, duration and scope should be identifiable.

The burden cannot be shifted entirely onto citizens to prove that every intervention against them was unlawful. Public authorities exercising coercive power must be able to account for that exercise.

The refusal of permission for the October 10 gathering may be challenged or defended on its own legal merits. But it cannot automatically justify every other measure taken against prospective participants across the country.

A protest against electoral uncertainty cannot be answered with restrictions on democratic participation

The October 10 mobilisation centres on a fundamental question: whether India’s electoral institutions are functioning with sufficient transparency and public confidence. The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation is a political demand, not a judicial finding of wrongdoing. Allegations of electoral manipulation must be investigated and assessed on evidence, and the ECI’s position must be fairly represented.

But peaceful protest is one of the means through which citizens raise questions that they believe existing institutions have failed to answer adequately.

The state’s response must therefore be judged not only by whether it prevents traffic disruption or maintains order at Jantar Mantar, but also by whether it preserves the conditions under which citizens can criticise those in power.

There is a difference between regulating an assembly and suppressing the possibility of assembly. There is a difference between investigating a credible threat and treating prospective protesters as suspects. And there is a difference between communicating lawful restrictions and using the authority of the police to persuade citizens that they should not exercise their rights. A democracy is not tested by how efficiently it prevents dissent from assembling. It is tested by whether it can accommodate dissent, protect those who express it and answer criticism without resorting to coercion.

Related:

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

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

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

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kavoor police in Mangaluru registered two cases on October 5 and 6, following directions from a local court. Both concern the Edurupadavu and Shivanagar polling booths in the Moodbidri Assembly constituency.

In the first complaint, Anisha and Ayish Bhanu alleged that a person named Kishan submitted Form 7 applications seeking the removal of 68 voters from the two booths. In the second, Abdul Lateef, Nebisa, Mohammed Altaf, Mohammed Asfak, Fayaz and Akbar alleged that applications had been submitted to remove a further 68 voters from the same booths.

Kishan, Rithesh, Yuvaraj and Shashikala are named as accused in both Mangaluru FIRs. The complaints allege that the applications contained false information. Police will examine the applications and the evidence behind the claims. The New Indian Express reported the two cases and the allegations made in them.

The third FIR was registered at Shanivarasanthe police station in Kodagu after Safwan G.M. complained that applications had been filed against members of his family. Safwan lives in Doddakunda village and is registered at Byadagotta Polling Booth No. 21.

Safwan alleged that the applications sought to remove 19 members of his family, all of whom live in the village and vote at the same polling booth. He said the matter came to light on October 1.

He further alleged that a pre-filled Form 7 objection was submitted to Booth Level Officer Nirmala. According to the complaint, it said a physical check had been made at the family’s residence, and the members had been found absent or ineligible. Safwan also alleged that applications sought the removal of 64 Muslim voters registered at the same booth.

Five people are named as accused in the Shanivarasanthe FIR: Lokesh U.H., identified as the BJP booth president in Byadagotta; his wife Rajani, described as a Booth Level Agent (BLA); Nagaraj A.C., also described as a BLA; his wife Savitha Malali; and B.N. Basavaraj, another BLA. Police have booked them under Sections 190, 192, 353(1), 353(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Dakshina Kannada District Congress Committee president Padmaraj R. Poojary alleged that Yuvaraj, one of the accused in the Mangaluru cases, was a BJP BLA-2 and that the other accused supported the party. Congress leader Mithun Rai alleged that false objections were being filed to remove eligible voters. These claims have not been established by the FIRs and remain part of the investigation.

Statewide count: 91,278 applications

Karnataka received 91,278 Form 7 applications between June 16 and October 4, according to data from the Chief Electoral Officer’s office. Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbukkumar said on October 5 that no voter had been removed through these applications so far.

“Just because objections have been filed, no name has been deleted so far from the electoral roll,” Anbukkumar , said at a press conference, according to The News Minute. He said each application would be examined before the relevant Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decided whether a name should be removed.

The state had received 58,220 Form 7 applications by September 23, the last day of the claims and objections period. The reported total reached 91,278 by October 4. The CEO’s office said none of these applications objected to a proposed inclusion; all sought deletion of an existing entry.

Bidar recorded the highest number, with 5,953 applications. Shivamogga followed with 5,936 and Dakshina Kannada with 5,534.

The 91,278 figure is the number of applications received, not the number of voters removed. As of October 5, the CEO said no voter had been deleted through this process. The applications still had to be checked and decided by the EROs.

What Form 7 is used for

Form 7 allows an elector to object to a proposed inclusion in the electoral roll, request deletion of an existing entry, or ask for their own name to be removed. Reasons for seeking deletion can include a voter’s death, being underage, having permanently shifted, being registered more than once or not being an Indian citizen.

The Election Commission’s guidelines require the applicant to provide the details of the voter whose entry is challenged and state the reason for the objection. The applicant is responsible for supporting the claim. The form also requires a declaration that the information is true to the best of the applicant’s knowledge and belief.

An objection does not by itself remove a voter’s name. The CEO said the ERO must issue notice to both the person who filed the objection and the voter concerned. A hearing is held after seven days. The officer then checks the documents and other information before deciding whether the name should be deleted.

The police complaints raise separate questions about whether information in some applications was false or whether forms were submitted without proper verification. Those questions are being investigated alongside the election officials’ review of the objections.

Earlier reports from other constituencies

Complaints about bulk Form 7 applications had surfaced in several constituencies before the latest FIRs as more than 4,000 applications seeking voter deletions had been submitted in multiple constituencies. Most of the voters named in those cases were Muslim.

According to The Hindu, In Babaleshwar constituency in Vijayapura district, 1,373 applications were received on September 22. Ten people filed 1,363 of them, the report said. Huchappa Ganiger reportedly submitted 493 applications over September 22 and 23, covering about 30 polling stations. He filed 423 applications on September 22 and 70 the following day. Govindaraj Mundur reportedly filed 413 applications on September 23 across 33 polling stations.

In Bhalki, Bidar district, at least 30 people together sought the removal of more than 1,700 names on September 23. One voter named Santosh reportedly filed 54 applications on September 22 and 120 on September 23.

The report also described two Bhalki forms on which the voters’ details were already printed while the objectors’ details were handwritten. In Basavakalyan, one voter filed 32 of the 37 applications received in a day; those forms named Muslim voters at one polling station. In Belthangady, Umesh Bangera reportedly filed 21 applications against voters at one polling station, citing “Absent/Permanently Shifted”.

These figures describe the applications reported in those constituencies. They do not establish whether every objection was false. Each application must be examined on its own grounds.

Ballari list concerned 7,561 voters

Another case arose in Ballari City, where election authorities received a list concerning 7,561 electors. The Hindu reported that T. Srinivas Mothkur, the Opposition leader in the Ballari City Corporation and the BJP’s BLA-1, first tried to submit Form 7 applications through Booth Level Officers.

In a letter dated September 21, Mothkur said some officers had refused to accept the applications, so he took the remaining ones to the Electoral Registration Officer. Election authorities replied that claims that voters were registered elsewhere, absent or permanently shifted were not supported by documents or other information.

Mothkur wrote again on September 22, saying he was ready to submit objections against 7,561 names in the draft electoral roll. Officials again said they could not verify voters’ registration on the basis of the complaint alone.

An FIR was registered at Brucepet police station on October 1 after Congress BLA Goutham S. complained about the matter. He alleged that Form 7 applications had been submitted against the 7,561 electors and that most of the names belonged to a minority community.

Mothkur told The Hindu that he had asked a BLA-2 to identify voters who were believed to have shifted or been absent. He said he submitted the list for verification and had neither sought deletion nor claimed the information was correct. Police will have to examine the applications, the letters and the declarations made with them.

Rules for bulk submissions

The CEO said an ERO could ask an objector to withdraw applications if the number exceeded the prescribed limit. The reported limits were 50 forms per BLA-2 or 10 forms per voter of the constituency. The CEO said all Form 7 applications would be processed before October 22.

In Ballari, election authorities had referred to instructions that a BLA could submit no more than 10 applications to a Booth Level Officer at a time or in a day. If a BLA submitted more than 30 applications during the claims and objections period, the ERO or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer had to cross-check them personally. The BLA was also required to submit a list and declare that the details had been personally verified.

The two accounts describe instructions given in different settings. In both, bulk filing does not remove the need to check the basis of each objection before deciding whether a voter’s name should be deleted.

Inquiry into false claims

Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbukkumar said election officials had been directed to act against applicants who knowingly made false claims or objections through Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8. Such action would follow an inquiry under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and could be taken under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The CEO said his office had not registered an FIR. The police cases concerning alleged misuse of Form 7 were filed by private individuals and were being investigated separately.

On October 1, Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and Congress legislators protested at the CEO’s office and demanded action over alleged bulk filings. Shivakumar said the CEO had directed electoral officers not to approve certain Form 7 objections without supporting material. For death-related claims, he cited the need for a death certificate; for duplicate entries, he said the second EPIC number should be provided.

A delegation led by state BJP president B.Y. Vijayendra, former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa and Assembly Opposition leader R. Ashoka met the state police chief on October 3. The delegation argued that filing multiple Form 7 applications was not, by itself, a criminal offence and said investigators should examine whether individuals knowingly supplied false information or forged documents, as per a report in the Indian Express.

Hearings and publication of the final roll

Form 7 applications are one part of the larger SIR exercise. Between June 16 and October 4, Karnataka received 22,05,171 applications across four electoral forms: 9,10,732 Form 6 applications, 4,677 Form 6A applications, 91,278 Form 7 applications and 11,98,484 Form 8 applications.

Election officials also generated 43,82,313 notices for voters classified under “No Mapping” and “Anomalies”. Of these, 43,55,818 had been delivered. Hearings were completed in 36,89,063 cases, or 84.69 per cent, while 6,66,755 remained pending.

These notices relate to separate verification categories; they are not Form 7 applications. The CEO said voters did not have to attend every hearing in person. Booth Level Officers could visit homes to verify documents, and an authorised family member could appear for a voter. An ERO could require a personal hearing where necessary.

The last hearing was scheduled for October 12. October 22 was the deadline to dispose of claims and objections, and Karnataka’s final electoral roll was scheduled for publication on October 27.

The CEO also said the Election Commission had directed Karnataka to hold a special enrolment drive for first-time voters and people left out of the final roll. He said Form 6 applications submitted for fresh inclusion after publication would not require the SIR-specific declaration.

The final figures will show how many Form 7 applications were examined, accepted or rejected, and how many led to changes in the electoral roll. As of October 5, the CEO’s position was that no voter had been removed through these applications.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Karnataka Form 7 Row: 91,278 deletion requests and bulk filing complaints—where was the ECI’s check? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the SM Joshi Bridge protest, six people were reported to be on hunger strike for four days. The agitation has been centred on the demand for the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar amid allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process, including the alleged leak of the Drug Inspector examination held earlier this year. The Indian Express reported that the protest had drawn large numbers of students, with political leaders continuing to visit the site.

Pawar has made it clear that the protesters do not intend to move. “We will continue our agitation at the same location until the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar,” the group said, according to Hindustan Times. Pawar has maintained that the protesters had obtained permission from the Pune police commissioner to hold the agitation at the site and therefore would not shift.

The continuing protest comes even as police presence around the site has increased. Earlier, Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar had described the agitation as “illegal” and said notices had been issued to more than 70 protesters, coaching classes and Telegram channels. Police said the demonstrations were causing inconvenience to commuters and warned that action could follow.

Court recognises that students have serious grievances

The Bombay High Court’s intervention on Wednesday did not, however, dismiss the substance of the students’ complaints. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna observed that students in Pune are not ordinarily inclined to abandon their studies and take to the streets. If they are protesting, the court said, it indicates that their grievances are serious.

“Pune is an education hub of the State and students coming to this city for education are genuinely interested in their studies and they aren’t into getting down on streets for their demands, but if they are agitating it means there are some serious grievances, such students cannot be termed as anti-social,” the bench observed, according to LiveLaw.

The judges also rejected the suggestion that protesting students should be treated as anti-social elements, stressing that students have a right to agitate when they believe an examination has been compromised.

“They are students and not anti-socials…That’s how it should be…. The moment one exam is over and they realise there was some hanky panky in the process, students have every right to agitate… You have already indicated that 70,000 posts have been shown as vacant… A detailed enquiry to be carried out. Consider the fact that all the parents in the country are in crisis,” the bench observed, reported LiveLaw.

The court simultaneously directed the State to address the larger crisis of confidence surrounding MPSC recruitment. It noted that more than 70,000 vacancies were at stake and said examinations must be conducted impartially and without malpractice. The Maharashtra government has been directed to place on record, in detail, its proposed recruitment process and the number of vacancies in different departments. The State has three weeks to furnish the information.

The protests are not about one demand

The Pune agitation has developed into three separate protests, reflecting disagreements among aspirants over the MPSC examination pattern as well as the functioning of the Commission. The Pawar-led protest at SM Joshi Bridge is focused primarily on the removal of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar.

At Lal Bahadur Shastri Road near Ahilya Abhyasika, another group led by Nitin Andhale is demanding a return to the objective examination pattern.

At Alka Chowk, students had been demanding continuation of the descriptive pattern, arguing that aspirants had spent years preparing according to the existing format and would be severely affected by another sudden change. That protest was withdrawn after the High Court hearing. Free Press Journal reported that the group decided to respect the court’s appeal and return to their preparation.

Despite these differences, the question of accountability within the MPSC has emerged as a common thread running through the protests. The agitation at SM Joshi Bridge has continued to insist that the alleged irregularities cannot simply be treated as an administrative dispute.

‘Restore the trust’ is now before the court

The High Court’s remarks have placed the State in a difficult position. The government has urged students to return to their studies, while the court itself has asked them to avoid public roads and seek permission for any further protest. But at the same time, the bench has expressly recognised that the students’ distrust cannot be brushed aside.

“It is before the court now… We will make a request to the students to go back to the classes. We are not going to leave it conveniently. The trust just be restored. Exams must be conducted in a fair manner. So far as Commission is concerned, you (State) know how the chairman can be inducted and removed. We will ensure the response has to be there by the State. We want the backlog vacancies to be cleared first.. Those interested in studies should have a fair chance to appear in the exams… They’ve come with a clean hand with 70k vacancies… See the plight of the parents, those who’ve sent their kids to Pune. These children are innocent. We will look into how the State is dealing with this. Just a request to the students to come join the faculties. Or their career will be changed. Entire orientation will be changed. They shouldn’t indulge in such things. We shall ensure as a guardian,” the bench said, while issuing notice to the State, reported LiveLaw.

The judges also asked the State to ensure that the substantial backlog of vacancies is addressed, pointing to the thousands of young people whose careers depend upon a functioning and credible recruitment system. The court’s intervention therefore goes beyond the immediate issue of traffic disruption. It has effectively placed the credibility of the MPSC recruitment process itself under scrutiny.

Residents raise concerns over road blockages

The petition before the court was prompted by complaints from residents about traffic congestion and difficulties caused by the protests, particularly in Pune’s congested Peth areas, where coaching classes, libraries and accommodation for competitive-examination aspirants are concentrated. Residents told the media that repeated road blockages had forced them to take alternative routes and had made evening traffic particularly difficult.

Uma Joshi, a resident, said that travelling from the Ganjave Chowk area had become difficult because of the need to take alternative routes and increasing congestion.

Another resident, Sushant Fadake, said the repeated protests had compounded existing difficulties in the crowded area.

The court consequently made clear that the students’ grievances could not justify indefinite disruption of public roads. It asked protesters who wished to continue their agitation to obtain the necessary permission and choose an alternative location where public movement would not be obstructed.

“Public inconvenience shouldn’t happen. So far your concern is concerned, we’ll ensure recruitment drive is taken care of. And the malfunction details will come as to what has been done. We’ll examine it all on the next day. Till then, we make a request to all the agitating parties to withdraw the protest and join the faculty. Now the matter is before the court,” the bench assured, as reported by LiveLaw.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Defend the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How festivals became vehicles for anti-Muslim hate in September

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

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

Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post ‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune appeared first on SabrangIndia.

आंदोलन करणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना पोलिसांनी काँग्रेस कार्यालयातून ताब्यात घेतलं तेव्हा…
#TribalStudents #TribalProtest #MumbaiProtest @ShahidReports https://t.co/c8qElBftET

— BBC News Marathi (@bbcnewsmarathi) October 6, 2026

आंदोलन करणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना पोलिसांनी काँग्रेस कार्यालयातून ताब्यात घेतलं?
#TribalStudents #AdivasiStudents #AdivasiProtest https://t.co/ylGy3lj9as

— BBC News Marathi (@bbcnewsmarathi) October 5, 2026

STORY | Police detain tribal students protesting in Mumbai, drive them out of city

Police on Tuesday detained tribal students who had marched from Nashik to press for better hostel facilities and an inquiry into deaths at ashram schools, bundling them into buses outside the Maharashtra Congress headquarters and driving them out of the city.

READ: https://t.co/nMiY0GayvP

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 6, 2026

Tribal students who walked and travelled by bus to Mumbai to demand scholarships, basic amenities and the tribal development minister’s resignation were threatened and detained by police at 3 am, the Congress alleged.

Watch: https://t.co/xxTCpLxNVA

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) October 5, 2026

#Mumbai: Police on Tuesday detained tribal students who had marched from Nashik to press for better hostel facilities and an inquiry into deaths at ashram schools, bundling them into buses outside the Maharashtra #Congress headquarters and driving them out of the city.

https://t.co/VwFQsnEV02

— Deccan Chronicle (@DeccanChronicle) October 6, 2026

According to Hindustan Times, police personnel deployed outside Tilak Bhavan stopped the students from leaving on Tuesday morning before private buses were brought in and the protesters were made to board them. The students continued raising slogans against the Maharashtra government as they were transported out of Mumbai. NSUI state president Sagar Salunke said the students were taken to different locations, including Jalgaon, Nandurbar and Nashik. The Indian Express also reported videos of the operation showing police personnel pushing protesters towards buses, including a woman carrying an infant.

The students had begun their September 28 march from Nashik to Mumbai, after weeks of agitation over conditions in tribal schools and hostels. Their demands include an independent inquiry into deaths at state-run ashram schools, compensation of ₹1 crore each to the families of three girls who died after alleged snakebite at an ashram school in Japtalai, Gadchiroli, ₹50 lakh compensation for those injured, an inquiry into alleged irregularities in the distribution of grants, action against responsible officials and the resignation of Tribal Development Minister Ashok Uike. They have also raised concerns over scholarships, food, sanitation, hostel facilities and basic amenities.

The students had sought permission to protest at Azad Maidan. After that request was rejected, they sought to meet Maharashtra Governor Jishnu Dev Varma and submit a memorandum. Instead, they found themselves confined to the Congress office and subjected to police action for the second day in a row. On Monday, police had already forcefully moved students out of Tilak Bhavan and taken them towards Kopri in Thane after shifting them between vehicles and stopping at multiple locations. On Tuesday, the operation took place at the Congress headquarters itself.

Maharashtra Congress president Harshvardhan Sapkal condemned the action, saying the government had denied Adivasi students even the basic democratic right to protest and meet the Governor. Congress leaders also alleged that police behaved abusively towards women students and used force to break up the protest. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh had earlier described the Maharashtra government as “Adivasi-virodhi” over the police action.

The police, meanwhile, have denied that students were arrested from Tilak Bhavan. As reported by The Indian Express, police said those attempting to proceed towards Lok Bhavan were detained from different locations and that legal action was being taken. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has also claimed that the students’ demands have been accepted, alleging that the continuing agitation was being driven by some NSUI office-bearers rather than the students themselves.

But the students themselves have rejected any suggestion that the issue is over. Before being driven out of Mumbai, they announced that they would return on October 25 and resume their protest at Azad Maidan.

The episode exposes the stark gap between the government’s claim that the students’ demands have been resolved and the reality of students having to march hundreds of kilometres to Mumbai, seek a hearing from the state’s highest authorities, and then face police action instead of an open response to their grievances. Their demands concern not abstract policy questions, but the safety, dignity and lives of Adivasi students in institutions run by the state.

The government may claim the demands have been accepted. The students’ continued resistance, and their determination to return, suggest otherwise.

Related:

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

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

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Organised by People’s First, Citizens for Justice & Peace (CJP) and Vote for Democracy (VFD), the consultation examined the growing concerns surrounding electoral-roll revision, the exclusion of eligible voters, transparency and accountability within the Election Commission of India, and the legal and democratic consequences of conducting elections on disputed or procedurally defective electoral rolls.

Among the prominent voices at the consultation were MG Devasahayam, soldier, economist, administrator and public servant and an expert on India’s electoral system; Dr Pyarelal Garg, former Dean and Professor of Surgery and an expert with VFD; Professor Harish Karnick, formerly of IIT Kanpur; senior RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak; former Union Home Secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai; former Union Finance Secretary EAS Sarma; former bureaucrat Amitabha Pande of the Constitutional Conduct Group; actor Prakash Raj; human rights activist Usha Ramanathan; Thomas Franco, former General Secretary of the All India Bank Officers Confederation; Tara Rao and Noor Sridhar of Wake Up Karnataka; and academic Ashoke Chatterjee.

The consultation reflected the breadth of concern over the SIR process, with participation from Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand, among other States. Independent journalists Prashant Tandon of DB Live and Indra Kumar Theradi from Tamil Nadu also participated.

The strong representation from Assam was particularly significant. In a State where citizens have for decades faced the enormous burden of establishing their citizenship through documentary records, Dr Ghyansham Nath, senior academic; Nanda Ghosh of CJP; advocates Mrinmoy Dutta, Abhijeet Chowdhury, Abdur Rahim and Jamal Uddin; Harkumar Goswami; Dr Rituraj Kalita of the Forum for Social Harmony; and Professor Taijuddin Ahmed brought the experience of Assam’s citizenship and electoral processes into the national discussion. The consultation was conducted by Teesta Setalvad, Secretary of CJP.

The diversity of those participating was itself a reflection of the seriousness with which the question of SIR is being viewed. Electoral-roll revision is not merely an administrative exercise. It determines who is recognised as an elector and therefore who is able to exercise one of the most fundamental forms of democratic participation: the right to vote.

The consultation consequently resolved to bring together public mobilisation, systematic documentation, social audits, legal intervention and institutional accountability around a single overarching demand: SIR must be scrapped and the electoral rights of every eligible citizen must be restored and protected.

Demands for the Public Campaigns/ Protests

1. CEC GYANESH KUMAR MUST RESIGN: Resignation/ removal Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) (Impeachment is the legal provision for this process if there is no resignation)

2. SIR MUST BE SCRAPPED: Completely reverse SIR. All future elections to be based on 2024 rolls + any revisions made as per law and past practice for addition/deletion for the past 2 years.

3. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA MUST BE DISBANDED

4. 2023 ACT THAT GRANTS IMMUNITY TO ECI ETC FROM PROSECUTION & NON-TRANSPARENT APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS BE REPEALED: Repeal 2023 law giving commissioners immunity for decisions taken.
5. RE-ENACT A LAW FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ALL ELECTION COMMISSIONERS: This new law should ensure that the Appointment Committee and procedure is broad-based, diverse and ensures some accountability: Appointment by/through a broad based committee of 8-10 people containing two government nominees, two opposition nominees, two past election commissioners (not holding any position given by govt.), two representatives of the higher judiciary (retired judges of high/supreme court not holding any position). The Final Selection should be by two-third majority.
6. ANNUL AND RE-DO ELECTIONS CONDUCTED AFTER THE SIR 2025 PROCESS: Elections to be conducted based on Electoral rolls verified and transparent after annual Summary Revision of 2025 and 2026 as the case may be.
7. TRANSPRENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY IN ECI FUNCTIONING: Complete transparency and public access to all data in machine readable form as soon as it is available to the EC both during elections and during normal times. In particular all electoral rolls, all forms filled by presiding officers during elections, counting related data.
8. MAKE SOURCE CODES(S) PUBLIC: Source code of EVM software, ECInet/EROnet software and any other s/w used for any sanity checks of the electoral roll (e.g. logical discrepancy) should be in the public domain.

Electoral transparency is a constitutional necessity

The Assembly has called for complete transparency in the functioning of the ECI, including public access to electoral data in machine-readable form, electoral rolls, relevant forms filled by election officials and counting-related information. It has also called for the source codes of EVM software, ECINet, ERONet and other software used for electoral-roll verification and discrepancy detection to be placed in the public domain. These demands arise from a fundamental democratic principle. Citizens cannot effectively challenge an electoral decision if the processes producing that decision remain inaccessible or impossible to independently scrutinise. Digitalisation cannot become a substitute for accountability.

If an elector’s name is deleted, the citizen must be able to know why. If a deletion application has been filed, the grounds and source of that application must be capable of scrutiny. If a claim for inclusion is rejected, the elector must have access to the reasons. If an appeal is pending, its status must be ascertainable. If software contributes to identifying a discrepancy or exclusion, there must be an auditable record of how that decision was generated and reviewed. A constitutional election process cannot be allowed to operate as a black box.

Legal intervention must be narrow, rigorous and evidence-based

The Assembly has resolved to assist in exploring appropriate legal remedies concerning the SIR and electoral processes conducted on the basis of disputed or procedurally defective rolls. The legal strategy must begin with evidence. It must document patterns of exclusion, bulk deletion applications, Forms 6 and 7, software-related exclusions, unresolved appeals, failures of restoration and instances where citizens were denied meaningful opportunities for verification or hearing.

This approach is especially important after the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment concerning Bihar. The appropriate constitutional question now is not simply whether the ECI possesses the power to undertake an intensive revision, but whether particular exercises of that power comply with the statutory framework and constitutional safeguards.

Where elections have already been conducted on rolls shown to have been seriously compromised, remedies must be examined through the statutory framework governing election challenges and on the basis of constituency-specific evidence. The Assembly has specifically identified the large number of pending appeals and limited restoration of voters in West Bengal as matters requiring close examination before any conclusions are drawn about the validity of elections conducted on the revised rolls.

Give every excluded voter a name and a face

The Assembly has therefore called for a nationwide Public Social Audit of electoral rolls across SIR-affected States. Civil-society organisations, community groups, youth organisations and citizens are being encouraged to undertake participatory verification at the booth, ward and Gram Sabha levels, with the involvement of the concerned Booth Level Officer and Electoral Registration Officer wherever possible.

Such exercises have already been undertaken in parts of Delhi and across approximately 100 booths in Karnataka. The Assembly seeks to expand these efforts into a systematic national campaign documenting exclusions, pending claims and objections, Forms 6 and 7, deletion notices, bulk applications and procedural violations.

This public process will include comparing the SIR-driven deletions and additions with a comparison of earlier electoral records, including the 2002-03 rolls where relevant, with the 2025-26 SIR rolls is intended to establish what happened to individual voters rather than allowing their exclusion to disappear into administrative statistics.

The campaign is intended to give a face and name to the 13.60 crore Indians so tragically and shamefully excluded. That too by a constitutional authority like the Election Commission of India. The conduct of this Campaign for a Public Social Audit is crucial to drum up and sustain the demand for a Scrapping of the 2025-2026 SIR.

Every proposed deletion and addition must be publicly disclosed, with the voter given a meaningful opportunity to contest the deletion and have their name restored where wrongly excluded. The process must ensure transparency regarding who sought a deletion, on what grounds, whose name is proposed to be deleted and what verification was undertaken. No electoral-roll change should be affected without public notice, verification and an effective opportunity to object.

Independent inquiry must strengthen public accountability

The Assembly has welcomed the Independent Commission of Former Supreme Court and High Court Judges constituted by the Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC) to examine the constitutional and statutory validity, methodology and impact of the SIR. The five-member Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur, includes former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Patnaik and former judges of the Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi and Patna High Courts. It proposes to conduct public hearings, collect testimony from affected citizens and analyse electoral-roll data, with a report expected by December 2026.

The Assembly will assist this process by placing before the Commission relevant data, documentation and evidence emerging from public campaigns, independent investigations and social audits. Such an inquiry must complement, not replace, judicial and statutory remedies. Its importance lies in bringing together evidence that is otherwise dispersed among individual voters, election officials, civil-society groups and independent investigations.

Electoral democracy cannot survive exclusion without accountability

The controversy surrounding SIR has brought together questions that cannot be treated separately: the integrity of electoral rolls, the right to vote, institutional independence, and transparency, collective decision-making and judicial accountability. The integrity of an election begins long before polling day. It begins with the electoral roll.

If an eligible citizen is removed without adequate notice, verification or an effective remedy, the democratic injury occurs before that citizen ever reaches the polling station. The October 3 Assembly has therefore resolved to combine public mobilisation, social audits, evidence-building, legal intervention and institutional accountability around one central demand.

Every eligible citizen must have the right to remain on the electoral roll, to know why any deletion is proposed, to challenge it effectively and to have a wrongful exclusion corrected.

Scrap SIR and restore electoral rolls

The Assembly has called for the SIR process to be completely reversed and for future elections to be conducted on the basis of the 2024 electoral rolls, subject to additions and deletions carried out through the ordinary statutory processes and established safeguards. The demand comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the Bihar SIR. That judgment, however, cannot be read as placing every subsequent decision or implementation of SIR beyond judicial scrutiny. The present controversy concerns not merely the existence of a power to revise electoral rolls, but the manner in which that power is exercised, the safeguards accompanying it and the legality of particular decisions taken during the process.

The distinction is crucial. A constitutional power must still be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, the Representation of the People Acts, the Registration of Electors Rules, applicable directions and the principles of procedural fairness. The Assembly therefore proposes an evidence-based legal strategy focused on specific violations, documented exclusions, defective procedures and departures from statutory safeguards rather than relying on broad assertions about the SIR in the abstract.

The Election Commission cannot function without accountability

The Assembly has demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and has also called for a fundamental restructuring of the institutional framework governing the Election Commission. These demands have acquired renewed significance following the Supreme Court’s October 5 proceedings concerning allegations that important decisions connected with the SIR were taken unilaterally by the CEC despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners.

Reports based on an investigation by The Indian Express have stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over ten months concerning decisions and orders connected with the SIR, with some objections alleging that decisions were taken without their knowledge or contrary to their recommendations. The Supreme Court has now sought responses and records from the concerned authorities. The Court declined, at this stage, to suspend the CEC, but made clear that the legality of the alleged unilateral decisions remains open for examination. It also indicated that decisions of the Commission must comply with the legally prescribed mechanism of collective decision-making.

The controversy over Form 6 makes the issue particularly serious. During the October 5 hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved modifications allegedly made to Form 6 and indicated that the Court would examine who authorised those changes.

Form 6 is a form distinctly and procedurally meant for enrolment of first-time new voters. The ECI, by using this process meant for a limited and specific purpose, for the re-enrolment of wrongfully deducted previous voters is itself committing a flawed illegality and asking citizens to do the same. Making matters worse, the amended Form 6 includes a declaration on oath by an older voter to the effect that ‘she or he has not voted before’, making matters worse.

The question before the country is consequently larger than whether one particular administrative decision was correct. It is whether a constitutional body exercising enormous power over the democratic franchise is functioning collectively, transparently and within the limits imposed by law.

The complete resolution may be read below:

Related:

Census 2027: When a population count starts asking for more than just numbers

From Statelessness to Citizenship: CJP helps Adori Bibi reclaim her Indian identity

Who had access to 3,404 SIR forms? CJP, VFD and BCS seeks statewide audit after Kharghar breach

The language of the lathi

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

The post Scrap SIR, Restore Electoral Integrity: A national call to defend the right to vote appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The students travelled to Mumbai by bus and on foot after seeking permission to protest at Azad Maidan. According to the Times of India, the students said they had received no response to their request for permission and, having nowhere to stay in Mumbai, were accommodated overnight at the Maharashtra Congress headquarters, Tilak Bhavan, in Dadar.

The Congress alleged that police action began around midnight, with personnel entering or attempting to enter Tilak Bhavan and threatening students with detention and police cases. Maharashtra Congress president Harshvardhan Sapkal claimed that students, including women, were taken into custody and that police also detained NSUI functionaries. The report by Hindustan Times provided that the party further alleged that students were stopped around 3 a.m., photographed and that a bus carrying protesters was taken into custody.

The reported police action has drawn strong criticism from Congress leaders. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called the Maharashtra government “Adivasi-virodhi”, while Sapkal warned that Congress leaders would gherao Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ official residence, Varsha, if the detained students and party workers were not released. Leader of Opposition and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also criticised the government over the treatment of the protesting students.

महाराष्ट्र के छात्र फडणवीस सरकार की शिक्षा व्यवस्था और अन्याय से त्रस्त हैं।

आदिवासी छात्र अपनी माँगें लेकर मुंबई पहुँचे – कुछ बस से, और कुछ पैदल चलकर।

उनकी माँगें क्या हैं? आदिवासी आश्रमशालाओं और छात्रावासों में बुनियादी सुविधाएँ। छात्रवृत्ति। वही चीज़ें जो किसी भी बच्चे का हक़ हैं।

मुंबई में रुकने की जगह नहीं थी, तो कांग्रेस ने उन्हें तिलक भवन में ठहराया। और आज सुबह होने से पहले – पुलिस कांग्रेस कार्यालय के अंदर घुसी और इन बच्चों को उठाकर ले गई। आज़ाद मैदान पर प्रदर्शन शुरू होने से पहले ही। जो बच्चे नासिक से पैदल चलकर आए, उनको ये जवाब मिला।

उधर पुणे में MPSC के अभ्यर्थी सत्याग्रह पर बैठे हैं। ये माँगें नई नहीं हैं – मैंने मुख्यमंत्री फडणवीस से इन पर बात की थी। तब कुछ नहीं हुआ। इसीलिए आज ये बच्चे सड़क पर हैं।

मैं और कांग्रेस पार्टी महाराष्ट्र के छात्रों के साथ खड़े हैं। हम एक इंच भी पीछे नहीं हटेंगे।

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 5, 2026

आदिवासी बांधवांनी आपल्या न्याय्य हक्कांसाठी आंदोलन करणे हा गुन्हा आहे का? सरकार नेमके स्वतःला काय समजते?

आपल्या न्याय्य मागण्यांसाठी नाशिकहून पायी मुंबईपर्यंत आलेले आदिवासी विद्यार्थी, महाराष्ट्र प्रदेश काँग्रेस कमिटीच्या टिळक भवन या मुख्यालयात मुक्कामी थांबले होते. मात्र मध्यरात्रीपासून पोलीस बेकायदेशीर रित्या, टिळक भवनमध्ये घुसून या विद्यार्थ्यांवर दबाव निर्माण करत आहेत, त्यांना धमकावत आहेत आणि चुकीच्या पद्धतीने अटकेची कारवाई केली जात आहे.

हे अत्यंत गंभीर आणि निषेधार्ह आहे.

आपल्या हक्कांसाठी शांततेच्या मार्गाने आवाज उठवणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांशी सरकारने संवाद साधला पाहिजे. त्यांच्या समस्या ऐकल्या पाहिजेत. त्याऐवजी त्यांना पोलीस बळाच्या जोरावर दडपण्याचा प्रयत्न कशासाठी?

लोकशाहीत प्रश्न विचारणे गुन्हा नाही. न्याय मागणे गुन्हा नाही. आंदोलन करणे गुन्हा नाही.

महाराष्ट्र हा कायद्याचा, लोकशाहीचा आणि सामाजिक न्यायाचा सन्मान करणारा प्रदेश आहे. त्या महाराष्ट्रात न्याय मागणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांशी संवाद करण्याऐवजी, सरकार त्यांना बेड्या ठोकत आहे.

सरकारच्या या दडपशाहीच्या भूमिकेचा आम्ही तीव्र निषेध करतो. आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांच्या लढ्यात आम्ही ठामपणे त्यांच्या पाठीशी आहोत.

— Balasaheb Thorat (@bb_thorat) October 5, 2026

सुलतान फडणवीसांच्या पोलिसांना महाराष्ट्र काँग्रेसच्या मुख्यालयात घुसण्याचा अधिकार कोणी दिला?

आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांचा आवाज दाबण्यासाठी आता काँग्रेसच्या टिळक भवनपर्यंत फडणवीसांचे शेकडो पोलीस फौजफाट्यासह पोहोचले आहेत. विद्यार्थ्यांना अटक करण्यासाठी राजकीय पक्षाच्या कार्यालयात घुसणं ही केवळ पोलिसी कारवाई नाही, तर लोकशाहीच्या मर्यादांवरच प्रश्नचिन्ह आहे.

फडणवीसजी, आज सत्ता तुमची असेल; पण महाराष्ट्र तुमची खासगी जहागीर नाही! विरोधकांचा आवाज आणि विद्यार्थ्यांचा संघर्ष पोलीस बळाने दाबता येणार नाही.

टिळक भवनमध्ये घुसलेल्या पोलिसांनी लक्षात ठेवावं, काँग्रेस कार्यकर्ते आणि स्वाभिमानी आदिवासी विद्यार्थी घाबरणार नाहीत, झुकणार नाहीत!

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) October 5, 2026

नाशिकहून पायी मोर्चा काढून मुंबईत आलेले आदिवासी विद्यार्थी टिळक भवन येथे मुक्कामी थांबले असताना, मध्यरात्रीपासून पोलीस बळाचा वापर करून कार्यालयात जबरदस्तीने घुसत आहेत. विद्यार्थ्यांशी अरेरावी करत त्यांना धमकावून ताब्यात घेण्याचा प्रयत्न सुरू आहे.

पोलिसांनी बेकायदेशीरपणे आमच्या कार्यालयात घुसून आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना धमकावणे आणि जबरदस्तीने ताब्यात घेण्याचे प्रयत्न तातडीने थांबवावेत.

कायदा आणि सुव्यवस्था राखण्याची जबाबदारी असलेल्या पोलिसांकडूनच कायद्याचे उल्लंघन होत असेल, तर ही गंभीर बाब आहे.

आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांचा आवाज दडपण्याचा हा प्रयत्न आम्ही कदापि यशस्वी होऊ देणार नाही. विद्यार्थ्यांच्या न्याय्य हक्कांसाठी काँग्रेस पक्ष ठामपणे त्यांच्या पाठीशी उभा आहे.

@MumbaiPolice @CMOMaharashtra @Dev_Fadnavis

— Harshwardhan Sapkal (@INCHarshsapkal) October 5, 2026

The allegations have been disputed by the Mumbai Police. As reported by Times of India, DCP Manish Kalwaniya said that no one was arrested from Tilak Bhavan and that protesters who were planning to march towards Lok Bhavan, the Governor’s official residence, were detained from different locations. Police said legal action was being taken against those participating in the proposed march.

The confrontation comes against the backdrop of a larger dispute over the safety, dignity and living conditions of students in Maharashtra’s tribal residential education system. The students’ demands extend beyond scholarships to basic facilities, food, sanitation, medical care and accountability for deaths and injuries in hostels and ashram schools. After weeks of protest in Nashik, their decision to march to Mumbai was an attempt to press the state government directly on these unresolved grievances.

There were also accusations of women protestors being detained and denied access to food or washrooms, and being driven around the city with no breaks.

On the night of Oct 4–5, Adivasi student protesters with NSUI were picked up by Mumbai Police without notice or warrant and allegedly subjected to inhuman treatment. Yes, they had no permission to protest at Azad Maidan. But neither did the “Cockroach Janta Party”, who got VIP treatment and full media glare.
Why the differential treatment for Marathi-speaking Adivasi students protesting for months against brutal conditions in tribal welfare department schools?
Is the BJP scared of the Congress?
#AdivasiStudents #Mumbai #AzadMaidan #Maharashtra #StudentProtests #TribalRights #NSUI

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) October 5, 2026

The contrast with the treatment of the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest just days earlier is striking. On October 2, the CJP went ahead with a large gathering at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park despite Mumbai Police having denied permission. Hundreds, and according to reports thousands, gathered at the venue, even as police deployed around 500 personnel. The protest proceeded, with participants publicly demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The police subsequently registered an FIR against the organisers and 400–500 unidentified persons, but there were no reports of a comparable midnight operation to prevent protesters from assembling in the first place.

The Adivasi students, by contrast, were stopped before they could reach their proposed protest site. Having marched from Nashik to Mumbai to raise demands concerning scholarships, hostel conditions, food, safety and accountability for deaths in tribal institutions, they were detained from different locations, while Congress alleged that police entered party offices where students had taken shelter. Mumbai Police has disputed the allegation of arrests from the Congress office and said those planning to march towards Lok Bhavan were detained.

The difference raises an uncomfortable question about how the right to protest is being enforced in Maharashtra: why was a large, unauthorised political protest allowed to proceed and dealt with through a subsequent FIR, while Adivasi students who had travelled hundreds of kilometres to press demands over basic educational and living conditions faced preventive detention before their protest could even begin? The contrast is particularly stark when the students’ demands concern their fundamental access to dignity, education and safe living conditions.

Related:

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

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

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The SIR Investigation Report – A Narrative of Betrayal and Tears, released by the Anti-SIR Alliance and Citizens’ Vote Protection Committee, examines the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka. The report is based on voter-roll data, a survey of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), testimonies from affected voters and a continuing ground-level inquiry across 100 polling booths in 25 districts. It is based on voter-roll data, field investigations, and testimonies from voters and Booth Level Officers, the report examines large-scale deletions, notices issued to voters, and the difficulties faced by marginalised communities in retaining their names on the electoral roll. The investigation raises important questions about the accuracy, transparency and accessibility of the SIR process and its implications for the right to vote in Karnataka.

The report is sharply critical of the way the SIR was conducted. It argues that the process placed an extraordinary burden on voters to establish their electoral eligibility and that errors in enumeration and voter mapping resulted in large numbers of genuine voters being left out of the draft electoral roll. Its central concern is that the burden of correcting these errors has been transferred from the electoral administration to individual citizens.

The findings are striking in Karnataka, where the report says 1.08 crore names were excluded from the draft electoral roll under the categories Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate and Others (ASDDO). It also records the unusually large number of deletions in Bengaluru and the disproportionate impact reported in areas with substantial Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim, nomadic and other economically marginalised populations.

The report’s conclusions and allegations are those of the Anti-SIR Alliance and Citizens’ Vote Protection Committee. They should therefore be read as an investigation and critique by a civil-society coalition, rather than as an independent adjudication of every allegation.

How the SIR process unfolded in Karnataka

Given the Bihar 2025 SIR experience, followed by the mass scale exclusions in West Bengal, some groups in Karnataka were preparing for the SIR process to commence in Karnataka. The Anti-SIR Alliance says it organised more than 25 conferences across Karnataka between November 2025 and February 2026 and subsequently brought together progressive organisations and secular political parties under a common platform. Its stated objective was to prevent SIR from being implemented, while also preparing to assist voters if the process went ahead.

The report states that adequate public preparation by the State Election Commission (SEC) did not take place once SIR was announced. It says voters were not sufficiently informed about the procedure, the enumeration form, the mapping process, required documents or the significance of the previous electoral roll.

This was especially serious, according to the report, for rural communities, migrant workers, Adivasis, nomadic communities and others with limited access to digital information. Although the Election Commission announced thousands of voter facilitation centres, the report says many voters were unaware that such facilities existed.

Difficulties faced by BLOs

A significant section of the report concerns the workload and training of Booth Level Officers.

A survey conducted by the Citizens’ Vote Protection Committee found that 23% of BLOs surveyed said they had received no training, while among those who had received training, many had been trained for only a few hours. According to the report, 56.4% of trained BLOs said they understood the process only partially, while 7.8% said they did not understand it at all.

Who are the BLOs? BLOs were often teachers and Anganwadi workers who had to perform their regular duties alongside SIR-related work. In some booths they were responsible for more than 1,500 voters. The report says that more than 80% of surveyed BLOs reported being unable to cope with the workload and more than 90% said their health had deteriorated. It also records the deaths of five BLOs which, according to the report, occurred after severe work pressure and mental distress

The report therefore portrays the problems of SIR not simply as a conflict between voters and election officials, but also as a process that placed considerable pressure on officials responsible for implementing it.

The problem of “Absent” and “Shifted” categories

One of the most important findings concerns the classification of voters as Absent or Shifted.

The report says that workers who were away from home when a BLO visited — particularly people who leave early for work and return late — could be recorded as absent. It also argues that internal migrants and tenants who had moved from one address to another were frequently treated as permanently shifted instead of being assisted in transferring their registration to their new address.

This becomes especially significant because 65, 45, 679 voters were classified as Shifted in the draft data cited by the report — the largest of the ASDDO categories.

The report argues that migration within Karnataka cannot automatically mean that a person has ceased to be an eligible voter. It cites cases where people living at their existing addresses were nevertheless classified as permanently shifted.

One crore names disappear from the draft roll

The most dramatic figures in the report appear in its examination of the draft electoral roll. According to the report, the 2025 electoral roll contained 5, 52, 49,719 voters. The draft roll examined by the investigators contained 4, 44, 53, 380, representing a reduction of approximately 1.08 crore names, or 19.5% of the earlier electorate.

The report breaks the deletions down as follows:

• Absent: 15,17,042
• Shifted: 65,45,679
• Dead: 16,39,864
• Duplicate: 7,09,870
• Others: 3,83,884

The report highlights Bengaluru in particular. It records a fall from 1, 11, 16,111 voters to 48, 48,574, which it calculates as a 43.6% reduction. Outside Bengaluru, it puts the reduction at 13.5%.

The scale of the Bengaluru deletion is one of the report’s central questions. It compares the draft figures with the number of people who voted in the 2024 election and argues that the remaining electorate appears inconsistent with the city’s actual voting patterns and population dynamics.

Contemporary reporting also confirms the broad scale of the exercise: more than 1.08 crore Karnataka voters were placed in the ASDDO categories, while about 43.8 lakh voters were subsequently identified for notices because of mapping or other discrepancies. Reported the Indian Express.

Who was most affected?

The report pays particular attention to the geographical and social distribution of deletions.

It says that, outside Bengaluru, some of the highest deletion rates occurred in relatively backward districts such as Bidar, Yadgir, Kalaburagi, Raichur and Ballari. It also notes high deletion levels in several SC- and ST-reserved constituencies.

The report gives examples of constituencies with relatively high deletion rates, including Gulbarga North, Narasimharaja, Raichur, Davanagere South, Vijayapura City and Bidar. It argues that constituencies with substantial Muslim populations and several reserved constituencies experienced particularly high levels of deletion.

The field investigation goes further. According to the report, some of the polling booths with the highest deletions were in settlements inhabited by nomadic communities, Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims and other economically marginalised groups.

Women were also disproportionately represented among those classified as shifted, according to the report. It attributes this partly to migration following marriage and says that women accounted for 52% of notices compared with 48% for men.

Ground verification tells a different story

Rather than relying solely on electoral statistics, the investigators conducted house-to-house verification in selected booths. Using a volunteer-based digital system, they compared the 2025 electoral roll, the draft roll, ASDDO classifications and notice information with the actual situation of voters. The investigation was still incomplete when the report was prepared, but the organisation says that numerous discrepancies had already emerged

Among the cases recorded were voters who:

• never received an enumeration form;
• continued to live at the same address but were classified as shifted;
• had submitted their forms but were absent from the draft list;
• were marked absent even though they lived at the address;
• were classified as dead despite being alive.

One particularly striking example cited by the report comes from Bengaluru’s Narasimharaja Colony. Of approximately 1,300 people in the locality, the report says 826 were still living there, had filled and submitted their enumeration forms, but were nevertheless classified as shifted.

The report also records cases involving nomadic communities in Ballari, voters in Kalaburagi, and families in Kodagu and other districts.

In the “Dead” category, the investigators found cases where living citizens had been recorded as deceased and therefore removed from the electoral roll. The report argues that such errors are particularly serious because the affected individual is effectively required to prove that they are alive and eligible to vote.

Forty-three lakh voters received notices

The next stage of SIR produced another major concern.

According to the report, approximately 43 lakh voters received notices. Of these, around 23 lakhs were associated with the failure to map their details to the 2002 electoral roll, while another 20 lakhs were identified through what the Election Commission termed “Logical Discrepancy.”

The report questions the basis for some of these discrepancies. It says notices could be triggered by spelling differences in names, differences in recorded ages or inconsistencies in the recorded ages of family members.

For people without passports, school records or other documents, the process of assembling acceptable documentation could be particularly difficult. The report says that promised assistance in obtaining residence and caste certificates was not easily available in practice.

The report also claims that Muslims received a disproportionately high share of notices under the Logical Discrepancy category. It records 21.44% of such notices going to Muslim voters, compared with 5.63% of Muslim voters receiving notices on this basis, according to the report’s calculations.

These are claims made by the investigators and should be read in that context.

Civil society attempts to fill the gaps

The report also documents extensive efforts by civil-society groups to help voters navigate SIR. Help desks and facilitation centres were established in several districts. Organisations trained Booth Level Agents, assisted BLOs, helped voters fill forms and created digital tools for checking voter information.

Civil-society organisations also pressed for more time for enumeration and appeals. According to the report, the Election Commission eventually extended the enumeration period twice, by a total of 19 days

The investigation report therefore records not only opposition to SIR but also a large effort by voluntary organisations to help voters negotiate the system once it was underway.

The continuing problem of re-enrolment

By September 24, according to the report, 7, 70, 988 Form 6 applications had been submitted. However, these applications included new voters as well as people seeking re-inclusion after being left out.

The investigators estimate that only a fraction of the 1.08 crore excluded voters had been restored at that stage. They therefore warn that the final number of voters excluded could remain substantial even after the claims and objections process.

This raises one of the report’s fundamental concerns: whether an existing voter who has been wrongly removed should have to undergo a process like that of a first-time voter in order to regain their place on the electoral roll.

“Operation Form 7”

The report devotes a separate section to what it calls “Operation Form 7.”

It alleges that, between September 20 and 24, large numbers of Form 7 applications seeking deletion of voters were submitted in several constituencies. It cites examples from Moodigere, Babaleshwar, Bidar, Bhalki and other areas.

The report alleges that many of these applications sought deletion of Muslim voters and were associated with local BJP or Sangh Parivar office-bearers. It also raises questions about the volume and apparent coordination of the applications.

These allegations are among the most politically consequential claims in the report and would require investigation and independent verification before being treated as established facts.

What the report says is at stake

The Anti-SIR Alliance’s broader argument is that the Karnataka experience reveals structural weaknesses in the SIR process.

For the investigators, the central issue is not simply the number of names deleted. It is the shift in the burden of proof. Instead of the electoral administration demonstrating that a voter is no longer eligible, the report argues, ordinary citizens are being required to demonstrate their eligibility through documents, hearings and repeated applications.

The report contends that this burden falls most heavily on people who are already disadvantaged: migrant workers, tenants, Adivasis, nomadic communities, Dalits, minorities, women, elderly people and people with limited access to digital systems.

Its ground survey is particularly significant because it suggests that some of the statistical categories used for deletion do not always correspond to what investigators found at voters’ homes. At the same time, the report acknowledges that its investigation covered only 100 booths out of approximately 50,000 and was still incomplete. It therefore calls for a comprehensive investigation rather than claiming that its sample by itself establishes the situation across every polling station in Karnataka.

A question about democracy and the voter list

The report concludes by placing the Karnataka SIR controversy within a larger question about the functioning of electoral democracy.

Its principal demands include stopping the SIR process, restoring wrongly deleted voters, conducting a fresh and transparent revision of electoral rolls, strengthening the institutional independence of the Election Commission and ensuring that eligible voters are not excluded because of administrative errors or difficulties in producing documents.

The report’s larger message is straightforward: an electoral roll is not merely an administrative database. It determines who can exercise the most basic democratic right, the right to vote.

The Karnataka experience described in this investigation therefore raises questions that extend beyond individual errors. How should electoral rolls be cleaned without excluding genuine voters? Who should bear the burden of proving eligibility? How should the system protect migrants and people without extensive documentation? And what safeguards are necessary when technology, databases and centralised verification become increasingly important to electoral administration?

The Anti-SIR Alliance argues that these questions cannot be left to individual voters to resolve one notice, one document and one hearing at a time. It calls for a process in which accuracy, transparency and universal access to the franchise are treated as the primary principles of electoral-roll revision.

The report’s central warning is that correcting a voter list must never become a process through which legitimate voters disappear from it.

Source: SIR Investigation Report – A Narrative of Betrayal and Tears, Anti-SIR Alliance / Citizens’ Vote Protection Committee, 23-page report. This article summarises the report’s findings and arguments; allegations concerning political parties, officials or deliberate targeting are presented as claims made by the investigators and are not independently established here.

Related:

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

SIR row: ‘Enough is enough’: Civil society demands rollback of voter revision, accountability from ECI

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

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

The post Karnataka: SIR Interrogated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protest followed a September 18 illegal search of the residence of Harshada, a 26-year-old student and volunteer with the group. e incident, which took place on September 18 and continued into the early hours of September 19, followed a September 15 kite-flying event organised in solidarity with children in Gaza. The event formed part of the Global Gaza Kite Weekend, an international campaign in which participants flew kites to draw attention to the situation of Palestinian children.

According to Mid-Day, Harshada alleged that five members of the group who were at her residence during the search were prevented from leaving while the police operation was underway. The incident has prompted concerns among members of the solidarity group about the treatment of young activists involved in Palestine-related advocacy.

At the Azad Maidan protest, activists demanded an end to what they described as harassment linked to the kite-flying programme and other solidarity activities. Chayanika Shah of Mumbai 4 Peace also joined the protest against the alleged harassment of young women activists by the Mumbai Police.

The protesters maintained that their activities were intended to express solidarity with Palestinian children and called for activists to be allowed to undertake such peaceful forms of expression without intimidation.

Related:

Palestine solidarity kite event followed by nine-hour police search in Mumbai

SIR row: ‘Enough is enough’: Civil society demands rollback of voter revision, accountability from ECI

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Women journalists who were attacked prevented from reporting, protest attacks

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

The post ‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, as soon as The Indian Express, September 23, reported on the dissent of the other two Election Commissioners (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi), who had raised objections to decisions of the Commission over the past ten months on the ground that they were legally untenable, the Election Commission suddenly convened a meeting on Saturday, September 26. Within just two hours, it took a series of decisions and immediately made them public.

What prevented the Commission from finding these same two hours at any point during the last ten months? 

The reality is that every decision taken “unanimously” at this belated meeting reads like an acknowledgement of the serious wrongs committed by the Commission since the SIR process began.

The Commission has now decided that electors flagged for “logical discrepancies” need not be summoned to its offices and made to stand in queues; officials will instead visit their homes and collect the necessary documents. 

It has also decided that, henceforth, agendas must be circulated in advance for all Commission meetings and minutes of the proceedings must be shared afterwards. Any changes to the Commission’s IT modules will now require the Commission’s approval. It has further directed that all officials must implement the Commission’s decisions strictly and without deviation.

These decisions are welcome. But are these not the most elementary procedural safeguards expected of any public institution that is accountable to the people? And does not the content of the September 26, 2026, press release of the ECI admit to a not so tacit admission of the ECI’s guilt?

By announcing that such basic institutional discipline will be followed from now on, is the Commission not effectively acknowledging that these procedures were not being followed by the Chief Election Commissioner until now?

Therefore, are not the Gyanesh Kumar’s ‘unilateral decisions’ illegal?

Under the 1995 law enacted by Parliament governing the functioning of the Election Commission, and the amendments made to it in 2023, the three-member Election Commission is required to take its decisions, as far as possible, unanimously and, where unanimity is not possible, by majority.

The Commission’s own decisions of September 26 indirectly make it clear that agendas of previously held meetings were not being provided to the other two Election Commissioners. Does this not amount to a violation of the law? Is Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar Gupta not accountable for such a violation? And can decisions taken without the unanimity or majority required by law be considered legally valid?

Seen in this context, the Commission’s September 26 decisions appear aimed primarily at containing the damage to its institutional credibility after allegations emerged that decisions were being taken unilaterally and in compliance with the Modi government’s directions. They contain no apparent mechanism for examining Gyanesh Kumar’s alleged violations or for remedying the serious consequences created by the SIR process.

That is not all.

The Commission has also failed to answer several crucial questions raised by the other two Election Commissioners and subsequently brought into the public domain by The Indian Express.

Questions left unanswered by the Commission’s “Unanimous Silence”

For instance, under the law, the final authority to decide whether a person should be included in or removed from the electoral roll rests with the local Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). But, as revealed by the other two Election Commissioners, ECINET, which is centrally controlled, was not even recording some of the decisions taken by these EROs.

Similarly, in West Bengal, a staggering 1.4 crore “logical discrepancy” notices were centrally generated without even bringing them to the attention of the local EROs. In Goa, despite the ERO repeatedly directing that 97 electors be included in the rolls—and despite the matter reportedly being brought to the Central Election Commission’s attention seven or eight times—their names were still not included.

These actions raise serious questions of legality, procedural and substantive. Such practices have already resulted in the disenfranchisement of crores of electors.

Yet the Commission’s unanimous statement of September 26 accepts no responsibility for what happened. In the Goa case, it merely says that BLOs will visit the homes of the 97 excluded electors and get the necessary forms filled. But it offers no comparable remedy for those affected in West Bengal.

Second, consider those excluded in West Bengal on the ground of “logical discrepancies.” Decisions concerning 38 lakh cases, after scrutiny of documents by lower-level adjudicatory authorities, have been challenged before tribunals. Of these, 22 lakh appeals were filed by affected electors who had been excluded from the rolls.

But what about the remaining 16 lakh cases in which, inexplicably the ECI has appealed inclusion of all these voters by officers at the district and constituency level? These were cases filed by the Election Commission itself against electors whose claims had been accepted at the lower-level proceedings and whose names had consequently been included in the electoral rolls!

And there is another crucial question: How is it that nearly 90 per cent of the cases filed by the Commission in West Bengal were against Muslims? Most importantly, The Indian Express has reported that neither the West Bengal CEO nor the other two Election Commissioners at the Centre were aware that the Commission itself had initiated these cases before the tribunals.

Yet the Commission’s September 26 statement provides no explanation whatsoever on this issue. Nor does it subject these actions to any review.

If that is so, what do the people gain from the Commission’s newly proclaimed “unanimous” decisions? The more fundamental question is this: Do the unanimous decisions of the three Election Commissioners protect people from the consequences of the SIR exercise—or are the decisions themselves riddled with contradictions?

Let us examine two of the Commission’s most important decisions:

What is the Remedy for States where the SIR has already been completed?

In an attempt to address the differential treatment that the Commission had been extending to VIPs and ordinary electors in cases involving “Logical Discrepancy” notices, the Commission has now decided that BLOs should visit the homes of electors who have received such notices and collect the required documents from them.

This is a welcome decision. But several fundamental questions remain.

a) The problem was never merely the distance between an elector’s home and the government office, or the time and expense involved in making that journey. The much deeper problem is that crores of Dalits, oppressed and marginalised people in this country simply do not possess the documents made mandatory under SIR.

The Commission’s newly declared “unanimous decisions” offer no remedy whatsoever for this fundamental problem.

b) What about electors in West Bengal and other states who have already lost their voting rights because they were not given such an opportunity within the prescribed deadline? Would extending this facility only now not amount to unequal treatment of those electors?

If this discrimination is genuinely to be remedied, should not the final electoral rolls in those states be kept in abeyance and affected electors be given the same opportunity to secure their voting rights?

And should elections already conducted based on such a discriminatory SIR process not also be annulled?

c) The September 26 statement similarly says that special assistance campaigns should be conducted in areas inhabited by the poor, homeless people and workers. But without extending the duration of the process, how can people in Karnataka and the other thirteen states currently undergoing the exercise benefit from this decision?

The Form 6 Trap!

One of the most important questions raised by the other two Election Commissioners concerns Form 6. Form 6 is the prescribed form for enrolment of new electors. Under Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the relevant requirements concern eligibility for registration, including citizenship, age and ordinary residence.

Under the SIR process, however, not only electors excluded from the existing rolls but even new applicants seeking enrolment have been required to submit, along with Form 6, a separate declaration and one of the 11 documents prescribed under SIR. For electors seeking ‘re-entry’ into the electoral roll following acts of exclusion committed by the ECI, are—in this controversial exercise—being asked to give declarations that they are first time voters, on oath. This declaration, in law is considered a false declaration because voters who have voted in previous polls have no other method provided for re-entry into the electoral roll! New applicants have also been required to establish that their parents were included in the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR, where applicable. Applications not accompanied by the prescribed supporting documents were not being processed through ECINET.

This raises a fundamental question of legality.

Although the Election Commission is an autonomous constitutional body, its rule-making and electoral procedures operate within the framework of laws enacted by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution. Neither the Representation of the People Act, 1950 nor the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribed these SIR-specific requirements for filing Form 6. Nor was the law amended to incorporate these additional conditions.

The contention, therefore, is that imposing such additional SIR-driven requirements through internal, administrative/bureaucratic directions, without corresponding statutory amendments, is legally untenable.

Silent on these contradictions, in the September 26 press note, the Commission has now unanimously offered a different justification. According to the Commission, the requirement under the SIR process to submit a declaration and supporting documents along with Form 6 cannot be considered unlawful because the Supreme Court, in its judgment of May 27, 2026, upheld this procedure.

That is the Commission’s defence.

Is this factually correct? Did the SC judgement rubber stamp the SIR Form 6 process?

The Commission’s claim is half true and half false.

a) The Election Commission introduced the above-mentioned SIR-related changes to Form 6 in July 2026. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in May 2026. It is therefore incorrect to interpret the judgment as the Supreme Court having approved the amendments to the Form 6 that were introduced only later.

b) However, in paragraphs 152–153 of that judgment, the Supreme Court made it clear that any modifications to Form 6 must bear a rational nexus to the purpose for which SIR is being undertaken. In other words, such modifications can be justified only insofar as they contribute to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the electoral rolls. The Election Commission, however, has so far provided no such rational justification for these changes.

Therefore, the Commission’s claim that the Form 6 changes already carry the Supreme Court’s approval is not entirely correct. Equally however, the Supreme Court did not categorically say that the Election Commission had no authority to make such modifications either. 

In paragraphs 152–161 of its judgment, the Court accepted the Commission’s justification for the documents, modifications and procedures adopted for implementing the SIR exercise in Bihar. It upheld the Commission’s authority to structure the SIR exercise and sustained the measures adopted in Bihar.

The fresh issue, however, is materially different: the allegation now is that the decision to modify Form 6 was taken unilaterally by the Commission, in violation of the statutory decision-making process.

Has the Commission’s September 26 note rendered the SIR process redundant?

There are, however, elements in the Election Commission’s new unanimous order of September 26 that indirectly render the very logic of SIR questionable, if not self-contradictory.

Neither the opposition parties nor the media appear to have paid sufficient attention to this aspect.

On Form 6, the September 26 order states:

“The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.”

It further states:

“SIR has already been completed in 20 States/UTs including Bihar and West Bengal. Any person whose name has got left out during SIR or thereafter, and any person including young/ first-time voter, may apply to the concerned ERO, for inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls under the process of continuous updation. Chief Election Officers (CEOs) have been directed to facilitate the same. The CEOs, DEOs, EROs will immediately launch a special drive for enrolment of these electors.”

This has three important implications:

1) The additional documents and mapping requirements imposed along with Form 6 under SIR apply only during the SIR period.

2) During the non-SIR period—that is, after the SIR exercise ends—the ordinary requirements under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 will once again apply.

3) Even in the 20 States and Union Territories where SIR has already been completed, people whose names were excluded from the final SIR rolls, as well as new electors, can seek enrolment again through the ordinary “process of continuous updation.”

What is the “Process of Continuous Updation”?

According to the Election Commission’s Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023, continuous updation is the regular statutory process through which applications for inclusion, deletion, correction and related changes in electoral rolls are dealt with using Forms 6, 7 and 8 under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

What documents are required under this process?

They are not the special SIR documents.

Under the ordinary enrolment framework, an applicant makes the prescribed declaration and provides the applicable proof of age and ordinary residence. Documents ordinarily available to people—including Aadhaar and other prescribed or acceptable documents relating to age and residence—can be used in accordance with the applicable rules and Form 6 requirements.

And such enrolment can take place during the non-SIR period.

As already noted, the Commission’s September 26 decision itself says that during the non-SIR period, the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 will apply.

This produces an extraordinary situation, a duality:

A person excluded from the electoral roll during SIR can, after SIR ends, seek to return to the electoral roll through the ordinary continuous-updation process—without being subjected to the same SIR-specific documentary regime.

If that is so, what purpose does SIR serve? Does the Commission’s own unanimous order not expose a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the entire SIR exercise?

If electors who fail to satisfy the special SIR requirements can subsequently seek enrolment through the ordinary statutory process, why subject them to the more onerous SIR process in the first place?

And that leads to an even more serious question:

Was the SIR introduced in selected states, with its heavier documentary requirements, without adequately considering these contradictions and its disparate impact on particular communities?

And what happens now to the 13 crore electors who have already been excluded?

Ten People’s Demands:

Therefore, even in the wake of the Election Commission’s new order, a powerful movement must be built around these ten people’s demands to defend the Indian Republic from the Modi establishment.

1) SIR must be scrapped with immediate effect.

2) CEC Gyanesh Kumar, accused of acting as ‘an agent of the executive’, must resign.

3) The Supreme Court must invoke Article 142 of the Constitution and initiate proceedings against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of betrayal of the constitutional order.

4) All decisions and processes undertaken by the Election Commission during Gyanesh Kumar’s tenure must be subjected to public scrutiny.

5) All elections conducted under the leadership of Gyanesh Kumar must be annulled.

6) The 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners—which gives the Union government a decisive role in their appointment and provides legal protection for acts performed in official capacity—must be repealed.

7) The Election Commission and the electoral process must be democratised.

8) The Sangh Parivar and the BJP, which continue to defend the Election Commission and the Modi government despite these alleged anti-people actions, must face a nationwide political boycott.

9) The Opposition parties must unanimously boycott elections conducted based on SIR and launch a complete non-cooperation movement against the Modi–RSS government.

10) For these demands to be realised, a massive nationwide people’s movement of the deprived and disenfranchised must be built.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

The post September 26 ECI Press Note: Does it not render SIR redundant? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The demands were raised at a press conference held at the Guwahati Press Club on September 25, following the Nagarik Abhibartan (Citizens’ Convention) organised on September 20 at Lakshiram Baruah Sadan, Guwahati. The press conference was addressed by Harkumar Goswami, Dr. Ghanashyam Nath, Prof. Taizuddin Ahmed and Manoram Gogoi on behalf of the convention convenors.

At the September 20 convention, the Forum had opposed the implementation of SIR in Assam and called for the completion of the pending National Register of Citizens (NRC). The convention had taken the position that the 2014 voter list should be treated as the base or “freeze” for completing the NRC.

The concerns raised at the convention have assumed renewed significance following an investigation published by The Indian Express on September 23, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally recorded objections at least 14 times over ten months to decisions and orders issued in the name of the Election Commission. The objections reportedly concerned matters including voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6 and the management and centralisation of the electoral database. The investigation also reported that the two Commissioners had described certain changes as “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

The Election Commission, however, has maintained that decisions relating to SIR and other matters were taken with the approval of all three Election Commissioners and described the reported differences as part of the institutional deliberative process.

Against this backdrop, the Forum has said that the contents of the objections recorded by the two Election Commissioners, the action taken on them and the way the issues were resolved must be made public. “This is not a question of any individual or any political party. This is a question of every citizen’s right to vote and the credibility of Indian democracy,” the Forum said.

The organisation placed four demands before the authorities:

• Scrap the SIR process and restore genuine voters’ names: The entire SIR process must be scrapped and all genuine voters whose names have been deleted because of the exercise must be restored to the electoral rolls.

• Stop the process of disenfranchisement and guarantee an effective right of appeal: No voter should be deleted from the electoral roll without a transparent, fair and effective opportunity to challenge the proposed deletion. The Forum has demanded that no election be conducted based on a process that, in its view, risks excluding eligible voters from the electoral rolls.

• Ensure transparency and accountability within the Election Commission: The Forum has called for complete transparency in the Election Commission’s internal decision-making process. It has demanded independent audits and scrutiny wherever there are large-scale deletions of voter names, along with individual and institutional accountability wherever the rights of genuine voters are infringed.

The Forum has also demanded the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner through due process if he does not resign voluntarily, citing what it describes as concerns over the credibility of the Commission arising from the SIR process and allegations of voter exclusion.

• Restructure the Election Commission to strengthen its independence and transparency: The Forum has demanded restructuring of the Election Commission to make it a more independent, transparent and democratic institution. It has called for the Chief Justice of India to be included in the body responsible for selecting Election Commissioners, arguing that the selection process should not rest solely with holders of political office such as the Prime Minister.

The Forum has further proposed that, after a selection body identifies credible candidates, Election Commissioners should ultimately be elected by the general electorate to strengthen their democratic legitimacy and public confidence.

The Forum said the right to vote cannot be reduced to the presence of a citizen’s name on an electoral roll. It described voting as a fundamental means through which citizens participate in the democratic process and said that ensuring that eligible citizens are not deprived of this right in the name of electoral-roll revision is a constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission and the State.

‘What we said on September 20 was proved by the Indian Express on September 23’

Speaking at the press conference, Harkumar Goswami linked the Forum’s concerns over SIR to the issues discussed at the September 20 Nagarik Abhibartan. “What we said at the Nagarik Abhibartan on 20th September was proved by the Indian Express on 23rd September!” Goswami said.

He said the statewide citizens’ convention had been organised in Guwahati at the call of 150 distinguished citizens of Assam and in cooperation with the Forum for Social Harmony, with discussions covering land, eviction, destruction of nature, workers’ rights, economic inequality and citizenship.

Goswami said the convention had adopted two significant resolutions: that the incomplete NRC in Assam should be completed using the 2014 voter list as the base or “freeze”, and that the SIR process being undertaken across the country should be strongly opposed. “Our apprehension and opposition on the 20th [of September] was exposed before the entire country by the front-page news of the Indian Express on 23rd September. Today, the whole of India has understood how dangerous SIR is,” he said.

Prof. Taizuddin Ahmed said the concerns surrounding citizenship verification in Assam could not be viewed in isolation from the proposed nationwide electoral-roll revision. “Atrocities have been going on in Assam for many years in the name of citizenship. We know this very well because we are from Assam. Now, there is a conspiracy to do the same thing across India through SIR. Therefore, the time has come for the democratic people of the entire country to resist it in a democratic and peaceful manner,” he said.

Dr. Ghanashyam Nath said the Forum would continue to press for the four demands. “Our four-point demand must be met; otherwise, we will consider our next course of action,” he said.

The Forum has appealed to democratic citizens, social organisations and concerned groups in Assam and across the country to strengthen the demand for protection of voting rights and electoral democracy through a peaceful and democratic citizens’ movement.

Related:

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

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

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

Assam FT deems Assam NRC to be final NRC

The post Scrap SIR, Restore Names of Genuine Voters, Stop Disenfranchisement: Forum for Social Harmony – Nagorik Udyog appeared first on SabrangIndia.