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.

The press conference brought together Justice Marlapalle, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, senior advocate C.U. Singh, advocate Prashant Bhushan, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, Syeda Hamid, Teesta Setalvad, Yogendra Yadav, Nikhil Dey and others. Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi and former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung were also to attend.

Their eight-point charter went beyond a demand to halt SIR. It sought restoration of voters removed from the rolls, a return to the pre-SIR electoral rolls for forthcoming elections, public verification of deletions, access to the ECI’s internal records, institutional reform and an independent examination of alleged wrongdoing.

At the heart of the demands was a simple proposition: a citizen already on the electoral roll should not lose the right to vote through an opaque administrative process and then be left to prove that the deletion was wrong.

प्रेस कॉन्फ़्रेंस शुरू होने जा रहा है. pic.twitter.com/rVkbZyJlWV

— Anzar Afaque (@AnzarAfaque) September 28, 2026

ज्ञानेश कुमार को जाना पड़ेगा, लोकतंत्र के साथ बहुत खिलवाड़ हो गया ।
प्रेस कॉन्फ़्रेंस में बोले सुप्रीम कोर्ट के वकील @pbhushan1 pic.twitter.com/4nfP48Xs3D

— Anzar Afaque (@AnzarAfaque) September 28, 2026

ज्ञानेश कुमार और SIR पर प्रेस कॉन्फ़्रेंस के लिए प्रेस क्लब पहुंचे सुप्रीम कोर्ट के वकील कपिल सिब्बल, पूर्व चुनाव आयुक्त SY क़ुरैशी, दिल्ली के पूर्व एलजी नजीब जंग pic.twitter.com/yE057pVGCa

— Anzar Afaque (@AnzarAfaque) September 28, 2026

From Bihar to Bengal: SIR has become a national electoral controversy

The SIR began in Bihar and was subsequently extended to other States. In May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI’s power to conduct the Bihar SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Court held that the exercise had a legitimate connection with maintaining accurate and legally valid electoral rolls. That judgment, however, has not ended the disputes over how SIR is being implemented.

The scale of the exercise has itself become a major point of concern. An investigation published by The Indian Express reported that the national rollout of SIR had struck more than 13 crore names from draft voter rolls across 30 States and Union Territories. The newspaper also reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected, on record, at least 14 times over a ten-month period to different steps connected with the electoral-roll revision.

West Bengal has become the most contentious example. The Indian Express reported that the ECI had told the Supreme Court that 27.16 lakh voters were deleted during the SIR process, while 38.20 lakh appeals had been filed against deletions and inclusions. As of September 18, only 1.02 lakh of those appeals had been disposed of, leaving more than 37 lakhs pending.

IE also reported that the ECI’s affidavit did not provide a complete break-up of how many appeals had been filed by deleted voters seeking restoration and how many had been filed against voters whose inclusion had been upheld.

The controversy intensified after reports revealed that Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had questioned who authorised the filing of more than 16 lakh appeals against voters whose inclusion had been upheld by judicial officers. The Indian Express reported that Sandhu had specifically asked who had authorised those appeals and who had filed them on behalf of the Commission. The report said that neither Sandhu, nor Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi, nor the then Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal had been informed about the basis or process of filing the appeals. It is against this backdrop that the demands raised acquire significance.

Articles exposing the non-transparency in functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) may be read here, here and here.

Restore the rolls before asking citizens to defend their vote

The first demand raised at the press conference was unequivocal: the ECI should roll back SIR across the country and restore every elector removed from the rolls as they existed before the exercise. The group further demanded that forthcoming elections be conducted on the basis of the pre-SIR rolls, subject to a summary revision where necessary.

This is not simply a dispute over electoral data. A deletion can determine whether a citizen is able to participate in an election at all. The burden of correcting an erroneous deletion can also fall disproportionately on people who have limited access to official portals, documentation or administrative assistance.

The campaigners therefore want the starting presumption restored: existing electors should remain on the rolls unless their removal is established through a transparent and publicly verifiable process.

Put the electoral roll to a public audit

The second demand calls for a public social audit of electoral rolls at the level of the gram sabha, ward sabha or polling booth. The demand draws on procedures contained in the ECI’s own electoral roll framework, but seeks to make public verification meaningful rather than merely procedural. BLOs and EROs should be present, voters should be able to identify wrongful deletions, and corrections should be possible immediately.

The demand is particularly relevant where the affected voter may not know that their name has been removed until they attempt to exercise their franchise.

Instead of making the citizen discover and challenge an invisible administrative decision, the proposed mechanism would bring the verification process into the public domain. The campaigners want this to become a permanent safeguard, not an arrangement limited to the present SIR.

Open the SIR files

A substantial part of the demands concerns information that remains within the ECI’s institutional machinery. The group called for the Commission to publish the complete documentary trail behind SIR, including the files relating to the decision to conduct the exercise in each phase, minutes of Commission meetings, objections by Election Commissioners and Deputy Election Commissioners, criteria used for classifications such as “logical discrepancy” and “VIP”, changes to the BLO application, communications between the ECI, Chief Electoral Officers and Electoral Registration Officers, relevant WhatsApp communications, and the complete log and source code of ECINet.

It also specifically sought disclosure of the decision-making record behind the filing of more than 16 lakh appeals against voters whose inclusion had been upheld in West Bengal. This demand has force in light of the reported internal questions within the Commission over those appeals and over aspects of the technological systems being used for electoral administration.

The issue is therefore not simply whether the ECI has followed a procedure. It is whether the public can inspect the institutional record necessary to understand who decided what, on what material, using which criteria and with what safeguards.

Sibal questions whether the Commission can speak through one voice

Kapil Sibal, speaking on the electoral-roll controversy, questioned decisions that he said appeared to have been taken by the Chief Election Commissioner without the involvement of the full Commission.

“If a decision is taken by a single Chief Election Commissioner, it is certainly not a decision of the Election Commission,” Sibal said.

He called for earlier election-related decisions to be annulled and argued that electoral rolls should be based on the list existing before the June 24 notification. He also questioned the practicality of the door-to-door verification exercise in Delhi.

“Enough is enough,” Sibal said, calling on the youth, the press and citizens to stand together to defend democratic institutions.

VIDEO | Delhi: On the Election Commission’s decisions and electoral roll revision, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal says, “If a decision is taken by a single Chief Election Commissioner, it is certainly not a decision of the Election Commission. The earlier election-related decisions… pic.twitter.com/XiIVbqk24E

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) September 28, 2026

Resignation, impeachment and a new appointments mechanism

The demands also directly target the institutional architecture of the Election Commission. The group called for CEC Gyanesh Kumar to resign and, failing that, for impeachment proceedings to begin. It also demanded repeal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, arguing for an appointment’s mechanism free from executive control. Another demand seeks removal of the statutory immunity from civil and criminal proceedings available to serving and former Election Commissioners. These demands shift the debate from the immediate conduct of SIR to the independence and accountability of the institution responsible for conducting elections.

What happens to those excluded from welfare?

Another demand focuses on a consequence that can extend beyond the ballot box. The campaigners called for restoration of welfare benefits to Indians who were allegedly denied such benefits because their names were removed from electoral rolls.

The demand reflects a broader concern about the consequences of treating electoral databases as authoritative markers in other administrative processes. If an erroneous deletion affects access to welfare or other public entitlements, the harm is no longer confined to the loss of an opportunity to vote.

An independent inquiry into SIR

The final demand calls for an independent and credible inquiry into the constitutionality and legality of decisions taken under Gyanesh Kumar and into the design, implementation and consequences of SIR.

The proposed inquiry would examine the conduct of the CEC, other Election Commissioners, officials and third parties, including whether any act or omission resulted in wrongful disenfranchisement or breach of official duty.

This demand is significant because the controversy is no longer confined to whether SIR is legally permissible in principle. The Supreme Court has already upheld the ECI’s power to conduct the Bihar exercise.

The questions now being raised concern how that power is exercised, how voters are protected against wrongful exclusion, how decisions are recorded and whether the institution can be held accountable when its processes are challenged.

The eight demands announced at the Press Club therefore amount to a call for far more than a procedural correction. They seek to place electoral-roll revision under public scrutiny, restore those who may have been wrongfully excluded and force the Election Commission to disclose the administrative and technological machinery through which electoral inclusion and exclusion are being decided. At stake is not merely the accuracy of a database. It is the question of who gets to remain on the electoral roll, who bears the burden when the State gets that decision wrong, and whether the machinery deciding those questions can itself be subjected to meaningful public accountability.

The official press statement may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post SIR row: ‘Enough is enough’: Civil society demands rollback of voter revision, accountability from ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite significant objections being raised to this overarching methodology that clearly aims, through the backdoor, to achieve more than a socio-economic number enumeration of the Indian people to guide policy thrusts, the union government has chosen this path. Earlier such attempts after the controversial 2019 amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955 have been analysed here, here and here.

The Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India notified 40 questions for the population enumeration phase on August 14, 2026. The questionnaire contains several new or modified fields compared with the 2011 Census. The exercise is also significant because, for the first time since Independence, caste(s) beyond the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories is being included in the population Census.

That combination has made Census 2027 an exercise of enormous significance, but also one surrounded by questions about methodology, privacy, confidentiality and the eventual use of the information being collected.

As reported by The Hindu on September 9, former Deputy Registrar General of India K. Narayanan Unni questioned whether several of the newly introduced questions could generate meaningful statistical information at all. His concern was not simply about the volume of information being collected, but whether asking for personal identifiers and family details risks moving the Census away from its traditional statistical purpose.

A Census is supposed to count a population, not create an identity dossier

The basic purpose of a population census is to enumerate a population to understand its socio-economic status. The United Nations defines a population census as the comprehensive process of collecting, processing, analysing and disseminating demographic, economic and social information relating to all persons in a country at a specified point in time. The purpose is to produce reliable statistics at the smallest possible geographical level so that governments and societies can understand population patterns and implement policies that serve this population. That distinction matters because individual-level identifiers do not ordinarily constitute the statistical information that a Census ultimately publishes.

The United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics also place confidentiality at the centre of official data collection. Individual information collected by statistical agencies is supposed to remain confidential and be used exclusively for purposes of policy generation.

India’s Census framework has historically reflected this principle. Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 protects Census records from inspection and provides that such records are not open to inspection or admissible in evidence.

The question now is whether the enlarged questionnaire changes the nature of the information being collected without sufficiently clarifying how that information will remain insulated from other government databases and administrative purposes.

The concern is particularly acute because the questionnaire does not merely ask how many people live in a household or what their occupation, education or migration status is. It asks for information capable of directly identifying individuals and linking them to existing administrative databases.

Aadhaar numbers connect to UIDAI records. Voter identification numbers connect to electoral rolls. Passport numbers connect to passport records. Mobile numbers connect to telecommunications records. Bank information exists within the financial system. The significance of collecting such information in a single household-level exercise is therefore fundamentally different from collecting anonymous demographic information for policy-statistical tabulation.

Why are parents’ details being collected?

Among the most striking additions are questions about the parents of each individual. The questionnaire seeks information about parents and includes details such as their names, religion and place of birth. The information can extend to the village level. The respondent is also asked about the spouse in the case of married persons. These questions raise practical concerns as well as questions about purpose.

In an ordinary household, the person answering the Census may not know the precise place of birth of their parents or grandparents. The problem becomes even more complicated in institutional households such as hostels, old-age homes and prisons. The changing nature of Indian migration makes the issue still more complicated. Millions of students, workers and other residents live away from their permanent homes. Children may be living in hostels or as paying guests. Domestic workers and other persons may be temporarily residing with households during the enumeration period.

A respondent cannot necessarily be expected to know the identity-document details, parental information or other personal particulars of every person who happens to be eligible for enumeration at that location. The more information a questionnaire demands, the greater the possibility that respondents will either be unable to answer accurately or will provide hurried or incomplete responses. This is what former Census officials have described as the problem of “respondent fatigue”.

Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers

The inclusion of identity numbers presents a different problem. The questionnaire asks for mobile number, Aadhaar number and voter ID number “if available”, while also seeking passport information for Indian passport holders and information about driving-licence availability. But what exactly does “if available” mean?

As The Hindu reported, it is unclear whether the phrase means that the number should be provided if it exists for the individual concerned, or whether it means that it should be produced if the respondent has it at the time of enumeration. That distinction could become important in large households. A person answering the Census may not possess the Aadhaar, voter ID or passport details of every member of the household. Elderly parents, domestic workers, visitors and people living temporarily in institutional accommodation may not have their documents immediately accessible.

There is also a more fundamental question: what statistical purpose is served by recording the actual identification number?

As former IIPS director K.S. James told The Wire, individual identifiers are not inherently useful for Census tabulation because they cannot themselves be meaningfully computed into conventional population statistics. In his view, such identifiers are more characteristic of an identification or population-registration exercise.

The NPR question

The most politically sensitive issue is the overlap between several Census questions and information that was previously sought for the National Population Register. Eight of the new or modified fields identified by The Indian Express as overlapping with the 2020 NPR schedule include nationality as declared, parents’ particulars, mobile number, Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and driving licence.

The National Population Register is a register of “usual residents”, rather than a register exclusively of citizens. Under the framework governing it, a usual resident broadly refers to a person who has resided in an area for at least six months or intends to remain there for at least six months. A foreign national who satisfies the residence criterion can therefore fall within the NPR.

The team of Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org,in) had, in 2020 extensively researched the issue and here is a document to understand the difference between NPR and Census, relevant even today. It may be read here.

The legal framework also connects the Population Register to the preparation of the National Register of Indian Citizens. The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 provide for verification of the Population Register in connection with preparation of the citizens’ register, including the possibility of marking cases in which citizenship is considered doubtful for further inquiry.

That legal architecture became particularly contentious when the government proposed updating the NPR alongside the Census process in 2019-20, shortly after the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act and amid nationwide protests against the CAA-NPR-NRC framework. The political context has not disappeared.

The Indian Express reported that questions concerning parents’ place and date of birth had been among the most controversial elements of the earlier NPR exercise. The government at the time maintained that such information was optional and that people would not lose citizenship merely because they could not provide their parents’ birth details. The government also argued that the NPR was intended to create a comprehensive database of residents that could assist with policy formulation, welfare delivery and administrative efficiency. The present controversy is therefore not based solely on the similarity between two questionnaires. It is also shaped by the history of how the NPR was understood and contested.

The government’s position and the trust deficit

A comprehensive regularly conducted census (a socio-economic population database) is required to assist governments to craft policy on education, housing, transportation and health: this can be then broken down to plan schools, hospitals, housing, transport, welfare programmes and other public services.

However, the currently underway exercise, that includes questions that go beyond that limited purpose, has raised questions of both motive and application (use). Will the data be collected used solely for the purpose envisioned/mandated? To craft policies that respond to the socio-economic needs of the people?

As The Indian Express documented, the government’s assurances in 2019 and 2020 existed alongside previous official statements and the Citizenship Rules that established a legal connection between the Population Register and the process of preparing a citizens’ register. The NRC in Assam, which excluded roughly 19 lakh people, further intensified concerns about the consequences of citizenship verification. Consequently, questions about nationality, parents’ places of birth and identity documents are not being encountered in a political vacuum.

An information request that might appear administratively ordinary can carry very different implications when it is introduced against the background of previous debates over citizenship, migration and the NPR-NRC framework. This is why the central issue is not simply whether the government is legally entitled to ask a particular question. It is also whether citizens can clearly understand why the information is being collected, what it will be used for, who will have access to it, how long it will be retained and whether it can subsequently be linked to another government database.

The 1951 precedent

Former Census officials have also pointed to history. In a September 10 report, The Hindu noted that records from the 1951 Census demonstrate that Census information was used in the preparation of the National Register of Citizens at the time. The 1951 Census report of R.B. Vaghaiwalla, then Superintendent of Census Operations for Assam, Manipur and Tripura, described the NRC as having been prepared by transcribing important Census data from the Census slips. The report stated that the register was essentially a copy of the Census slips, with the same symbols and abbreviations. However, what is being ignored, omitted or missed is that the questions for the 1951 Census were those related to socio-economic status of citizens responding, nothing more. Ironically, this aspect is exactly the argument used by a vigilante bureaucracy in Assam not to accept presence in the 1951 NRC as adequate indication/ proof of citizenship!

This background underlies the need for specificity and confidentiality in 2026 Census data collection particularly important.

Caste Census: historic opportunity, unresolved methodology

The other defining feature of Census 2027 is caste enumeration. India has not conducted a full caste census since 1931. Census 2027 will therefore generate data of enormous potential importance for understanding social and economic inequalities. But the methodology has itself become controversial.

The questionnaire asks respondents to identify their caste, but unlike a standardised list-based system, the field is largely open-ended for castes beyond SC and ST categories. The problem is not merely technical. The experience of the 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census demonstrates the consequences of an unstandardised approach. That exercise produced more than 46 lakh reported caste names, including variations involving castes, sub-castes, clans and surnames. The Union government subsequently told the Supreme Court that the raw caste data had technical problems and had not been released. The government’s own earlier submissions to the Supreme Court have therefore become relevant to the current debate.

In 2021, the Centre had argued that caste enumeration, particularly of OBCs, was administratively complex and that the existing data contained serious problems of completeness and accuracy. Yet experts quoted by The Indian Express and The Hindu have questioned why the lessons of the 2011 exercise have not been incorporated into the 2027 methodology. Former IIPS director K.S. James suggested that a hierarchical system combining recognised state and central caste lists with an option for respondents to provide additional information could make the data more usable.

Sociologist Satish Deshpande went further, arguing that an open-ended system risks generating a proliferation of spelling variations and caste names that could make the resulting data difficult to analyse. These expert assessments identify a serious methodological question: if caste data is being collected precisely because it is expected to inform public policy, affirmative action and social-justice measures, then the method of collection must be capable of producing data that can actually be classified and analysed.

The OBC question

Another unresolved issue is the treatment of Other Backward Classes. The questionnaire includes Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and caste fields, but does not provide OBC as a separately identified category in the manner critics had expected.

Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi subsequently wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking changes to the questionnaire, arguing that the methodology could undermine the accuracy and usefulness of caste data. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has also criticised the absence of a pre-prepared caste list and contrasted it with the approach used in caste surveys in Bihar and Telangana.

These are political claims and should be understood as such. The underlying methodological question, however, can be assessed independently: whether an open-ended caste field without adequate standardisation will produce reliable, comparable and policy-useful data.

That question is especially important because caste statistics are not merely academic numbers. They can influence the design of welfare schemes, reservation policies, educational interventions and other measures intended to address structural inequality.

A questionnaire that may become too long to be accurate

There is another, less politically dramatic problem: time. The population enumeration schedule contains 40 questions, many of which must be answered for every individual in a household. Adding questions about parents, spouses, identity documents, bank accounts, vaccination history and other personal details increases the amount of information that enumerators must collect and record.

Former Census officials told The Hindu that this could increase respondent fatigue, particularly when enumerators are required to work through lengthy questionnaires with multiple members of a household. The burden will fall heavily on enumerators, many of whom are government schoolteachers.

If a questionnaire takes substantially longer to complete, the consequences are not necessarily limited to inconvenience. Fatigue can affect accuracy. Respondents may become impatient. Enumerators may rush. Questions may be misunderstood. Answers may be guessed or left incomplete. A Census can therefore undermine its own statistical objectives by trying to collect too much information. The issue is particularly important in a country as large and diverse as India, where the credibility of population data depends upon consistent enumeration across hundreds of millions of people.

Migration creates another risk

The decision to advance population enumeration in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa because of their forthcoming elections has raised another concern: under-enumeration of migrants. As The Hindu reported, former Census official K. Narayanan Unni warned that conducting enumeration earlier in these States could affect migrant workers who move between their place of work and home State.

India follows a de facto method of enumeration, under which people are generally counted where they are physically present during the Census period. Traditionally, March 1 has been used as the reference date partly because migration patterns are relatively lower around that period.

If enumeration is advanced in some States because of elections, migrant workers may return to their home States to vote and potentially miss enumeration at their place of work. If enumeration has already concluded in the home State, there is a possibility that some migrants could be missed at both locations. That is a data-quality problem rather than merely an administrative inconvenience.

The Census is intended to provide a comprehensive picture of India’s population. Even relatively small levels of under-enumeration can affect the accuracy of demographic estimates, particularly for populations that are already mobile or difficult to reach.

Digital Census, digital vulnerabilities

Census 2027 is also being presented as India’s first fully digital Census, incorporating online self-enumeration and digital tools. Technology can make a national enumeration faster and potentially more efficient. But digitisation also changes the nature of the risks.

The more sensitive information that is digitised, the more consequential a data breach becomes. The Internet Freedom Foundation has raised concerns about the combination of Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers with caste, religion, language, migration history and other demographic information. Its argument is that these identifiers could potentially make it possible to connect Census information with other government databases. That concern is particularly significant because the value of a database to an attacker is not necessarily determined by any single field. It can arise from the ability to combine fields.

A database containing caste, religion, economic status, family relationships, migration history and unique identifiers would reveal substantially more about an individual than any one of those datasets considered separately.

Reports concerning the 2023 CoWIN data leak, for instance, demonstrated the potential consequences of vulnerabilities involving sensitive personal information. A breach of Census information could have consequences extending well beyond identity theft. Sensitive caste, religious and demographic information could potentially be used for discrimination, profiling, fraud or targeted harassment.

The legal framework is itself in transition

There is also a timing problem involving India’s data-protection regime. The Internet Freedom Foundation has pointed out that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and its implementing framework do not provide a fully operational safeguard during the entire Census process in the way one might expect from a mature data-protection regime.

The organisation has specifically questioned the interaction between the Census Act’s compulsory nature and emerging data-protection safeguards. Section 8(2) of the Census Act makes persons legally bound to answer notified questions, while Section 11 provides penalties for refusal or obstruction. That makes the nature of consent particularly complicated.

The Census and the compact of trust

At its core, the Census is an exercise in trust. The State asks citizens to provide information about themselves and their families on the understanding that the information will serve a socio-economic indicator of the status of the population. That compact becomes more fragile when the questionnaire starts asking for information that appears capable of connecting an individual to multiple existing databases.

The danger in collecting excessive information is not confined to what the database is intended to do today. Large databases acquire value precisely because they can be used for purposes that may not have been contemplated when the information was initially collected. That is why purpose limitation and data minimisation are fundamental principles of responsible data governance.

If the objective is to understand India’s population, the government should be able to explain why each additional identifier is necessary to generate that understanding. If an Aadhaar number does not produce a demographic statistic, its collection requires a separate justification. If a passport number does not contribute to population tabulation, the government must explain the purpose for which it is being recorded. If parents’ precise places of birth are necessary for a statistical exercise, that purpose should be made explicit. The same standard should apply to mobile numbers, voter IDs and other identifiers. The larger the database, the stronger the justification must be for every additional category of information.

The fundamental question facing Census 2027 is consequently not merely how much information the State can collect. It is how much information a democratic State should collect for a stated purpose, and what protections must exist to ensure that information does not acquire a different purpose later. A population census is meant to tell the country who lives in it, how people live, where they live and what their circumstances are. It should not leave citizens wondering whether, in the process of counting them, the State is also building a much more detailed map of who they are.

Related:

Census v/s NPR

Census v/s NPR

Falsifying the Truth: PUCL condemns the systematic manipulation of census data & suppression of ground realities in census exercise

Ensure transparency and inclusion in the 2027 Census: CCG

To count or not to count, delays and India’s decadal Census

Caste Census Survey Result: 63% OBCs, 19% SCs and 1.68% STs constitute Bihar’s total population

The Whys behind a caste-based census point to an urgent imperative

The post Census 2027: How much personal data is too much? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Expansion of SIR and the unresolved accountability test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Press Note pic.twitter.com/xIQvXHqMSt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

Assam FT deems Assam NRC to be final NRC

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

The Open letter may be read below:

To

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

Your Excellency,

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

(Names in alphabetical order)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links

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

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

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

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

Reading books is not evidence of criminal association

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

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

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

Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone

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

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

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

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

Keeping him behind bars would not be just

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

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

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

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

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence the forums have demanded:

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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