Rights | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/category/rights/ News Related to Human Rights Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:44:09 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Rights | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/category/rights/ 32 32 Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation https://sabrangindia.in/mumbai-police-detain-ambedkarite-leaders-demanding-justice-for-sahil-wakode-iit-bombay-refuses-to-hear-delegation/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:44:09 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49654 As Sahil Wakode’s parents continue their hunger strike over his death and allegations of caste discrimination, Mumbai Police barricaded access to IIT Bombay and detained civil society leaders

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

]]> Mumbai Police on Wednesday, October 14, detained Ambedkarite leaders and civil society representatives who gathered outside IIT Bombay under the call of ‘Chalo IIT Bombay’, demanding accountability over the death of second-year BTech student Sahil Wakode and an impartial investigation into allegations of caste discrimination. Among those detained were Rahul Sonpimple, Deepali Salve and Sambhaji Bhagat. The protest was organised in solidarity with Sahil’s parents, who have been on hunger strike for nearly two weeks, demanding answers from the institute and a fair investigation into their son’s death.

 

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

 

 

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

Police refuse entry, even as family seeks answers

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

 

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

Dalit-Bahujan students deserve more than institutional assurances

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

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

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

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

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

 

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

]]> ‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal https://sabrangindia.in/chalo-delhi-thousand-march-to-supreme-court-against-vote-chori-demand-gyanesh-kumars-removal/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:11:33 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49626 Led by the INDIA bloc, the October 12 march brought opposition parties, lawyers, student organisations and civil society onto Delhi’s streets, demanding a halt to the SIR process and accountability for alleged electoral manipulation

The post ‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Thousands of people poured onto the streets of central Delhi on Monday, October 12, as opposition parties, lawyers, students and civil society groups joined the INDIA bloc’s ‘Chalo Delhi – March for Democracy’, demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, an immediate halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and an end to police repression against democratic dissent.

 

The march, led by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, headed towards the Supreme Court from Barakhamba Road, with crowds stretching between Mandi House and Connaught Place. The protesters’ central demand was that allegations of large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls must be addressed, and that the institution responsible for conducting elections must be held accountable.

 

The mobilisation was not confined to the Congress or the larger opposition parties. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, CPI, student organisations and civil society groups also joined the march.

 

CPI(ML) Liberation and the All India Students’ Association (AISA) called for Kumar’s removal, the scrapping of the SIR process and an end to police repression against democratic voices. Their representatives, including CPI(ML) Liberation General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya, arrived to participate in the march. The CPI, the All India Students’ Federation (AISF) and the All India Youth Federation (AIYF) likewise joined the mobilisation, declaring that barricades and the deployment of security personnel could not silence demands for accountability.

 

The presence of student and youth organisations was particularly significant in the context of the police action reported during the October 10 protests. The CPI(M) General Secretary M. A. Baby and Brinda Karat also addressed the media at A. K. Gopalan Bhawan alongside student and youth protesters who alleged police brutality.

 

The gathering also drew people beyond the established party structures. As the march moved through central Delhi, the participation of lawyers, students, activists and citizens underscored the breadth of concern over the SIR exercise and the treatment of those opposing it.

 

The scale of the mobilisation was striking. The Indian Express reported that thousands had gathered for the march, while The Wire reported that Congress sources estimated the turnout at around 50,000. Participants had arrived from neighbouring states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana, as well as Mumbai, according to The Wire. Left parties, the Samajwadi Party, civil society organisations and the Campaign for Judicial and Public Accountability (CJP) were among those participating in the mobilisation.

A march for electoral accountability

The march followed days of mounting anger over the SIR exercise and the treatment of protesters who had taken to Delhi’s streets on October 10. The opposition has alleged that the revision process risks disenfranchising legitimate voters, while demanding accountability from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its chief, Gyanesh Kumar.

 

The INDIA bloc announced that it would approach the Supreme Court over the allegations. Bar and Bench reported that Rahul Gandhi filed a petition before the apex court concerning alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the SIR process. The opposition has demanded that the exercise be halted and that Kumar resign over the allegations of ‘vote chori’.

The march was therefore not merely a show of opposition unity. It sought to take a dispute over electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission directly to the country’s highest constitutional court, placing the question of electoral integrity at the centre of a mass political mobilisation.

The alliance’s message was forceful. In a statement posted by the Indian National Congress, the party declared that the march was intended to protect democracy and the Constitution and ensure accountability for those accused of stealing votes.

At the Constitution Club of India, opposition MPs raised slogans against Kumar. Leaders and representatives of the alliance, including Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress chairperson Mamata Banerjee, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut and Congress leader Sachin Pilot, joined the mobilisation. Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat also criticised the government, telling the Press Trust of India (PTI), “What is happening in Delhi is unprecedented. We want this government to stop its dictatorship. We will not stop now.”

 

Barricades, restrictions and a city turned into a security zone

As protesters converged on Barakhamba Road and prepared to move towards the Supreme Court, the police response was conspicuous. Roads were crowded with security personnel, and multiple layers of barricades were erected along the route.

Journalist Raunaq Bali reported at least four layers of barricades and police personnel on Bhagwan Das Road, towards the Supreme Court. Loudspeaker announcements repeatedly informed people that restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force and asked them to leave the area peacefully.

 

The security arrangements stood in sharp contrast to the crowds gathering to assert their right to democratic participation. As the bus carrying opposition leaders moved slowly through the packed streets, protesters continued to assemble, raise slogans and press their demands. PTI also reported protesters climbing barricades near Barakhamba Road during the ‘Dilli Chalo’ march.

 

The restrictions also come against the backdrop of the reported denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site. PTI reported that the Congress criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the decision, accusing them of treating democracy as a matter of political convenience.

The question confronting the authorities is not simply how to manage a large gathering. It is whether restrictions on public spaces and the deployment of extensive security arrangements are being used in ways that make the exercise of the right to protest increasingly difficult. Section 163 BNSS permits preventive orders in specified circumstances; its invocation does not, by itself, settle the constitutional question of whether restrictions on peaceful assembly are necessary and proportionate.

Lawyers take to the streets and the courtroom corridors

The mobilisation also brought lawyers into the protest, following reports of detentions and alleged police violence against lawyers during the October 10 demonstrations. In a striking show of dissent, lawyers at the Delhi High Court gathered to recite the Preamble to the Constitution. Bar and Bench reported that the demonstration came days after lawyers were detained and allegedly attacked during the earlier protests. The Indian Express separately reported that lawyers wore black ribbons and read the Constitution to protest police action against their colleagues.

 

Senior advocates also joined the mobilisation outside the court. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi led a group of lawyers walking from the Supreme Court towards Modern School in protest against Kumar and the alleged police brutality against lawyers, according to a post by advocate Paras Nath Singh.

 

Senior Advocate Rebecca John articulated the constitutional stakes of participating in the demonstration. Speaking to The Wire, she asserted, “We have the right to our roads, and we have the right to protest.”

 

Yogendra Yadav, who also joined the mobilisation, stressed that the march was not intended to pressure the judiciary but to strengthen its role as the guardian of the Constitution. The distinction matters: the opposition’s stated objective was to bring allegations concerning the electoral process before the court, while asserting that democratic accountability cannot be reduced to a matter of political disagreement.

 

From October 10 to October 12: The streets remain a site of resistance

Monday’s march unfolded two days after Delhi witnessed a sweeping police crackdown on people attempting to march to Jantar Mantar to demand Kumar’s removal. Reports of detentions and alleged assaults on protesters and lawyers have since prompted further demonstrations, including the recitation of the Preamble by lawyers at the Delhi High Court.

The protests on October 12 thus carried a demand that extended beyond the immediate question of the SIR. They also challenged the growing use of police restrictions and preventive measures against those seeking to demonstrate in public spaces.

The crowds moving from Mandi House and Connaught Place towards Barakhamba Road, the lawyers reading the Constitution, and the student and youth organisations joining opposition leaders all formed part of the same wider assertion: that electoral integrity and the right to dissent are questions of democratic accountability, not simply matters of law and order.

For the INDIA bloc, the march was an attempt to bring the allegations of electoral manipulation before the Supreme Court while demanding consequences for the Election Commission’s leadership. For the lawyers and civil society participants, it was also a protest against the alleged use of police power to suppress democratic voices.

Detailed reports may be read here, here and here.

 

Related:

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

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

 

 

 

The post ‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta https://sabrangindia.in/when-a-student-dies-who-questions-the-institution-sahil-wakodes-parent-seek-justice-teesta/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 06:49:58 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49623 Sahil Wakode was 22. He had dreams of becoming an engineer and, one day, an IAS officer. Now his parents, Ravindra and Sonali Wakode, are sitting on a hunger strike at Azad Maidan, seeking answers and justice after their son’s death at IIT Bombay. Teesta Setalvad asks a larger question: when a student dies inside […]

The post When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Sahil Wakode was 22. He had dreams of becoming an engineer and, one day, an IAS officer.

Now his parents, Ravindra and Sonali Wakode, are sitting on a hunger strike at Azad Maidan, seeking answers and justice after their son’s death at IIT Bombay.

Teesta Setalvad asks a larger question: when a student dies inside one of India’s most prestigious institutions, who examines the environment around that death? And what happens when the institution is effectively examining itself?

The post When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation https://sabrangindia.in/caged-in-police-vans-beaten-in-custody-journalists-attacked-delhis-crackdown-on-anti-cec-protests-draws-un-condemnation/ Mon, 12 Oct 2026 11:48:07 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49613 Protesters allege custodial violence, journalists are detained despite press credentials, and lawyers face obstruction as thousands are rounded up across Delhi. The United Nations and Amnesty International condemn restrictions on peaceful assembly

The post Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar were met with mass detentions, alleged custodial violence, restrictions on communications and the use of police vehicles fitted with cage-like compartments as demonstrations continued across the national capital on October 10 and 11. Journalists covering the protests were also detained and allegedly assaulted, while lawyers attempting to reach detainees reported being turned away. The crackdown has drawn criticism from the United Nations, Amnesty International, journalists’ organisations and civil liberties groups.

The protests, led by the student organisations, Left parties, lawyers’ groups, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other groups, centre on allegations of irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Protesters are demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and the withdrawal of the revision exercise, which critics say has resulted in the exclusion of millions of voters. The Election Commission has denied wrongdoing.

According to multiple media reports, thousands of people were detained in Delhi on October 10 alone. While estimates varied, reports put the number at approximately 7,000. The police action continued on Sunday, October 11, when student and youth organisations attempted to resume demonstrations despite the Supreme Court’s intervention concerning restrictions on public transport and the rights of protesters, journalists and lawyers.

Image: Salman Ali/PTI

Prison-style buses, alleged beatings and minors among detainees

Accounts published by The Wire detail allegations of physical violence against people detained during Sunday’s protests, including minors. At least 50 people picked up from Connaught Place and Jantar Mantar were taken to a community centre in Pandwalan Khurd, around 40 kilometres from central Delhi, after being moved through Chhawla police station.

Arjun Unnikrishnan, a 30-year-old lawyer who was among those detained, told The Wire that detainees were made to sit in rows on an isolated road before police personnel began identifying people who had recorded videos or taken photographs of the protests. He alleged that officers seized phones, demanded passwords and beat people who refused to hand over access to their devices.

Unnikrishnan described detainees being passed from one police personnel to another, slapped and struck, including on their private parts. He said minors were among those subjected to the alleged violence.

A student who spoke to The Wire on condition of anonymity also alleged that detainees were slapped and beaten inside a police vehicle. The student described the vehicles as prison-like, with railings and enclosed compartments that left those inside unable to escape the alleged assaults. Detainees further alleged that police personnel accessed their phones, deleted photographs and videos of the demonstrations, and withheld the devices after taking them into custody.

The detainees were eventually taken to the community centre at Pandwalan Khurd, where they said they were not provided food or water and were unable to contact lawyers or obtain immediate medical assistance. Lawyers who arrived at the centre later that evening alleged that police personnel initially refused to let them enter, despite the Supreme Court’s directions concerning access for lawyers and journalists.

Fahad M. Khan, a lawyer who went to the centre with his colleague Gaurav Cyclewalla, told The Wire that they had to call a police control room vehicle before they were able to gain entry. Injuries among detainees reportedly included a fractured arm. Lawyers said they were preparing complaints alleging illegal detention, physical assault, phone seizures and denial of medical examinations.

The Hindustan Times also published accounts from protesters who alleged that police slapped them, struck them on their private parts and transported them 30–40 kilometres from central Delhi. The allegations came as the police continued to use stadiums and other facilities as temporary detention locations.

Aranya Singh Rathore allegedly assaulted inside a detention van

Aranya Singh Rathore, a member of the Disha Students’ Organisation, was allegedly assaulted during detention on October 11. According to accounts published by The Wire, Rathore was held by the throat and beaten inside a police vehicle, with fellow detainees alleging that police personnel targeted protesters after the vehicle’s lights were switched off.

Her friends and lawyers reportedly struggled to locate her and were unable to obtain immediate access to her at the Connaught Place police station. She was subsequently taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College for a medico-legal examination and was released a little after 2 am, according to The Wire. Members of the organisation also alleged that phones had been taken from detainees and that police personnel taunted them about the absence of media coverage inside the vehicles.

The Wire report also documented allegations that women protesters were confined in cage-like compartments inside detention vehicles. AISA president Neha Bora questioned whether the buses were being used as makeshift jails before protesters could even reach designated detention centres.

 

The Students’ Federation of India (SFI) separately alleged that its national president, Adarsh M. Saji, Delhi state secretary Sooraj Elamon and other student activists had been assaulted inside police vehicles. Images and accounts circulated by student organisations showed injuries among those detained.

Journalists detained despite press cards; reporters allegedly manhandled

Journalists covering the demonstrations faced police action on both Saturday and Sunday, with media organisations reporting detentions, physical assaults and the seizure of reporting equipment. According to the Hindustan Times, at least 12 journalists were detained on October 11 while covering the protests. Those detained included reporters from The Indian Express, The Hindu and other publications.

 

Three journalists from the Hindi edition of The Indian Express, identified as Shashwat, Siya and Vijay Kumar, were detained in Connaught Place despite displaying their press credentials. They were taken to Chhatrasal Stadium, approximately 12 kilometres away, and released after around 45 minutes, the newspaper reported.

Peek TV journalists Vedanta Agarwal and Sara Khan also alleged that police personnel dragged them while they were reporting on the detention of demonstrators. Khan told The Hindu that a male police officer grabbed her by the neck and pushed her towards woman security personnel after she attempted to document the police action.

Journalist Shyam Meera Singh was also seen in video footage being manhandled and pushed into a detention bus while reporting on the protests. The Times of India reported allegations that journalists were punched, pushed into police vehicles and detained despite wearing identification.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said it had confirmed the detention of Newslaundry reporters Ashwine Kumar Singh, Astha Savyasachi and Anmol Pritam, as well as Scroll reporter Ayush Tiwari. It called on the Delhi Police to release detained journalists and media workers, return their equipment, investigate allegations of physical abuse and allow the press to report without interference. Newslaundry also reported that police seized its reporters’ official phones.

DIGIPUB News India Foundation condemned the detentions of journalists, digital creators and citizens, describing the seizure of reporting equipment and the detention of reporters who had shown their credentials as intimidation and an assault on press freedom. The organisation demanded the release of detained journalists, the return of seized devices and accountability for alleged misconduct.

 

The National Alliance of Journalists also condemned the action and expressed solidarity with the Delhi Union of Journalists, the Indian Women’s Press Corps and the Press Club of India. Earlier, the Editors Guild of India had expressed grave concern over reported sexual assault against women journalists covering the protests. In a statement issued on October 10, the Guild said it was concerned that the Delhi Police had yet to take cognisance of the serious allegations.

Lawyers detained outside the Supreme Court; senior advocate allegedly thrown into moving bus

Lawyers attempting to protest the electoral roll revision were also detained, including advocates picked up near the Supreme Court complex. India Today reported that around 50–60 advocates, including senior and women lawyers, were detained on October 10. They were subsequently released following the intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, after the Supreme Court Bar Association sought urgent assistance.

The Hindustan Times reported that the lawyers had been taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex after being detained near the Supreme Court. Their detention prompted the Chief Justice of India to contact the authorities to secure their release.

The Indian Express reported that the Delhi High Court Bar Association condemned the detention of lawyers and the alleged excessive use of force. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat reportedly said that police personnel tore his shirt and threw him into a moving bus during the crackdown. The detention of lawyers was particularly significant given the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings concerning the restrictions imposed on demonstrations and the need to ensure that legal professionals could discharge their duties without obstruction.

Chhatrasal Stadium, Yamuna Sports Complex among detention sites

Police transported protesters detained at different locations to stadiums and other facilities being used as temporary detention centres. The Indian Express reported on October 10 that protesters were picked up before they could reach Jantar Mantar and taken to stadiums and makeshift detention locations. The Yamuna Sports Complex was among the locations used for detaining lawyers, while Chhatrasal Stadium was used to release journalists who had been taken into custody the following day.

The Wire subsequently reported that detainees from Connaught Place and Jantar Mantar were taken to Pandwalan Khurd, where they alleged they were kept behind locked gates and denied timely access to lawyers and medical assistance.

A separate report by The Wire on October 12 disclosed that the Union Home Ministry had ordered the suspension of mobile internet services within a 500-metre radius of eight detention centres on October 10. The order covered Chhatrasal Stadium, Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana, Yamuna Sports Complex, Jasola Sports Complex, a community centre in Daulatpur, another in Pandwala Khurd, Jangli Ram Stadium in Nizampur and Surajmal Stadium in Nangloi.

The suspension was ordered from midnight until 10 pm on October 10, under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024. The order cited public safety, the prevention of a public emergency and the maintenance of public order.

The additional shutdowns came alongside a separate 24-hour suspension of mobile internet services within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing, near the planned protest site.

Right-wing group members unleash violence, assault on protesters

Amid the widespread police action against demonstrators, videos also emerged of right winged men openly assaulting young protesters on October 10. According to The Wire, four men identified as members of the right-wing Hindu Raksha Dal were seen in footage attacking a male protester and knocking a woman to the ground before assaulting her. The incident took place on DDU Marg in central Delhi.

The Indian Express and NDTV reported that the Delhi Police arrested four men in connection with the assault on October 11. The men were accused of assaulting students and pushing and hitting women during the protest. Hindu Raksha Dal president Bhupender, also known as Pinky Chaudhary, publicly acknowledged the accused as members of his organisation and vowed to protect them. His statements followed the circulation of videos showing the assault.

The footage also prompted questions about the conduct of police personnel present at the scene. The assault took place amid the broader crackdown on protesters demanding accountability over the SIR exercise. While demonstrators were being detained across central Delhi, the video of the alleged attack by members of the right-wing organisation triggered a separate round of public condemnation.

United Nations calls for release of ‘arbitrarily detained’ protesters

The United Nations human rights office (OHCHR) expressed concern on October 10 over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, protest leaders, civil society members, lawyers and journalists before and during the protests in Delhi. In its statement, the UN called on the authorities to ensure that the right to peaceful assembly was fully respected and fulfilled and urged the release of those it described as arbitrarily detained. The statement came as thousands of protesters were being taken into custody, while journalists and lawyers reported being prevented from carrying out their professional duties.

 

The Union Ministry of External Affairs rejected the UN’s intervention on October 11, calling its observations an example of “extreme selectivity” in public positions. The ministry maintained that Indian law enforcement authorities acted in accordance with the law and that citizens could seek redress through the courts.

The MEA also accused the UN human rights office of applying double standards and described its comments as unwarranted interference in India’s internal affairs. The Permanent Mission of India to the UN had similarly termed the concerns misplaced and urged the OHCHR to apply its mandate impartially.

The exchange followed the UN’s call for the authorities to uphold peaceful assembly amid reports of widespread detentions, including those of journalists, lawyers and civil society members.

Amnesty International condemns restrictions on protest

Amnesty International had raised concerns even before the October 10 demonstration, warning on October 9 that the restrictions imposed in Delhi were disproportionate and threatened the right to peaceful assembly. Aakar Patel, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International India, said protesters must be able to demand accountability from those in power without facing intimidation, arbitrary detention or sweeping restrictions on their freedoms.

 

Amnesty cited the denial of permission for the planned demonstration, restrictions on travel into Delhi, the sealing of borders, the proposed suspension of public transport and the internet shutdown near the protest site. It also flagged the preventive detention of activists and the deployment of more than 30,000 security personnel, according to reports at the time.

The organisation urged authorities to lift arbitrary restrictions, exercise restraint and protect the right to peaceful assembly. It also emphasised that security measures should protect the public rather than punish people for exercising their rights.

In an earlier statement on October 2, Amnesty had condemned prohibitory orders, detentions and internet and public transport restrictions imposed amid protests in Delhi and Mumbai. It reiterated that the right to protest was protected under the Constitution and international human rights law.

Supreme Court intervenes as crackdown continues

The police action continued despite the Supreme Court’s intervention on October 9 and its subsequent proceedings on October 11. On October 9, the Court directed the Centre not to completely suspend train services to Delhi or shut down Delhi Metro stations, stressing proportionality and the need to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to commuters. It also asked the government to consider an alternative venue equipped to accommodate peaceful demonstrations.

During the subsequent hearing, the Court issued notice in a contempt petition concerning the restrictions and sought to ensure that journalists, lawyers and other professionals were not obstructed while performing their duties. Its directions also addressed unlawful detention, internet access and the review of barricades.

The proceedings came amid reports that protesters were being detained, transported to distant facilities and denied access to lawyers. The allegations of physical violence inside detention vehicles emerged as the Court was considering the restrictions imposed on the demonstrations.

The Indian Express reported that the Court’s intervention followed widespread detentions and concerns over the closure of public transport facilities. The Times of India also reported the Court’s directions concerning peaceful assembly, access to public transport and the ability of journalists and lawyers to discharge their duties.

The police maintained that protesters had been unwilling to cooperate during detention operations and that force was sometimes required to remove them. However, allegations of beatings, phone seizures, denial of legal access and mistreatment of minors continued to emerge from detainees and their lawyers.

Crackdown extends beyond Delhi

The restrictions and detentions were not confined to the national capital. Amnesty International reported that activists and student union members were intercepted while travelling to Delhi, placed under house arrest or detained outside the city.

According to the civil liberties organisation People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), students travelling from Pune were removed from the Goa Express at Itarsi on the night of October 8. Other students were reportedly detained in Bhopal and Gwalior, while activists and student leaders faced police action in several states.

PUCL also reported detentions and restrictions in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Chandigarh. In Ahmedabad, the organisation alleged, plainclothes Crime Branch personnel visited students and professors and sought undertakings that they would not participate in the protests.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

The Indian Express reported that the crackdown extended to political leaders, activists and demonstrators intercepted at transport hubs and along routes leading to the planned protest venue.

In Mumbai, around 700 people were reportedly detained during solidarity demonstrations on October 10, including protesters at August Kranti Maidan and Hutatma Chowk. Those detained included Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and other activists.

PUCL subsequently condemned the detentions and alleged use of force against protesters, including young people, lawyers and women. The organisation called for the release of those still detained, the withdrawal of cases against peaceful demonstrators and an independent inquiry into alleged custodial violence.

The organisation also raised concerns about the deployment of facial recognition systems, drones and body cameras during the crackdown, and called for an end to mass surveillance of peaceful protesters.

 

Related:

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

 

The post Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security https://sabrangindia.in/vote-for-democracy-seeks-answers-from-eci-and-tcs-on-ecis-electoral-database-access-and-security/ Mon, 12 Oct 2026 07:44:43 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49606 In a 16-question statement, VFD seeks transparency on database access controls, changes to electoral registration procedures, security audits and the Election Commission’s oversight of its digital infrastructure

The post Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Vote for Democracy (VFD) has sought clarity from both the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) over their respective roles, and their nexus, in managing the country’s electoral software infrastructure, raising questions about database access, voter data security and safeguards against unauthorised changes to electoral rolls.

In a statement titled “Vote for Democracy Statement on the ECINET-TCS Nexus: Asking Some Questions”, VFD questions the nature of the arrangement between the ECI and TCS, the extent of the company’s involvement in managing electoral databases, and the oversight exercised by the constitutional body over these systems. The statement calls for transparency from both institutions on who controls access to electoral data, who authorises changes to the system and how accountability is ensured.

The statement refers to reports that TCS has been operating ERONet 2.0, the electoral registration network, since 2023, and notes that the company’s involvement reportedly came to light through its corporate disclosures to shareholders rather than a formal announcement by the ECI.

VFD also raises concerns over reports that restrictive declaration clauses were introduced in Form 6, used for fresh voter registration, during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). It questions the legal authority under which these changes were made, alleging that they were introduced without parliamentary oversight or explicit approval from the Ministry of Law and Justice.

ECINET is the ECI’s unified digital platform intended to consolidate several existing electoral applications, including the Voter Helpline, cVIGIL and Suvidha. Against this backdrop, VFD seeks clarity on the division of responsibilities between the ECI and TCS, particularly regarding the administration of electoral databases and the authority to modify access permissions.

A central concern in the statement is the reported alteration of access rights assigned to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), the statutory authorities responsible for decisions concerning additions to and deletions from electoral rolls. VFD questions how such changes could have occurred without the Election Commissioners’ knowledge and whether the existing system allows other users to access or modify electoral records without appropriate authorisation.

The statement warns of the risks associated with inadequate access controls, including unauthorised database modifications, compromised data integrity and the possible exposure or transfer of citizens’ personal information. It raises the possibility of privileged or specially designated user accounts operating beyond established authorisation mechanisms. These are concerns and scenarios raised by the signatories; the statement does not establish that unauthorised access or data transfers have occurred.

VFD states that it had sent questions to TCS in October-November 2025 concerning data integrity and electronic election management through software systems and databases managed by the TCS group but received no response. Its latest statement renews the demand for answers and places the onus on both the ECI and TCS to clarify the arrangement, their respective responsibilities and the safeguards governing electoral data.

Sixteen questions on database access and accountability

The statement puts forward 16 questions seeking disclosure of the technical and administrative safeguards governing electoral data. These cover the categories of users permitted to access databases, the allocation of privileges and the officials responsible for proposing, reviewing and approving changes to user permissions.

VFD asks whether TCS itself administers database access and, if so, at what level permissions are enforced: the database, individual tables, rows or specific fields. It also seeks details of whether attribute-based access control is implemented, the eligibility criteria for personnel responsible for access management, and the authority that establishes those criteria.

The signatories seek information on the database technology and access-control tools used by the ECI, the security certifications they hold and the standards with which the systems comply. They also ask when the last compliance audit was conducted, whether an independent third party has audited access administration, and whether the audit report and its findings can be made public.

Other questions concern the security of connections between electoral databases and external databases. VFD asks how such connections are inspected and monitored, whether traffic logs are maintained, and what firewall infrastructure protects the systems. It also seeks clarity on the Election Commissioners’ oversight of access controls and the authorisation of database operations.

The statement specifically asks which user category was assigned to judges in West Bengal who participated in the SIR exercise, seeking transparency about the permissions granted to them within the database system.

Concerns over voter data and electoral integrity

Invoking the principles underlying the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the statement emphasises that citizens’ personal data must be protected against unauthorised access and use. It raises concerns about whether the handling of voter information complies with applicable legal obligations and whether citizens’ data could be used or shared beyond the purposes for which it was collected.

VFD calls on TCS to answer the questions and disclose the relevant facts, arguing that the public has a right to know how electoral data is managed and protected. The statement concludes by warning that any unauthorised interference with electoral databases, if established, would have serious implications for voter rights and the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.

The statement is signed by M. G. Devasahayam, retired IAS officer and founder of the Forum for Electoral Integrity; Madhav Deshpande, a computer science expert; Dr Pyara Lal Garg, former Dean of the College of Medical Sciences at Panjab University; and Teesta Setalvad, co-convenor of Vote for Democracy, Maharashtra.

The complete statement may be read below:

Download PDF

Related:

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

Karnataka Form 7 Row: 91,278 deletion requests and bulk filing complaints—where was the ECI’s check?

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

3,404 SIR Forms Found at Kharghar Xerox Shop: CJP, VFD and BCS demands answers from Maharashtra SEC

VFD’s rebuttal of the Fadnavis’ Claims on Electoral Manipulation Allegations

 

The post Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC https://sabrangindia.in/barricades-and-detentions-fail-to-stop-delhi-protesters-marching-against-cec/ Sat, 10 Oct 2026 13:26:28 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49593 CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby, former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, SFI activists, lawyers, journalists and AISA leader Neha Bora were among those detained as protests targeted Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The post Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Protesters continued to take to the streets of Delhi on October 10, refusing to abandon their mobilisation against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, even as police detained political leaders, student activists, lawyers and journalists at multiple locations across the capital.

The day’s demonstrations unfolded amid barricades, restrictions on movement and a heavy police presence. Yet the attempts to contain the mobilisation did not bring it to a halt. As groups were stopped or detained, others continued marching, regrouped at alternative locations and raised slogans against the Election Commission and the SIR exercise.

The crackdown extended well beyond the organisers of the protest. Among those detained were senior leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), student leaders associated with the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), lawyers marching from the Supreme Court, and journalists reporting on the unfolding events. The breadth of the detentions raised serious questions about the space being allowed for political dissent, peaceful assembly and independent reporting.

CPI(M) leaders detained as protest spreads

Several prominent CPI(M) leaders were detained near Jantar Mantar as they joined the protest. Those detained included party general secretary M.A. Baby, former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, former Kerala finance minister K.N. Balagopal, senior leader Brinda Karat and former Kerala health minister K.K. Shailaja.

The detentions were reported by The Indian Express and The Week. John Brittas also posted about the developments on his social media account, while the CPI(M)’s official account shared updates on the detention of its leaders.

The detention of an entire group of senior political leaders underscored the scale of the police action against the mobilisation. Their presence also made clear that opposition to the SIR was not confined to the youth-led initiative that had helped bring protesters onto the streets.

The central demand of the protest concerns the accountability of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and opposition to the SIR process. These concerns go to the heart of democratic representation. The integrity of electoral rolls is not merely an administrative matter: the process through which voters are included or excluded determines who can exercise the franchise.

Student activists detained, but protesters regroup

Student activists were among those targeted as police sought to contain the demonstrations at different points in Delhi. Aishe Ghosh was detained near Bangla Sahib, while SFI activists were seen confronting police barricades. Footage shared by The Hindu documented developments around the protest, including scenes of student demonstrators pushing against barricades.

Members of the Communist Party of India (CPI) also marched from Ajoy Bhawan as the mobilisation continued. Meanwhile, another group of protesters gathered near INA Metro station, demonstrating how the mobilisation was spreading across different parts of the city even as police attempted to restrict movement around the principal protest site.

AISA national president Neha Bora announced Dilli Haat as an alternative location for the demonstration. She was subsequently detained near the Safdarjung Airport flyover. Videos circulating from the site showed protesters surrounding the police bus in which she was being held.

The sequence of events was significant: rather than simply dispersing the gathering, police action was followed by fresh attempts to assemble elsewhere. Protesters continued to look for ways to make their opposition visible despite the risk of detention.

The relocation of demonstrators also exposed the practical consequences of restrictions imposed across the city. When access to one location was blocked, protesters attempted to find another. The response was further police intervention, rather than an evident effort to facilitate a peaceful assembly.

Lawyers detained on their way from the Supreme Court

The crackdown also reached members of the legal community. Lawyers marching from the Supreme Court were detained, with Bar & Bench reporting that around 100 lawyers had been detained. Reports also alleged that women lawyers were manhandled during the police action.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sought the intervention of the Chief Justice of India over the detentions and the alleged use of excessive force.

Journalists detained while covering the protest

Journalists reporting on the demonstrations were also detained, adding to concerns about the ability of the press to document police action. Newslaundry reporters Ashwine Singh, Savyasachi Astha and Anmol Pritam were detained, and their phones were reportedly seized. They were later released. Scroll reporter Ayush Tiwari was detained near ITO, while the publication’s political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, was detained near CR Park. Journalists from The Wire were also reportedly threatened with detention despite carrying press cards. Reports further identified journalists from Navbharat Times and Reporter TV among those detained.

The Wire reported that Delhi Police detained journalists despite press identification and its own guidelines concerning the handling of media personnel. The News Minute also reported detentions involving journalists from Newslaundry, Scroll, Navbharat Times and Reporter TV.

The detention of reporters covering a public demonstration cannot be treated as an incidental detail in the day’s events. Journalists are responsible for documenting what takes place on the streets, including the conduct of the police and the treatment of protesters. Detaining reporters, seizing their phones or obstructing their work risks preventing the public from receiving an independent account of the exercise of state power.

Sweeping restrictions across the capital

The protests took place amid extensive restrictions on movement and transport. According to live reporting by NDTV, gates at 45 Metro stations were closed, while more than 250 trains departing from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations were cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm. Internet services were also suspended within a four-kilometre radius around the Janpath–Kartavya Path area.

The scale of these measures extended the impact of the police response beyond those directly participating in the protest. Commuters and other residents were also affected by disruptions to public transport and connectivity. The Supreme Court intervened over the proposed Metro shutdown, emphasising that restrictions had to be proportionate. The intervention brought the question of proportionality into sharp focus: authorities may regulate public assemblies and take measures to address genuine security concerns, but restrictions cannot be allowed to become a blanket mechanism for suppressing dissent or imposing disproportionate hardship on the public.

The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) also condemned the police repression of protest in Delhi, demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Their statement read:

The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) strongly condemns the government’s repression of today’s protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over serious concerns regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

The reported detention of students, activists and protesters, along with attempts to obstruct their participation in the democratic demonstration, is a serious attack on citizens’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and democratic dissent.

INSAF holds that the Election Commission, as an independent constitutional institution, must function impartially and transparently and remain accountable to the people. Instead of suppressing democratic protests, the government must address public concerns over electoral integrity and ensure that no eligible voter is arbitrarily deprived of their right to vote.

INSAF demands an immediate end to the repression of protesters, the release of all those detained in connection with the peaceful demonstration, and accountability for the police action. We reiterate our demand for the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and call upon democratic organisations, civil society groups and citizens to unite in defence of democracy, constitutional rights and free and fair elections.

Democracy cannot be defended by suppressing dissent. The people’s voice must be heard and respected.

The constitutional framework recognises both the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) and the power of the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests specified under Article 19(3). In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Supreme Court recognised the right to hold public meetings on streets while also acknowledging the authority of the state to regulate their use. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court addressed the need to balance the right to protest with the rights of other users of public spaces.

That balance cannot be reduced to the question of whether police have the authority to erect barricades or impose restrictions. The legality and proportionality of the measures, their impact on fundamental rights and the manner in which they are enforced are equally important. Public order cannot become a blanket justification for preventing citizens from expressing political opposition.

CJP organisers detained on arrival

The organisers associated with the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), whose mobilisation had helped draw attention to the protest, were also detained. Founders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were reportedly taken into custody after arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport.

According to reports by Reuters, NDTV and The Economic Times, the three were detained from inside the plane after it landed in Delhi. Dipke had reportedly recorded a message in advance naming Ajinkya Shinde to lead the protest in his absence.

Their detention did not end the mobilisation. Protesters continued to gather and march at different locations, even as police action against political leaders, students, lawyers and journalists drew further attention to the restrictions surrounding the demonstration.

The detentions of the CJP organisers were one part of a much wider police response. The day’s events cannot be understood solely through the fate of the protest’s founders: the participation of Left leaders, student organisations, lawyers and journalists demonstrated that the opposition to the SIR had drawn a broader cross-section of people into the streets.

A protest that police action has not silenced

The events in Delhi on October 10 raise fundamental questions about the limits of police power in a democracy. But can detention, restrictions on movement and the disruption of reporting cannot substitute for an answer to the concerns that brought people onto the streets?

Detailed report on the extent of suppression of dissent tactics used by Delhi police may be read here.

The protest was directed at the Election Commission, the SIR exercise and the accountability of the Chief Election Commissioner. Those are matters of public and constitutional significance. They cannot be made to disappear by detaining demonstrators or making it difficult for them to assemble.

The continued attempts to march, regroup and demonstrate across Delhi showed that the mobilisation had not been extinguished by the day’s police action. If anything, the detention of political leaders, students, lawyers and journalists has sharpened the questions about the space available for dissent.

A democracy is tested not only by whether citizens are permitted to participate in elections, but also by whether they can question the institutions that administer them. The right to vote and the right to protest are not competing principles. Both are integral to democratic participation, and both require institutions to remain answerable to the public.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

 

The post Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission https://sabrangindia.in/protest-denied-dissent-policed-indias-crackdown-on-those-challenging-the-election-commission/ Fri, 09 Oct 2026 12:33:24 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49587 From alleged house arrests and detentions to police checks on train journeys and restrictions in Delhi, activists say authorities are trying to stop citizens from reaching the October 10 protest demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over SIR

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

]]> The most alarming feature of the crackdown ahead of the October 10 protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar is not any single detention, police visit, travel restriction or security deployment. It is the cumulative picture emerging from across India: students allegedly intercepted on trains, activists confined to their homes, civil society organisers summoned and detained, police personnel reportedly questioning citizens about their travel plans, and sweeping restrictions proposed across Delhi’s transport network. Even a reported visit by a police official to a mosque in Old Delhi, asking residents not to participate in the protest, raises a troubling question: is the state preparing to manage a public gathering, or attempting to prevent the public from assembling in the first place?

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

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

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

‘Jantar Mantar Chalo’ posters lead to detention as Delhi Police widen probe
Image: Praveen Khanna / The Indian Express

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

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

The incidents: A nationwide pattern of intimidation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rajasthan: Sanju Verma allegedly taken away by Reengus Police

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

Rajasthan: Geegraj Jodli allegedly prevented from leaving home

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 heading to Delhi for CJP protest taken off trains and detained by Madhya Pradesh police | India News - The Indian Express
Image: The Indian Express

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

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

 

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

Madhya Pradesh: CJP volunteers from Telangana reportedly detained in transit

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

Delhi: Police reportedly enter the SFI national office carrying lathis

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

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

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

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

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

Amit Shah ji, we will be in thousands.

Let’s wait and watch. Don’t panic.

 

Gujarat: Student activist Satyesha reportedly placed under house arrest

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Onground blanket restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Travelling to Delhi on October 10? Check These Train Cancellations Before Leaving | Dynamite News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The police cannot become an instrument for deciding who may dissent

Delhi imposes restrictions ahead of protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar — The Credible News

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protests in Lucknow Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Gandhi Jayanti; Hundreds Detained During March - The Wire
Image: The Wire

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

]]> Karnataka Form 7 Row: 91,278 deletion requests and bulk filing complaints—where was the ECI’s check? https://sabrangindia.in/karnataka-form-7-row-91278-deletion-requests-and-bulk-filing-complaints-where-was-the-ecis-check/ Fri, 09 Oct 2026 07:37:16 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49578 Karnataka has received 91,278 Form 7 applications seeking voter deletions, but officials say no names have been deleted so far. Complaints from Mangaluru, Kodagu and other districts allege bulk filings against eligible voters, including Muslims, as police investigate and electoral hearings continue

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

]]> Police in Mangaluru and Kodagu have registered three FIRs over complaints that bulk Form 7 applications were submitted to remove voters from Karnataka’s electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The complainants say the voters named in the applications continued to live at their registered addresses. The allegations are under investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statewide count: 91,278 applications

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

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

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

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

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

What Form 7 is used for

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

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

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

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

Earlier reports from other constituencies

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

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

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

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

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

Ballari list concerned 7,561 voters

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

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

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

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

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

Rules for bulk submissions

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

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

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

Inquiry into false claims

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

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

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

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

Hearings and publication of the final roll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

 

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

]]> ‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune https://sabrangindia.in/serious-grievances-bombay-hc-backs-students-concerns-mpsc-protests-continue-in-pune/ Thu, 08 Oct 2026 12:59:27 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49572 Bombay High Court directs Maharashtra government to explain recruitment backlog and restore trust; two of three protest sites remain occupied, with Rohit Pawar-led agitation refusing to move

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

]]> The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) agitation in Pune continued on Thursday, October 8, despite the Bombay High Court urging protesting students to return to their studies and shift their demonstrations away from public roads. Two of the three protest groups have refused to withdraw or relocate, underscoring the depth of the students’ distrust of the State’s recruitment system. The larger protest at SM Joshi Bridge, led by NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar, entered its seventh day on October 8, while another agitation on Lal Bahadur Shastri Road also continued. The protest at Alka Chowk, however, was called off following the High Court hearing.

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

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

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

Court recognises that students have serious grievances

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

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

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

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

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

The protests are not about one demand

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

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

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

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

‘Restore the trust’ is now before the court

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

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

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

Residents raise concerns over road blockages

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

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

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

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

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

The complete order may be read below:

Download PDF

Related:

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

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

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

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

 

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

]]> Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai https://sabrangindia.in/police-detain-adivasi-students-for-second-day-force-them-out-of-mumbai/ Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:54:13 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49568 Students who marched from Nashik are denied Azad Maidan protest, prevented from leaving Tilak Bhavan and forcefully transported out of the city

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

]]> Adivasi students who marched from Nashik to Mumbai demanding accountability over deaths, unsafe conditions and inadequate facilities in tribal schools and hostels were detained for a second consecutive day on Tuesday, October 6, and forcibly taken out of the city, after police prevented them from leaving the Maharashtra Congress headquarters at Tilak Bhavan. The students had been staying at the Congress office after being denied permission to hold their protest at Azad Maidan.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Related:

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

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

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

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

 

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

]]>