“We will not teach any part of Manusmriti in any form in the University of Delhi. This direction has been issued even earlier by the vice-chancellor’s office, and departments should adhere to it. The department should not have put it down in the first place following these directions,” said Singh, reported the Times of India and the Indian Express. Days earlier, the objective of the course stated that “ancient Indian society, in terms of whole and its parts, has been depicted in the texts compiled in Sanskrit known as Dharmashastra.”

Just before this announcement on X (formerly twitter), the introduction of Manusmriti was widely criticised for extoling and reinforcing social, economic and gender inequalities, had prompted in some sections of faculty members in the varsity to raise concern over the move.

University of Delhi will not teach Manusmriti text in any course of the University. ‘Dharamshastra Studies’, the DSC of the Sanskrit Department, where Manusmriti is mentioned as a “recommended reading” stands deleted. @narendramodi @PMOIndia @EduMinofIndia @dpradhanbjp

— University of Delhi (@UnivofDelhi) June 12, 2025

Interestingly, other Hindu religious texts such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and Puranas have also been included as part of the course. The paper has been introduced as a core course in the current academic session and carries four credits. It is open to undergraduate students with working knowledge of Sanskrit.

Texts such as Apastamba Dharmasutra, Boudhayana Dharmasutra, Boudhayana Dharmasutra, Vashistha Dharmasutra, Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti, and the Kautilya Arthashastra have been included as primary readings.

“The text has been removed from the Sanskrit department’s ‘Dharamshastra Studies’. In the future also, whenever it comes to our notice that the text has been suggested for studying, the administration will remove it,” V-C Singh told the Hindustan Times.

DU removes Manusmriti from Sanskrit course

New Delhi : On the day TOI reported that Delhi University’s Sanskrit department had included Manusmriti in the core curriculum of its ‘Dharamshastra Studies’ course, the university announced its removal on social media.
The official DU tweet stated: “University of Delhi will not teach Manusmriti text in any course of the university. ‘Dharamshastra Studies’, the DSC of the Sanskrit Department, where Manusmriti is mentioned as a ‘recommended reading’ stands deleted.” The post tagged several govt dignitaries. The inclusion of Manusmriti had sparked widespread criticism. TNN

This retraction by the university just two days after the announcement of a “new course” has led to conclusions that it was obviously widespread protests that led to the decision. On June 12, the Times of India (“Manusmriti, caste system & marriage benefits to be part of DU curriculum”) had reported how students in Delhi University will now be taught how the varna or caste system organises society, how marriage helps build a “civilised” social order, and how morals regulate individual behaviour. These lessons were to form the core of a new Sanskrit course titled Dharmashastra Studies, which has Manusmriti as a primary text.

The newspaper also said that “Manusmriti, whose proposal for inclusion in the law and history honours syllabus was earlier held back by the administration amid backlash, has made a comeback, this time as essential reading in this discipline-specific course. Alongside it, other Hindu religious texts that had drawn similar objections, such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas, have also been included in this course.”

The paper, introduced as a core course under discipline in the current academic session, carries four credits and is open to undergraduate students with working knowledge of Sanskrit. Discipline Specific Core refers to courses within a student’s chosen field of study that are mandatory for their programme.

Related:

BHU students granted bail 17 days after Manusmriti protest arrests

13 BHU students arrested and interrogated by ATS over allegation of burning Manusmriti

The post Bowing to outrage, Delhi University V-C says that Manusmriti removed from curriculum, won’t teach in future appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We are at a decisive moment in Israel’s history. Moments ago Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival. This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a recorded video message, reported Reuters.

Following the Israeli strikes on Tehran, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio termed the attack as Israel’s “unilateral” action against Iran. The US washed its hands off the attacks.

“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defence,” said Rubio in a statement.

“President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” he added.

It should not be seen as a coincidence that on June 13 –the same day of the attacks—the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) had overwhelming in a Resolution pulled up Israel for its blockade of Gaza and called for an immediate ceasefire.

Following the attack, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Israel will face “severe punishment”, reported the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, the IRNA news agency also reported that Major General Hossein Salami, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Cops has been assassinated in the Israeli strike. Iranian state media reported that at least two nuclear scientists, Fereydoun Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi were killed in the strikes.

India has meanwhile, according to a report in The Hindustan Times cautioned both Israel and Iran against any escalation. India on Friday expressed deep concern after Israel launched waves of air strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites and urged both countries to avoid escalatory steps.

An Israeli military official told Reuters that Israel was striking “dozens” of nuclear and military targets including the facility at Natanz in central Iran. The official added that Iran had enough material to make 15 nuclear bombs within days.

Along with launching these attacks, reports confirmed that the Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv was closed until further notice, and Israel’s air defence units stood at high alert for possible retaliatory strikes from Iran. In its response after the attack, the government of Iran said that starting a war with the country was like “twisting the lion’s tail”.

The Israeli military said that Iran has launched over 100 drones at Israel in the last few hours.

IAEA confirms Iran’s Uranium enrichment facility hit, UN chief condemns Israeli action

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that that Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz was hit by an Israeli strike.

“The IAEA is closely monitoring the deeply concerning situation in Iran. Agency can confirm Natanz site among targets. The Agency is in contact with Iranian authorities regarding radiation levels. We are also in contact with our inspectors in the country,” said IAEA head Rafael Mariano Grossi in a statement on X.

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has condemned the “military escalation” by Israel. In a statement through his spokesperson, Guterres said that he was “concerned” by Israel’s action “while talks between Iran and the United States on the status of Iran’s nuclear programme are underway, reported AP.

“The Secretary-General asks both sides to show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford,” said Farhan Haq, the UN spokesperson, said in a statement late Thursday (June 12).

The Indian Embassy in Iran requested all Indian nationals & persons of Indian origin in Iran to remain vigilant, avoid all unnecessary movements, follow the Embassy’s Social Media accounts & observe safety protocols as advised by local authorities.

The Indian Embassy in Israel to issue a similar advisory and urged Indian nationals to exercise caution, avoid unnecessary travel within the country and stay close to safety shelters. “We are closely monitoring the evolving situation, including reports related to attacks on nuclear sites. India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps. Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues. India enjoys close and friendly relations with both the countries and stands ready to extend all possible support,” said the Ministry of External affairs in a statement.

“Our Missions in both countries are in contact with the Indian community. All Indian nationals in the region are advised to exercise caution, stay safe and follow local security advisories,” the MEA statement added.  “We are deeply concerned at the recent developments between Iran and Israel,” the external affairs ministry said in a statement.

“India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps. Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues,” the statement said.

The statement noted that India “enjoys close and friendly relations with both the countries and stands ready to extend all possible support”.

The Indian side is closely monitoring the evolving situation, including “reports related to attacks on nuclear sites”. Indian embassies in both countries are in contact with the Indian community, and all Indian nationals in the region were advised to “exercise caution, stay safe and follow local security advisories”.

The scale and scope of Friday’s air strikes by Israel was much greater than tit-for-tat attacks carried out in 2024.

In April 2024, Iran launched missiles and drones at Israel after the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. This was followed by another round of hostilities last October, after Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Israel responded on both occasions by targeting Iranian infrastructure and military facilities.

The post Israel bombs Iran, targets nuclear facilities, military leaders, scientists; US claims it’s not involved appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The resolution reiterated previous United National General Assembly (UNGA) demands for a permanent and immediate ceasefire and the dignified unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups. It also strongly condemned any use of starvation of civilians as method of warfare and demands that Israel, the occupying power, immediately end its blockade of Gaza and ensure humanitarian aid reaches Palestinians throughout the Strip. The Resolution was passed on June 13.

Besides, the UN Resolution that was passed stresses on the need for accountability to ensure Israel’s respect of international law obligations and calls on UN member states to individually and collectively take all measures necessary, in line with international law and the UN Charter, to ensure Israeli compliance with said obligations.

The UN Resolution on Gaza may be read here.

As detailed on the UN website, the Resolution had been brought forward by over 20 countries, and most critically it strongly condemns the use of starvation as a weapon of war, demands a full lifting of the Israeli blockade on humanitarian aid, and insists on the protection of civilians under international law. Although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they carry significant political and moral weight.

The Resolution of June 13, followed the developments at the Security Council on June 4: On June 4, the Security Council failed to adopt its draft resolution after a veto by the United States, a permanent member.

“Meanwhile, famine conditions continue to threaten lives across Gaza, and reports persist of civilians being killed or injured while trying to access food at distribution points operated independently of the UN but supported by Israel and the US.

“Assembly steps into as Security Council stalls

“Opening the special session, General Assembly President Philémon Yang said that “the horrors in Gaza must end” after 20 months of war. He criticised the Security Council’s ongoing paralysis and inability to fulfil its core responsibility to uphold peace and security.

“He called the situation on the ground “unacceptable”, highlighting the deprivation of food, water and medicine for civilians, the continued captivity of hostages, and the need for urgent international action.

“Mr. Yang noted that next week’s high-level meeting in New York on implementing a two-State solution, chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, saying it would offer a chance for renewed commitment towards peace in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

“Key elements of the resolution:

• Ceasefire: Calls for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire by all parties.
• Hostages: Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other armed groups.
• Implementation: Urges the full and immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 2735 (2024), including the ceasefire, hostage and prisoner exchanges, return of displaced persons, and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
• International law: Reaffirms that all parties must uphold international humanitarian and human rights law, with particular attention to civilian protection and accountability for violations.
• Starvation as a weapon: Strongly condemns the use of starvation and the denial of aid as tactics of war.
• Humanitarian access: Demands the full, safe and unimpeded delivery of aid – including food, medicine, water, shelter and fuel – throughout Gaza.
• Detention practices: Calls for the humane treatment and release of those arbitrarily detained, and the return of remains.
• ICJ advisory opinion: Recalls the request for an urgent advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Israel’s obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
• End of blockade: Demands Israel immediately lift the blockade on Gaza and open all border crossings for aid deliveries.
• Accountability: Urges Member States to take necessary steps to ensure Israel complies with its international legal obligations.
• UN and humanitarian personnel: Calls for full respect for the work and immunity of UN staff and humanitarian workers.
• Protection of aid workers: Urges both humanitarian and UN bodies to ensure the safety of their personnel.
• Medical neutrality: Underscores the duty to protect medical workers, health facilities, and transport routes.

Watch as the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire and an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza, and need for accountability for Israel’s violations: pic.twitter.com/70QQLxTP14

— State of Palestine (@Palestine_UN) June 12, 2025

Watch as the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire and an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza, and need for accountability for Israel’s violations: pic.twitter.com/70QQLxTP14

— State of Palestine (@Palestine_UN) June 12, 2025

Related:

Gaza: 700 citizens demand release of detained Madleen activists, call upon UK to fix Israel’s accountability for genocide, blockade, war crimes in Palestine

The post UNGCA Resolution, Gaza Genocide: Abandoning decades of commitment to non-alignment, India abstains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The information in this article has been extracted from the public statements and press releases of SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, which is the lead plaintiff in the case. Both organisations have described themselves as “dedicated to ensuring fair and accurate elections.”

The June 11 statement by the organisation questions the conclusions drawn in an article on Msn.com that possibly sensationalises the issue. However the fact that the transparency and accountability of the 2024 US elections are the subject matter of serious investigation is based on fact.

Calling into serious questions the US 2024 Presidential race and the transparency of the electoral process, a non-partisan group, Smart Elections has filed a law suit, demanding answers.

“There is clear evidence that the senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely,” stated Lulu Friesdat, Founder and Executive Director of SMART Legislation in a press release. “If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it’s vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election.”

As stated in the complaint, more voters have sworn they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, directly contradicting those results. Additionally, the presidential election results exhibit numerous statistical anomalies. The anomalies in the presidential race include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but where zero voters selected the Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

Additionally, a statistician determined that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. Max Bonamente, Ph.D., Professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the textbook, “Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data,” says in an upcoming paper on the Rockland data, “These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity.”

Discovery (disclosure of evidence) could give both the court and the public a window into what issues in Rockland County are contributing to irregularities in the election results. Plaintiffs anticipate some depositions as well. Because the source of the discrepancies is unknown, a court-ordered recount could alter the election results or reveal issues in other races

(From the Press Release)

• District 39 (Exhibit A): Nine voters signed sworn statements saying they cast ballots for Diane Sare in the U.S. Senate race. The Rockland County Board of Elections recorded just five votes-a nearly 50% shortfall.
• District 62 (Exhibit B): Five voters said they voted for Sare; the Rockland County Board of Elections recorded three – a 40% deficit.

Does this all mean that the Former US Vice-President and Presidential candidate in 2024, Kamala Harris may have actually won the poll race? A report in MSN. Com and then Economic Times suggests that this is possible. However this is what Smart Elections says in response:

“Was There tampering?

Yesterday an article went up on MSN.com with some very serious statements about the 2024 election with information and quotes that were attributed to us – SMART      Elections. We appreciate the long overdue focus on this issue……

The article covers software and firmware updates to 2024 election technology and asks whether those updates had the necessary security and transparency. Although the article gets some of the details incorrect, we agree with the article’s overall conclusion that there were serious failures in the security and transparency of the updates. We disagree with the article’s claim that this proves Kamala Harris won the 2024 presidential election. It’s just not that simple.

Regarding the updates: You want technology to get updates. It’s an important part of good security practices. Often that is how you protect against known vulnerabilities that are discovered. You do a software update.

But in this case, the website of one of the testing labs approved to give software updates, was in disrepair for months. The testing lab, ProV&V is one of two that are authorized to approve software updates for U.S. election technology. Was their website hacked? Unknown. Was the company hacked? Unknown. They say they were building a new website, and eventually after months, a new rather incomplete, lame website did emerge.

Is the testing lab Pro V&V sloppy? Definitely. Are we concerned about all the software updates they released. You bet we are. Can we say conclusively that there was some kind of malware in those updates that changed vote totals? No we cannot. That’s why we’re in court. To get that kind of information.”

Who is behind Pro V&V, and why is there no oversight?

At the centre of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn’t appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V’s website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment.

Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V faces no real public oversight. There is no hotline, no review board, and no formal process for the public to challenge or remove them.

The EAC itself has four commissioners, two of whom—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency.

As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains fully accredited and un-investigated. 

Will the outcome of the suit change election results?

In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that allegations raised by SMART Elections were credible enough to move forward. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections, is scheduled for hearing this fall. While the lawsuit won’t change the outcome of the election—Congress already certified Trump’s victory—it could set off wider probes, from state investigations to federal criminal inquiries. The upcoming court case could become a pivotal moment in election security history. The lawsuit claims that a private company quietly changed voting machines in over 40% of U.S. counties—and no one knew until after the votes were counted. 

The implications are serious:

• Could future elections be altered without oversight?
• Should the EAC change how it certifies and monitors voting labs?
• Is the public being kept in the dark about the technology behind their vote? 

SMART Elections warns this isn’t just about one race:

“If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb, what else is rotting in the shadows of this country’s ballots?”

Other findings in the Lawsuit by Smart Elections

Drop-off Irregularities in Rockland County could mean the results are incorrect

• Drop-off is a measure of the difference between the presidential candidate and a major down-ballot candidate of the same party.
  • A large positive drop-off indicates an “over performance” by a candidate, meaning the candidate received more votes than is typical.
  • A large negative drop-off indicates an “underperformance” by a candidate, meaning the candidate received fewer votes than is typical and could signify votes are missing from the candidate’s totals.
• Republican drop-off (23%): 23% of Trump’s totals in Rockland County exceed the 2024 Republican Senate candidate. The high drop-off rate illustrates that the presidential candidate far outperformed his down-ballot counterpart.
• Democratic drop-off is negative (-9%): 9% of Harris’ totals are below the Democratic Senate candidate. This is a highly unusual phenomenon that was repeated across the state andacross the country. Rockland County is the first county where it is being formally investigated.

Why it matters

Typical drop-off rates run 1-2%. Gaps of 23% or -9% are surprising and could indicate that votes were miscounted. 

Statistical Analysis, Manual Counts & Examination of Voting Systems Can Reveal Problems with Elections

In Bladen County, North Carolina, statistical discrepancies helped investigators identify fraudulent absentee ballots in both the 2016 and 2018 elections.

• In Philadelphia, an election judge repeatedly committed election fraud in multiple elections. It was discovered by a local election official who noticed that the election results did not reconcile correctlyand reported it to law enforcement.
• In Windham County, N.H., voting machines counted the 2020 election results incorrectly due to dust in the machines and folds in the ballots. The incorrect counts were discovered in a hand recount and explained in a forensic audit.

(SMART Elections is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to making U.S. elections secure, accurate, accessible, inclusive, well-administered, and publicly verifiable. SMART Legislation is the action arm of the organization)

Related:

Waiting for US election results?

Analysing the Feasibility of Simultaneous Elections in India: A Review of Committee Recommendations and Constitutional Implications

The post Non-transparency in US 2024 elections? Lawsuit points to possible tampering of Voting Machines before 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 19, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order even as it allowed an appeal filed by a man, who was denied bail by the Uttarakhand High Court in February 2025. The petitioner was arrested under provisions of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly concealing his religious identity and fraudulently marrying the woman under Hindu rites.

In the order, the Supreme Court said: “The respondent-state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families.” The bench further clarified that the ongoing criminal proceedings would not come in the way of the couple living together by choice.

The court further directed the petitioner’s release on bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for nearly six months and that a charge sheet had already been filed. “Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out,” said the bench.  The SC also took note of the argument made by the senior counsel for the petitioner, who contended that the FIR was lodged only after certain individuals and organisations objected to the interfaith marriage. It was pointed out that the wedding took place with the full knowledge and presence of both families, and that Siddiqui provided an affidavit the day after the marriage affirming he would not force his wife to convert and that she would be free to follow her faith.

The Supreme Court also made it clear in their order that during “the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the man,” he and his wife would be free to reside together if they did so “on their own volition.”

This incident is the latest in a long line of incidents where personal relationships have been politicised by the far right, with Uttarakhand being among the most regressive states on this issue.

The FIR in this case was lodged on December 12, 2024, at Rudrapur Police Station in Uttarakhand’s Udham Singh Nagar district, just two days after the couple’s wedding on December 10. The Uttarakhand High Court, had, in February this year, declined to grant Siddiqui bail, holding that facts relating to his religion had allegedly not been disclosed to the woman and her family before the marriage. In its February 28 order rejecting bail, the High Court accepted the prosecution’s argument that the man’s religious identity was deliberately concealed. The High Court observed that while the wedding was solemnised under Hindu customs, and the applicant and his family failed to reveal their Muslim identity until after the marriage.

The complaint was reportedly lodged by a cousin of the woman, alleging that the family discovered the groom’s religious background only upon visiting his residence in Delhi, where they noticed that “most of the people belonged to a different community.” The FIR was filed the very next day, despite an affidavit submitted by Siddiqui on December 11 assuring that he would not pressure his wife into converting and would respect her religious autonomy.

While Siddiqui’s counsel highlighted that his own mother is a practising Hindu and that he grew up in a Hindu environment, the Uttarakhand High Court remained unconvinced. It noted that the couple did not marry under the Special Marriage Act, which governs interfaith unions in India, and that key facts were allegedly kept from the woman’s family, pointing to the affidavit as evidence that “correct facts had not been disclosed.” Rejecting the defence that the information was known to both sides, the High Court concluded, “The applicant does not deserve bail.” This order by a constitutional court raises questions on the issue of constitutional rights and liberty.

In contrast, the Supreme Court viewed the matter through the lens of personal liberty and marital autonomy, reiterating that the right of adult individuals to live together cannot be curtailed by the state on the ground of religious difference. “This is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted,” held the bench, noting the petitioner’s submissions that the couple may choose to live separately from their families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance.

The Order of the Supreme Court may be read here.

Related:

Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts deliver two contradictory judgments on interfaith marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act (SMA)

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, throughout the day, during the one-day session, opposition MLAs and the Chief Minister engaged in a heated discussion on the contentious topic of citizenship: the speeches and deliberations centred around the manner in which the Assam police have been forcibly detaining people in the state in late night operations, wrongly dubbing them as “foreigners” since May 24/25, 2025. Under state target have been especially Bengali-speaking Muslims who have been –without recourse to due process –expelled to no man’s land, many of them have subsequently even returned home.

Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Debabrata Saikia led the charge by moving a motion in the Legislative Assembly, prompting the Chief Minister to respond. Several opposition MLA then took the floor, voicing their concerns and perspectives on the issue. The chief minister Himanta Biswas Sarma attempted to project himself as a saviour of the Assamese speaking communities, pushing the blame on previous Congress governments. This angered several members of the Opposition who took him on, point by point, in detail. They pointed out that the first declaration of ‘D-Voter’ (Doubtful Voter) took place in 1997 when the government was ruled by Prafulla Mahanta of the AGP (Asom Gana Parishad). Sarma also gave incorrect information in the House that the practice of creation of D-Voters was begun during the time of Hiteswar Saikia (Former Congress chief minister of Assam, who is also father of Debabrata Saikia), but the fact is that Hiteswar Saikia was died on April 11, 1996 and the practice of D-voters was started from 1997.

Himanta also defended the moves saying that the “push” was taking place in accordance with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950 and a recent Supreme Court order. Incidentally, the Citizens for Justice and Peace has in memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) detailed how no procedures at all were followed by the authorities while they conducted the recent drives. These may be read here and here.

Meanwhile, the members of the opposition were vociferous in the tactics being employed by the authorities, urging that, any foreigners identified in the state, who have entered after 1971 (the cut-off date in Assam Accord) should be sent abroad (deported) according to provisions of law and procedure and any repatriation agreement with neighbouring countries, however the hounding and torture of poor, innocent Indians under the slur/label of being “Bangladeshi” must be stopped.

The entire speech of the LoP in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia is being reproduced here:

Monday, June 9, 2005

“We all know that Assam Movement was held to expel foreigners and after the Assam Accord of 1985, among all clauses, Clause 5 was very important. (This is) because it talks about the identification of foreigners and (the process to be followed) to expel foreigners from India.

And to carry this out smoothly, NRC updation process was undertaken on the base of 1951 NRC. And, finally, in the year 2013, SC directed (the Assam government) to update the NRC in Assam.  And finally we have the final draft of the NRC dated August 31, 2019.

On July 22, 2018, through a press conference, the then Home minister Rajnath Singh said that even after the final NRC, Foreigners Tribunal will detect the citizenship of people. He also said that any person’s name that has been dropped out from the final draft of NRC, (even) he or she can appeal. When the draft was published, it was seen that 19 lakh people were excluded from the NRC. At the time, Rajnath Singh also announced that a ‘Rejection slip’ will be provided to (ensure that people undergo process) to include their name in the NRC and if needed Goverment will provide the legal aid.

Later also, (with a change of guard) the Home Minister, Amit Shah said that all help will be provided to the people left out from the NRC and only foreigners tribunal will decide on the citizenship. No person should think themselves as outsider, until or unless Foreigners Tribunal take a decision on this, he had said.

The Supreme Court (SC) also declared that in the judgement of Abdul Kuddus that if any person was declared as foreigner he can approach the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal.

After the release of the final draft list of the NRC, government authorities announced that 200 Special tribunals would be set up. However, in October 2023, 3,34,964 cases were reportedly disposed off by the tribunals, 96,146 cases are still ongoing in the FTs. A total of 10, 3764 people were reportedly declared foreigners.

However after the release of the Final Draft of the NRC (August 31, 2019), the government did not provide the rejection slip to those excluded from the list. And it is these who are facing many challenges challenge due to not being enrolled in the NRC. They are facing problems of Aadhaar card exclusion and exclusion from government welfare schemes because “only citizens can avail welfare of the state.”

Recently the Assam Government has “pushed back” more than 100 people based –ostensibly– on a judgement of the SC. People were (simply) left in the No Man’s land. Almost 1200 people were sent, possibly 1000 people didn’t come back but those sent from Assam were taken back again (this was in the context of persons sent from Gujarat, Delhi, etc.)

The Union Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had said, when Indians were repatriated from America or at other times, according to the rules and regulations, no one should be considered a foreigner until proven so. The suffering inflicted on Indian citizens in Assam by labelling them as foreigners has been highlighted in the recent declaration.

Therefore, we demand that, rejection slips should be given through the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. And, through the legal process, foreigners should be identified and those who are Indians should be included. According to a report of CJP (Citizens for Justice and Peace), during the NRC process in 2019, around 60 people in Assam attempted suicide due to various fears and trauma. Among them, 32 were Hindus and the rest belonged to other religions.

One such tragic incident was of a highly educated individual from Kharupetia, who held MA, LLB, and BT degrees, and worked as a teacher. He was subjected to constant taunts and comments like ‘Look Bangladeshi has come’ while walking on the streets or at market, which led him to take his own life in 2018 due to extreme fear and anxiety.

Recently, Sonabhanu from Barpeta was left in no man’s land in May (2025) while her appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court. Additionally, 51-year-old Khairul Islam from Morigaon was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, and he has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

There are many such people for whom the verdict has not been delivered yet they have become victim of the government’s moves. Besides, the statement that citizenship will be granted based on a particular religion to those who are Bangladeshi, under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2014, which was mentioned in 2019, has brought shame to many. This is evident from the suicide of Nirad Baran Das ((On October 20, 2918 tragedy struck Kharupetia town in Darrang district of Assam, when a retired school teacher and advocate Nirod Baran Das “took his life by hanging himself to a fan in his home.” CJP’s report had stated that Das had become “fearful and insecure of being arrested, wrested of his citizenship, declared a non-Indian, took his own life after hanging himself from a fan in his home”, claiming, NRC had declared him a foreigner even though “he was born and brought up in the town where he taught” and was in “possession of all the legacy documents.”))

.Therefore (we demand), that the process (of expelling foreigners) should be carried out as per the Assam Accord. The manner in which (Indians), who are “merely suspected” as D-Voters (Doubtful Voters), are declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunal, and later proved not to be foreigners in the High Court – this process needs to be more realistic so that people are not wrongly labelled as foreigners.

Other interventions by opposition members in the Assam legislative assembly on June 9:

• Jakir Hussain Sikdar, MLA from the Sarukhetri Assembly constituency, and Assam Pradesh Congress Working President said, “The government’s foreigner identification process is fundamentally flawed. Identifying individuals without sufficient information and evidence is entirely incorrect. The government’s misguided decisions are wrongly labelling Indian citizens as foreigners.”
• Nurul Huda, MLA, Indian National Congress (INC) from the Rupohihat Assembly constituency said that the unlawful targeting of ordinary Indian people as foreigners is unacceptable,’ he said, cautioning that continued police harassment without due process will undermine faith in the Indian judiciary.
• Ashraful Hussain, AIUDF MLA from Chenga Assembly constituency stated that the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam operate under the direct influence of the state government, with the Home Department dictating their actions. He expressed deep concern that selectively targeting indigenous people based on religion, language, and race would be utterly unfortunate.

In his replies to the Opposition members, chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that Government does not need to take NRC as reference for deportation of foreigners. He self-abrogated the powers to deport to the District Collector and myself, legally or illegally! He added, “We will further expedite the issue of foreign extradition in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment. All those who came after 1971 are foreigners.”

When the Opposition rebutted stating that many who were forcibly deported have returned, an unreptentant Himanta said, “”We have pushed back about 330 people, none of them have returned and there is no question of them coming back, and this push back will increase further.”  He added, “There are 35 more ready (to be sent): I will send them too (uses un-parliamentary language) “. He also mocked Congress for starting evictions, tribal belts and blocks, D-voters, detention camps, etc., and said that he is trying to do all these things now. He also claimed that like Prafulla Mahanta (former CM) who created D-Voters, he has garnered votes on the question of “expelling foreigners.” I on the other hand, am working for my ideology and that of my party (BJP) which is different. Sarma also made a rather outlandish claim, “Today the Deputy Speaker of Assam Assembly told me that I also have the power to review FT orders, so I will also make anyone who has been made Indian into a foreigner!.. “After Bimala Prasad Chaliha (Former CM of Assam), I am the only Chief Minister who has been able to make any foreign investments.”

At this point Akhil Gogoi Independent MLA from the Raijor Dol from the Sibsagar Assembly Constituency intervened, “It would be better if you spoke like a Chief Minister, please speak like a Chief Minister.” To which Sarma replied, “I want to speak like an Assamese.” He added, “I am the Chief Minister later, but I am an Assamese first. Whatever I say, I will say it like an Assamese, like a proud Assamese.”

Akhil Gogoi said, “You are not a proud Assamese, you are a Big Zero. In your day you could not send a single foreigner (out) legally, what you did you have sent illegally.” Himanta replied,”I will send legally and I will send illegally, yes I will send illegally. ”

Related:

Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

The post Assam: Stormy one day Assembly session, LoP Debabrata Saikia compels CM Himanta Sarma to respond appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hindustan Times report triggers response

Sibal’s comments came in the wake of a June 9 Hindustan Times report which revealed that the Supreme Court had initiated preparations for an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav — who allegedly made communal and Islamophobic remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in December 2023 — but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Sources cited in the report claimed that then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had begun preliminary steps based on an adverse report from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, but halted the process following a letter from the Secretariat claiming that the matter was already under parliamentary consideration.

Sibal: “This is discriminatory and constitutionally perverse”

Sibal minced no words in calling out what he viewed as an institutional derailment of accountability. “This is very unfortunate and smacks of discrimination,” Sibal said during the press conference. “The in-house procedure has nothing to do with the impeachment motion. It’s an internal judicial process initiated by the Chief Justice of India to assess whether allegations warrant further action. By informing the Supreme Court that the motion was pending in the Rajya Sabha — despite it not even being admitted — the Chairman effectively paralysed the judiciary’s internal scrutiny mechanism.”

He reminded the public that the impeachment motion was submitted on December 13, 2024, bearing 55 signatures — more than the required 50 under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Yet, he noted, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has still not completed signature verification, nearly six months later.

“How long does it take to verify 55 signatures?” he asked. “Why is this process being deliberately delayed? Is the government trying to protect Justice Yadav, who is set to retire in early 2026?”

On Justice Yadav’s speech and Supreme Court’s role

Justice Yadav’s speech, delivered on December 8, 2023, at a VHP event, stirred nationwide controversy. During the speech, Justice Yadav declared that “this is Hindustan” and that the country must run according to the majority, while endorsing the Uniform Civil Code and making derogatory comparisons between Hindu and Muslim personal laws. His statements were widely seen as communal in nature. (Detailed report may be read here and here.)

Sibal pointed out that the Supreme Court had taken note of the speech and sought an explanation from Justice Yadav. The Allahabad High Court Chief Justice reportedly submitted a negative report, further warranting an in-house investigation. However, Sibal noted that after Rajya Sabha Chairperson Dhankhar told Parliament on February 13, 2025, that the matter should be left to Parliament, the Supreme Court backed off.

“This subversion of the in-house procedure — which exists precisely to safeguard constitutional standards in the judiciary — is deeply concerning,” said Sibal. “It shows that the Government and Parliament are stifling independent judicial mechanisms.”

Impeachment panel may be formed

A June 10 Indian Express report suggested that Rajya Sabha Chairman may now be considering constituting a committee to examine the charges against Justice Yadav. The report confirms that the signature verification process is still ongoing, and that one signature was duplicated due to a clerical error — though Opposition sources, according to the report, insist that the requisite number remains intact.

Dhankhar had earlier stated in Parliament on March 21 that two rounds of emails were sent to MPs for signature verification. “One member denied having signed, and his name appears twice,” Dhankhar had said, implying that further scrutiny was needed.

Opposition sources. According to the IE report, explained that multiple sets of representation papers had been prepared and circulated for the motion, and the duplication was a result of confusion — not fraud. “Even if one signature is invalid, there are still more than 50 valid ones. The threshold is met,” a source said.

Sibal warns against using in-house procedure to remove Justice Yashwant Varma

In an important aside, Sibal also raised serious concerns about reports that the Government is trying to remove Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma using the findings of an in-house committee report, without invoking the Judges (Inquiry) Act. “If that is true, it’s completely unconstitutional. The in-house report is meant only for the CJI, not for executive action or removal proceedings,” he warned.

“This sets a dangerous precedent. If judges can be removed on the basis of in-house reports alone, judicial independence is in grave peril. There’s a constitutional process under Article 124 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Skipping that is a clear overreach by the executive,” Sibal asserted.

Targeting judiciary, shielding allies?

Sibal also took aim at Vice President Dhankhar’s selective outrage, referring to his recent criticism of the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 in the Tamil Nadu Governor-Bill Assent matter. Dhankhar had accused the Supreme Court of treating Article 142 like a “nuclear missile” and questioned whether timelines could be imposed on constitutional authorities like the President and Governors.

“Today, we are talking about the same thing,” Sibal retorted. “No Court can force the Chairman to admit an impeachment motion within a certain timeline — but equally, the Chairman cannot use that discretion to permanently stall a constitutional process. Six months have passed without even verifying signatures. Is this constitutional silence — or constitutional sabotage?”

Legal and constitutional context

Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a Supreme Court judge can be removed for “proved misbehavior or incapacity” following a parliamentary inquiry and approval by a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The same provision applies to High Court judges via Article 218.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets out the procedure: at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs must submit a notice for impeachment. Upon prima facie satisfaction, the Chairman/Speaker constitutes a three-member inquiry committee.

Sibal emphasised that the in-house mechanism developed by the Supreme Court is entirely independent of this process — it is an internal ethical accountability measure, not a substitute for impeachment, nor subordinate to Parliament.

Conclusion

Sibal’s remarks underscore deep concerns about political interference in judicial accountability mechanisms and what appears to be deliberate inertia in processing a serious impeachment motion. As Parliament prepares for the Monsoon Session on July 21, all eyes will be on whether Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar finally takes forward the motion — or continues to allow what Sibal has described as a “dangerous constitutional standstill” to persist.

Related:

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

The post Kapil Sibal slams Rajya Sabha chairman for stalling impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav, calls it a blow to judicial accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The letter was initiated by the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), a coalition of grassroots movements in India and signed by numerous other people’s collectives and concerned citizens, committed to justice and human rights. The signatories have condemned the capture of the Freedom Flotilla vessel Madleen, a UK-flagged civilian ship, by Israeli forces in international waters on June 9, 2025, and the unlawful blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. They demand the immediate and dignified release of the eight detained Madleen activists, the return of the four ‘deported’ activists to resume their peaceful mission, an end to Israel’s blockade, accountability for its genocidal war crimes and immediate, unhindered access to humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Organised by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, Madleen carried vital aid—baby formula, food, medical supplies—for Gaza’s population facing forced starvation due to Israel’s blockade and ongoing genocide. The letter states that the British Deputy High Commission in Israel has clear legal and diplomatic responsibilities: to intervene in the defence of the UK-flagged Madleen and its detained crew, in line with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Article 5). This includes demanding accountability for their treatment, pressing the FCDO to act for the Madleen’s release, and supporting ICC/UN international war crimes investigations.

The signatories call upon the United Kingdom (UK) to fulfil its legal and moral responsibility, and to act without delay in defence of the 12 activists who were unlawfully abducted and silenced for their solidarity. These brave activists are doing what no international body or state has effectively done: directly confronting the illegal blockade to deliver aid to Gaza’s starving population. They cannot be penalized for upholding human rights that the international community has painstakingly defined and defended since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

1. The signatories demand has been made of the British High Commission, through its offices across India and its counterpart in Tel Aviv to:
2. Secure the immediate and dignified release of the eight Madleen activists, including MEP Rima Hassan, ensuring protection from torture and clarifying diplomatic immunities.
3. Recover the Madleen and its cargo for Gaza’s urgent aid delivery.
4. Support the Hind Rajab Foundation’s complaint, pushing for a UK criminal investigation into Shayetet 13, Vice Admiral David Saar Salama, and other senior military commanders implicated in war crimes in the Madleen, Conscience, and Mavi Marmara incidents, holding Israel accountable.
5. Demand the lifting of Israel’s illegal blockade and ensure immediate, unimpeded access to all land and sea routes for humanitarian aid, dismantling the US-Israeli militarized aid model.
6. Compel the UK to lead decisive diplomatic action to end Israel’s impunity and hold it accountable for genocide, aligning with its justice commitments.
7. Urge the UK to champion EU naval escorts to protect humanitarian missions to Gaza, ensuring safe aid delivery against Israel’s aggression.

The letter states that UK’s obligation to uphold international law is absolute. Israel’s abduction of the Madleen activists, unlawful detention, and prevention of aid delivery demand unequivocal condemnation and strict sanctions on Israel, both by the UK and the international community. The horrific use of starvation as a weapon of ‘war’ by Israel and bombing at aid delivery centres is condemnable.

The signatories call upon government of the United Kingdom to initiate immediate action towards release of all those detained, uninterrupted delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza and an urgent investigation and accountability into the genocidal war crimes of Israel. They also demand an end to the impunity being enjoyed by Israel, especially due to inaction by and complicity of the UK and other powerful governments.

The entire text of the memorandum including signatories may be seen here

Related:

Free unrestricted access to Gaza: Reporters without Borders & CPJ issue open letter

The post Gaza: 700 citizens demand release of detained Madleen activists, call upon UK to fix Israel’s accountability for genocide, blockade, war crimes in Palestine appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The start of 2025 was marked with a publicity push by the Union and Uttar Pradesh governments around the Kumbh, a ritualistic observance that takes place in Prayagraj (Allahabad) every 14 years. Despite coverage by independent media, others and You Tubers around the crushing stampede, the state government had gone out on a limb to deny this. The government has so far admitted to only around 30 deaths.

Following an initial information blackout and no statement for over a day, police had said that 30 people had died. This figure has never been updated and the government has as yet not given a total count of the people who died at the Kumbh, even though it has announced a Rs. 25-lakh compensation for the families of those who died. The Allahabad high court recently asked for it to disclose the total number of people who died at the Kumbh this time.

BBC reports that it has met 26 other families who received compensation in cash bundles of Rs. 5 lakh each, but the names of the victims were not used to update the figures of the dead. The investigation traversed 50 districts and meetings with 100 families, and the ability of the investigation to confirm “at least 82 deaths”. The BBC collected videos and photographic evidence.

In a vast overreach, the union government and the Adityanath government have claimed that “66 crore persons attended the 45-day Kumbh and claimed that it was a huge success. Rs. 7000 crore of public money was reportedly spent on the event.

Finally, due to the pressure, it was only as late as February 19 that the chief minister Adityanath made a statement in the state Assembly on the stampede, admitting to 30 deaths, and 29 bodies being identified. He referred to some places as “pressure points”, saying that some difficulty was experienced there. BBC in its investigation found that deaths at occurred at four of these so-called “pressure points”.

The report classifies the victims into three categories, the first who received officially acknowledged compensation of Rs. 25 lakh each, and the second category of those who got Rs. 5 lakh – in cash. The third category of those victims who got nothing at all.

To the news that government giving cash as compensation for such avoidable tragedies goes, the disbursal of ex-gratia compensation to the next of kin of those who died in the stampede at the New Delhi railway station in February had raised eyebrows, and many questions too, with regard to the mode of payment. Union Railway ministry officials were reported to have been seen “handing over wads of cash, in bundles of notes of Rs. 100 and 50, after announcing that it would provide Rs. 10 lakh ex-gratia to the kin.”

37 of the deceased that were paid Rs. 25 lakh was by direct transfer or by cheque. But BBC says it is unable to confirm where the money for 36 families – who confirmed Rs. 5 lakh cash bundles each by the government adding up to Rs. 1 crore and 30 lakh – came from. Most of those who the investigation has confirmed got cash, have videos and images of the money being handed over. The report says that in most cases, UP police was involved in the handing over of money.

The BBC also reports that it was able to confirm that there are at least 19 families who have lost people in the stampede but received no help from the government.

The investigation has dozens of accounts of eyewitnesses, photographs and conversations with affected parties.

The report, released today, June 11, concludes by saying that there is a possibility that the numbers killed in the stampede is much higher, but they are sticking to 82 as that is the number they have been able to confirm by way of “solid evidence and eyewitness accounts”.

This editorial by The Hindu in January 2025 recalls the high cost of stampedes around religious gatherings in India.

Related:

Unveiling the hidden challenges behind the greatest religious celebration ever: Maha Kumbh, 2025

The post A staggering 82 Killed in Mahakumbh Stampede: BBC Investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sarma’s June 9 letter is his expression of concern. He has also referred to his June 2 letter, which detailed how the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) reportedly made “out-of-the-way, imprudent concessions” to Starlink. Starlink Corporation is owned by USA’s multi billionaire Elon Musk. In that letter, Sarma had argued that allowing the foreign company – which he said was “working in tandem with the US defence services” – a “near monopoly on direct satellite surveillance over India” openly violated the Supreme Court’s 2G spectrum ruling where it said that such resources should not be assigned opaquely.

Sarma also highlighted an “extra-ordinary exemption” granted to Starlink from the standard security rule allowing authorities to monitor a licensee’s equipment near international borders.

Sarma, a 1965 batch IAS officer, has publicly expressed his concerns earlier too. In a letter dated November 14, 2024, to the DOT Secretary, Sarma first warned against directly assigning strategic satellite spectrum, particularly to foreign firms like Starlink with known “close ties with the US Army.”

Sarma has cited reports suggesting Starlink is “a time-tested reliable satellite bus technology that can accommodate various payloads as needed, including radars, optical cameras, and infrared (IR) missile launch signalling systems.” He urged that satellite spectrum be reserved for the Indian Space Research Organisation, the defence forces and strategic Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs).

From February 23, 2025 onwards, Sarma’s warnings have grown more urgent. Citing news that the US had reportedly threatened to “shut off” Starlink in Ukraine unless it secured a deal for a “lion’s share in its mineral resources,” he urged the DOT to tighten safeguards against Starlink. He expressed dismay that India was welcoming the company “with open arms… against all legal norms, ignoring all strategic implications.”

Sarma raised the issue of monopoly market practices on March 13, 2025, alleging Starlink was “forming a cartel with the two domestic telecom operators, namely, Jio and Airtel.” He suggested this would allow them to “dominate satellite spectrum use at the cost of millions of telecom customers in India,” potentially leading to a “scam far worse and more egregious than the 2G spectrum scam.”

Now, in his latest communication, Sarma points to new foreign events to highlight his security concerns. He cites news reports from early June 2025, including a detailed Washington Post article dated June 7, 2025. According to this report, “Elon Musk’s team at the U.S. DOGE Service and allies in the Trump administration ignored White House communications experts worried about potential security breaches when DOGE personnel installed Musk’s Starlink internet service in the complex this year.”

The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that a Starlink terminal was installed on the roof of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in February. A “Starlink Guest” WiFi network then appeared on White House phones, asking only for a password without further checks. This setup, the report indicated, could allow data transmission “without any kind of record or tracking,” bypassing normal White House IT security.

One source has told the Post, “With a Starlink connection that means White House devices could leave the network and go out through gateways… It’s going to help you bypass security.” Representative Stephen F. Lynch, the House Oversight Committee’s acting top Democrat, said the situation “could have the potential to undermine our national security by exposing sensitive data and information to hackers, our adversaries, or those wishing to do Americans harm.”

Sarma hopes these reports will “wake up the government to the security risk posed by foreign players in India.” He stated, “Evidently, on extraneous considerations, the government has chosen to ignore my cautionary letters and go ahead with granting clearance to StarLink.”

This senior former bureaucrat from India’s civil services has also pressed for a judicial enquiry to examine several points: whether directly assigning spectrum complied with the Supreme Court’s 2G judgment; changes to StarLink’s security license conditions; the strategic effects of StarLink’s near-monopoly and its US defence ties; and the likely loss to the public treasury from not auctioning the spectrum.

He ended his letter stating that the “manner in which DOT had gone out of the way to give a special treatment to Elon Musk and StarLink, throwing caution and legality to the wind, raises serious concerns about the propriety of the deal itself.”

He warned that failing to start an enquiry “would lead one to draw the inference that the government does not wish to hold itself accountable to the Parliament and the public.”

In his previous letter, Sarma had stated clearly that if the government failed to respond promptly, he would “have no other alternative than to seek judicial intervention.”

The government has not publicly responded to Sarma’s latest claims yet.

Related:

Koo instead of Twitter: Is India becoming the next China?

Plea seeking restoration of internet in Haryana, HC issues notice

After 18 months, J&K gets 4G internet back!

The post Ex Sec E.A.S. Sarma expresses ‘serious concerns’ over Starlink deal; demands judicial probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.