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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Form 6 Trap!

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

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

This raises a fundamental question of legality.

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

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

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

That is the Commission’s defence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Form 6, the September 26 order states:

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

It further states:

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

This has three important implications:

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

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

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

What is the “Process of Continuous Updation”?

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

What documents are required under this process?

They are not the special SIR documents.

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

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

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

This produces an extraordinary situation, a duality:

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

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

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

And that leads to an even more serious question:

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

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

Ten People’s Demands:

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

1) SIR must be scrapped with immediate effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

To facilitate the issuance of the Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) required for proving citizenship under the SIR process, the Congress government in Karnataka recently issued an order simplifying the rules. The order, however, came late and was also made in haste.

Even before the Election Commission had an opportunity to express any opinion on the matter, Shobha and her brigade began raising objections to the PRC that are not only baseless and ridiculous but also dangerous.

The full text of the complaint may be accessed here:

The Constitution of India guarantees One Nation, One Citizenship. No State Government can create a parallel mechanism that undermines this constitutional principle.

The Karnataka Congress Government’s Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) notification raises serious… pic.twitter.com/essRFW0GES

— Shobha Karandlaje (@ShobhaBJP) July 10, 2026

The essence of Shobha’s allegations is as follows:

1. The Karnataka government is unconstitutionally creating a new category called “Permanent Residents” as an alternative to “Indian citizenship.” Through this, even those who are not citizens of India are allegedly being enabled to acquire citizenship.
2. Permanent Residence Certificates should not be issued to non-citizens. Therefore, the Union government must direct that such certificates be issued only to those whose Indian citizenship has already been established.
3. Until the constitutional validity and legal status of Karnataka’s Permanent Residence Certificate are decided, the issuance of these certificates should be prohibited.

At first glance, the complaint contains neither logic nor patriotism. Not even the slightest concern for the public interest is visible. Instead, it reflects nothing more than the mind-set of, “Even if one eye is lost, it is worth it so long as the person hated loses both eyes,” driven entirely by malice and hatred.

The first question, therefore, is whether these allegations contain any substance.

Shobhaji and  BJP:

Isn’t the Permanent Residence Certificate itself meant to establish citizenship?

Being members of the BJP and the RSS, familiarity with logic, law, and the Constitution has naturally remained limited. Even more disturbing is that administration officials and advisers to the Opposition INC government, who were expected to provide sound legal guidance after assuming office appear to have become just as fallacious as the BJP itself. The complaint speaks for itself.

The argument insists that a Permanent Residence Certificate should be issued only after Indian citizenship has already been proven. But, Shobhaji, does any single document exist in India that conclusively certifies someone as an Indian citizen? As a Union Minister, you should perhaps ask  the Prime Minister this question.

After all, the government has already declared that even a passport—once regarded as proof of citizenship—is merely a travel document, no different in principle from a bus ticket. If that is the position even for those who possess passports, how are the overwhelming majority of poor and oppressed Hindus expected to prove their citizenship, Shobhaji?

When that is the reality, what colonial-era documents, prescribed by you , the actual Aryan migrants who now claim authority, are this country’s indigenous people expected to produce beyond evidence that they have lived in India for decades?

Does your ilk have slightest understanding of the lives of Hindu daily-wage labourers, Hindu agricultural workers, Hindu Devadasis, Hindu transgender persons, or Hindu migrant workers? We know there already that is nothing Bharatiya (patriotic) about the Bharatiya Janata Party. But Nor is this a party representing Hindus as a whole. Through this very allegation, proof has once again been furnished that it represents nothing more than the Brahminical interests of the privileged classes of the Savarna Hindus.

When the government itself does not issue any definitive document establishing citizenship, how can it be argued that even a Permanent Residence Certificate—often obtained by ordinary people only after immense hardship—should be rejected unless citizenship has already been proven? Isn’t that the height of absurdity, sophistry, and cruelty?

PRC: A Provision Made Available by the Election Commission Itself

Shobhaji,

The SIR process is, in fact, intended to verify people’s citizenship. The body conducting that exercise is none other than the Central Election Commission, which functions as an instrument of your government.

It is your own Central Election Commission that has declared, as part of its rules, that submission of any one of the following documents is sufficient to establish a person’s status as a voter and, by extension, as a citizen.

The list of documents is as follows:

1. Identity card or pension order issued to regular employees by any Central or State government or government undertaking.
2. Any document, identity card, or certificate issued in India before  July 1, 1987 by governments, local authorities, post offices, the Life Insurance Corporation, or banks.
3. Birth certificate issued by the competent authority.
4. Passport.
5. SSLC certificate or any other recognized educational certificate issued by an authorized educational authority or university.
6. Permanent Residence Certificate issued by the competent State authority.
7. Forest Rights Certificate.
8. Any caste certificate issued by the competent authority.
9. NRC records, wherever an NRC has been conducted. (At present, this applies only to Assam.)
10. Family records prepared by State governments or local authorities.
11. Any government-issued land or house records.
12. Aadhaar Card. However the Supreme Court has indirectly legitimised the indirect rejection of Aadhar card in its May 27 judgement. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Election Commission of India (@ecisveep)

Now pay attention to Item 6:

Permanent Residence Certificate issued by Competent State Authority.

That means:

1. A Permanent Residence Certificate is one of the accepted documents for establishing citizenship; and
2. It is issued by the competent authority of the State government, not by the Union government. Nor is it issued after citizenship has already been established. On the contrary, the BJP-controlled, Supreme Court-approved Election Commission has explicitly stated that State governments may issue this document for the very purpose of enabling people to establish their citizenship.

Therefore, this is not some new mechanism invented by the Congress government in Karnataka.

(The DK Shivakumar government has certainly displayed delay and inertia in implementing this process. That raises a separate question as to whether the document will ultimately reach those who genuinely lack it. But that is an entirely different issue.)

That is why the allegation that the Permanent Residence Certificate is a “conspiracy to confer citizenship upon non-citizens” is itself malicious. If genuine commitment exists behind this accusation, then opposition should be directed against those who accepted this provision in the first place—the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, in other words, your own government—and against the Central Election Commission that functions at your behest.

Nor is the Permanent Residence Certificate the only State-issued document included in this list. The Commission has also recognized five other documents that are issued by State governments:

1. Identity documents for State government employees.
2. SSLC and other recognized educational certificates issued by authorized educational institutions or universities.
3. Caste certificates issued by the competent authority.
4. Family records prepared by State governments or local authorities.
5. Government-issued land or house records.

Are all these documents not issued by State governments? Hasn’t the Central Election Commission itself recognized them as valid documents? Then how can these documents suddenly become alternatives or substitutes for Indian citizenship?

If that is indeed the argument, were these very documents withheld from poor and oppressed Hindu communities in BJP-ruled States wherever the SIR process was conducted?

For that reason, the allegations made by Shobha and the BJP against the PRC are devoid of substance. They are absurd and built entirely on sophistry.

More importantly, they are dangerous.

The very same line of argument was deployed by the BJP in West Bengal, where it was used as a strategy to deny documentation—particularly to Muslims—and thereby push them out of the electoral rolls. As though waiting for precisely such a pretext, the Election Commission accepted the BJP’s allegations almost in their entirety.

ECI Orders That Curtailed West Bengal’s People-Friendly PRC

When the ECI  initiated the controversial SIR exercise in Bihar through the TMC government in West Bengal anticipated its implications. In July 2025, it issued an order simplifying the process of issuing Domicile Certificates so that residents of West Bengal could obtain the document without being subjected to unnecessary harassment.

However, once the SIR process commenced in West Bengal and district authorities began issuing Domicile Certificates, the BJP in the state demanded that under no circumstances should Domicile Certificates (PRCs) issued after July 2025 be accepted.

The Election Commission promptly accepted that demand. It began separately classifying and rejecting PRCs issued after July 2025.

A detailed report on the matter is available here:

The Central Election Commission subsequently went a step further. Not only did it reject Domicile Certificates altogether, it also issued fresh notices even to those who had previously been issued such certificates. It was only after the Mamata Banerjee government launched a massive public campaign across West Bengal in protest that the Election Commission agreed to accept the document once again—but only after imposing several stringent conditions.

The full text can be accessed here:

The Government Order dated November 2, 1999 relating to Domicile Certificates in West Bengal is available here:

That order makes it clear that eligibility for obtaining a Domicile Certificate is restricted. It also mandates that, in addition to documentary requirements, every applicant’s citizenship and police verification must be completed.

In its final order dated February 8, the Election Commission stipulated that:

1. A West Bengal Domicile Certificate must conform strictly to the Government Order dated November 2, 1999.
2. It must be issued only by the competent authority.
3. An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) may recognize the certificate only after being satisfied that every prescribed procedure has been duly followed.

Responsibility for this verification was assigned to Micro Observers.

In other words, the Election Commission refused to recognize the simplified procedure introduced by the West Bengal government or the certificates issued under that simplified framework.

A similar situation is now unfolding in Karnataka. The DK Shivakumar government has simplified the rules governing the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificates, and the BJP has begun the very same campaign of misinformation that was witnessed in West Bengal.

Karnataka’s PRC Is People-Friendly—But Will the Election Commission Accept It?

Under Karnataka’s newly issued PRC guidelines, eligibility for Permanent Residence is based on criteria such as a minimum of ten years’ residence in Karnataka, ten years of schooling in the state, ownership of immovable property, and similar qualifications. To establish these requirements, the rules provide that documents such as an Aadhaar card, ration card, Revenue Department records, electoral rolls, and similar records are sufficient.

The guidelines go further. Officials conducting verification are permitted to undertake local inquiries and obtain reports from Village Accountants. Oral testimony has also been recognized as a form of evidence.

Most importantly, the new rules explicitly state that an application must not be rejected merely because a particular document is unavailable. They also require authorities to provide written reasons for any rejection, thereby strengthening official accountability while making the process significantly more inclusive.

There can therefore be little doubt that these new rules are more people-friendly than the previous framework.

The real question, however, is whether a Permanent Residence Certificate obtained through such a simplified and inclusive process will be accepted as a valid document under an SIR exercise that has been designed precisely to exclude as many people as possible.

Furthermore, while framing these new rules, the Karnataka government has implicitly indicated that the amendments were introduced specifically and exclusively to address the requirements of the SIR process. Consequently, although Karnataka’s revised PRC rules may be more citizen-friendly than before, it is doubtful whether they will be Election Commission-friendly or ultimately accepted for SIR purposes.

The Election Commission is under no obligation to accept amendments introduced by the Karnataka government. Just as it did in West Bengal, it may reject them altogether or impose its own conditions, leaving the final decision to the discretion of its own officials and thereby making the process even more stringent.

Indeed, Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer has already declined to make any commitment regarding the validity of the state’s revised PRC rules, maintaining that no definitive position can yet be taken.

Is Congress Prepared to Relinquish Power and Confront the Election Commission?

There may be another strategy at work behind all this.

In Karnataka, the first draft of the electoral roll is scheduled to be published on August 5. Thereafter, objections may be filed and supporting documents submitted until September 5. But what happens if, after August 5, the Chief Electoral Officer declares that PRC documents will not be accepted? Will voters who relied on those assurances—farmers, agricultural labourers, daily-wage workers, and other ordinary citizens—be able to assemble an entirely new set of documents within a month? Is the Election Commission’s studied silence, then, part of a deliberate strategy to maximize exclusion from the electoral rolls?

If that is indeed the case, will the Congress government and the Congress party launch a constitutional confrontation against the Election Commission? Will they be prepared to declare non-cooperation with the Commission in order to protect the people and the Republic, even at the cost of losing power? Will they create a constitutional crisis if necessary and wage a political battle to defend the Constitution?

Or will they simply continue publicizing their own people-friendly initiative while, in substance, leaving the PRC incapable of protecting the very people it was meant to serve, thereby allowing the BJP’s agenda to prevail?

The Congress party’s conduct in other states where the SIR process has already been completed does not leave much room for uncertainty about the answer.

Without Repealing the SIR, the Oppressed Cannot Be Protected

The Modi government and the Election Commission are conducting the SIR exercise with the determined objective of removing as many people as possible from the electoral rolls on one pretext or another. Even if only a minor procedural lapse is found in the issuance of a Domicile Certificate, the Commission can simply declare another “discrepancy” and invalidate the document.

That is because the Supreme Court has already held that the Election Commission possesses the authority to frame such rules within the SIR process.

For that reason, Karnataka’s Muslims, Dalit and other oppressed communities cannot be shielded from the BJP–RSS–Election Commission’s SIR offensive merely through the Congress government’s half-hearted PRC initiative.

That is precisely why democracy itself cannot survive unless the SIR process is repealed.

And even after the present SIR exercise concludes, another sustained people’s movement will be necessary—not only to secure the inclusion of those who have been excluded from the electoral rolls, but also to ensure that the SIR process itself is ultimately repealed.

[1] Minister of State for Labour & Employment and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) in the Government of India. A senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, she currently serves as the Member of Parliament for the Bangalore North constituency

[2] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/not-23-hindu-deaths-only-nine-congress-tells-bjp/article22515602.ece

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

Related:

SIR 2025-2026: A backdoor exercise to bring in the NRC?

Karnataka’s new PRC rules are people-friendly, but will the ECI accept them?

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

The post PRC, SIR and a BJP Hawk Shobha Karandlaje! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Within just four days of the commencement of SIR (SIR commenced on June 30, 2026), two BLOs have died in Karnataka. Another person collapsed due to severe stress and has been admitted to hospital.

In addition, as newspapers reported on July 6, yesterday, senior officials ‘have threatened BLOs with disciplinary action’, including removal from their jobs, if they fail to complete the distribution of forms today itself. This has created even more dangerous pressure on them. It is certain to have even more fatal consequences in the coming days.

Furthermore, voters across the state are facing numerous difficulties while filling out the Enumeration Form and are experiencing immense anxiety. In what is described as a simple process, election officials are failing to provide proper answers even to simple questions, thereby further increasing public anxiety.

It is only natural that this anxiety among the people will increase further after the publication of the draft roll-on August 5. During that period, the state is likely to witness even greater chaos and helpless anxiety among the people.

Therefore, conscious sections of society must remain alert, understand the causes behind all these tragedies, and stand against the danger.

In this context, it is necessary to understand the real reasons behind the inhuman pressures being created by the Commission.

What is causing the deaths of BLOs and the anxiety among voters?

In Karnataka, the process of distributing and collecting Enumeration Forms, which began on June 30, must be completed and digitised by July 29—that is, within one month. This is because the Election Commission (ECI) has, without any rational basis, imposed an unscientific and undemocratic deadline requiring the entire SIR process to be completed by October 2026—that is, within a total period of three months. It is this deadline that is creating enormous pressure on both BLOs and voters. This, when elections to the State Assembly are due only in mid-2028, that is at least 18 months after October 2026. Why then the unholy hurry?

What is the urgency behind the cut-off date of October 2026?

The ECI itself admits that the previous SIR in 2002 was carried out gradually over a period of one-and-a-half years.

The real motive and intention of the Commission and the ruling BJP regime is to complete SIR in 31 states across the country by December 2026, before the Census begins in February 2027. That is why this unscientific deadline has been imposed.

What is the connection between the Census and the SIR?

A Census is generally conducted to enumerate/count the population of the country. However, the Modi government –which heads an ideological majoritarian state– had intended to use the 2020 Census to verify people’s citizenship and to strip communities it did not want of their citizenship.

That is why the CAA was enacted in 2019.

For the 2020–21 Census, questionnaires had been prepared for creating the NPR (National Population Register) by asking people for ‘proof of citizenship.’

The plan was then to separate those who could prove their citizenship and prepare the NRC (National Register of Citizens). Those who could not provide proof of citizenship were to be excluded from the NRC, placed on a list of ‘suspected foreigners’, and subjected to processes aimed at deporting them from the country. Or else…

However, this could not be implemented because of a massive public outcry and sustained public protests. The Census itself was not conducted in 2020–21 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, the Census is set to begin again in February 2027. (The house-listing exercise will be completed in 2026.) While only ₹3,000 crore was allocated for the Census in the 2025 Budget, ₹6,000 crore has been allocated in the 2026 Budget for conducting the NPR alongside the Census. Reported Moneycontrol.

This only means one thing: that the Modi government is now moving ahead to complete, during this Census, what it could not accomplish in 2019.

It is possible to carry out the NRC through the Census process itself. But instead of conducting the NRC directly, the same questions are now being asked through SIR, thereby completing the groundwork for the NRC.

Isn’t the SIR just a Voter Verification process?

No. The lawyers for the Election Commission in the proceedings contesting the controversial SIR before the Supreme Court have made it clear that SIR is being conducted to examine citizenship and not merely to revise electoral rolls:

“Revision of electoral rolls had been done earlier on the basis of self-declaration of citizenship. This [SIR 2025] we found was an opportune time to take note of this statutory amendment of 2003 and examine citizenship for the purpose of preparing the electoral roll.” – the Hindu

Understand the Chronology

First, SIR.
Then, the Census.
Alongside it, the NPR.
Immediately after that, the NRC.

Therefore, SIR is being rushed through in order to prepare lists of citizens and non-citizens required for the NPR, which is to be conducted alongside the 2027 Census, and for the NRC that is to follow.

This is the only reason why the present SIR enumeration process is being hurriedly completed within a three-month period even in states such as Karnataka, where elections are not currently due. SIR has to be completed across the country before the 2027 Census.

This is precisely why Chief Electoral Officers are pressuring BLOs to distribute, collect, and digitise SIR forms within one month.

Without providing proper and comprehensive training or the necessary time, BLOs are being threatened with various disciplinary measures if they fail to meet the targets within the prescribed period. That is why, as has happened in other states, a series of deaths among BLOs has now begun in Karnataka as well, with BLOs unable to withstand the pressure.

Although the SIR enumeration questionnaire may appear simple at first glance, it has created considerable confusion. It has been designed by officials who have little understanding of the lives and awareness levels of ordinary people, in order to serve the needs of their political masters.

People unfamiliar with the language of administration are filling out the forms in ways they understand and are consequently getting into difficulties. Here too, instead of creating awareness and collecting the forms patiently, the rushed process is causing anxiety among the people.

Following this difficult, non-transparent and unfriendly process, ‘the draft roll’ will be published on August 5. Those whose names are missing as well as those who receive notices because the information they have provided ‘fails to satisfy 12 categories of logical consistency checks’, (Logical Discrepancy), will thereafter get only one month to get their names re-inserted in the roll.

If they fail to provide documents that satisfy the administration within one month, they will be excluded from the roll.

This will then create even greater chaos and anxiety and may have fatal consequences for voters.

This then is the real reason behind the brutal administrative push to complete SIR before the Census begins.

This is the real reason. The only real reason

SIR is being conducted in order to unconstitutionally implement the BJP government’s politically malicious intentions and Hindutva’s agenda. To implement an untested, contested NRC through the backdoor.

To implement this plan of action (POA) aggressively, the Election Commission—acting as a puppet of the BJP—has devised extremely unscientific SIR criteria, impossible deadlines, an undemocratic process, and an anti-people questionnaire.

This is the cause of the deaths of BLOs, voters’ anxiety, and the developing anarchy.

There is only one solution:

Scrap The Unconstitutional SIR.
Let voter-roll revision be carried out patiently and in a people-friendly manner.
Let’s Act to save democracy.

[1] The National Population Register (NPR) is a comprehensive database of all ‘usual residents in India’, recording both citizens and foreign nationals.

[2] National Register of Citizens (NRC) was a requirement inserted by the 2003 Rules to the Indian Citizenship Act (CA) of 1955. In 2019-2020 the amendment to the CAA drew huge protests, delaying the process of excluding ‘undocumented’ Indians into a list of ‘suspected foreigners’

Related:

SIR 2025-26: Dismantling the very Idea of India?

Karnataka launches SIR with 5.5 crore voters, State Govt voices transparency concerns

Karnataka’s new PRC rules are people-friendly, but will the ECI accept them?

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

The post SIR 2025-2026: A backdoor exercise to bring in the NRC? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For months, anti-SIR campaigners have urged the state government to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded from electoral rolls by simplifying the issuance of PRCs, caste certificates and family certificates—documents recognised by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for SIR verification.

However, Revenue Minister Priyank Kharge said the state had written to the ECI over a month ago seeking recognition of Karnataka’s family certificate, but the Commission has yet to respond.

Obtaining caste certificates also remains difficult despite government claims. Applicants must still produce several documents relating to their father’s lineage, making the process particularly challenging for marginalized communities. As a result, lakhs of applications remain pending, casting doubts on Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar’s assertion that 5.4 crore of Karnataka’s 5.5 crore voters already possess caste certificates.

People-Friendly PRC Rules, but…

Initially, the government had instructed Panchayat Development Officers (PDOs) to issue ordinary residence certificates through Gram Panchayat offices. Activists have pointed out that these certificates would not satisfy SIR requirements because they did not establish permanent residence. Following sustained criticism, the government has now introduced fresh guidelines and eligibility criteria for issuing Permanent Resident Certificates through a significantly simplified process.

Thus, the revised rules represent an important victory for anti-SIR activists and are considerably more citizen-friendly than the earlier framework.

Applicants may establish permanent residence through criteria such as ten years of residence in Karnataka, ten years of schooling in the state, or ownership of immovable property. To prove these conditions, they may submit Aadhaar, ration cards, revenue records, electoral rolls and similar documents. The guidelines also empower officials to conduct local inquiries, seek reports from village accountants and even consider oral testimony as supporting evidence.

Perhaps most significantly, applications cannot be rejected solely because a particular document is missing. Authorities must provide written reasons for any rejection, introducing greater transparency and accountability into the process.

Taken together, the new rules are clearly more inclusive than their predecessors.

Read SabrangIndia’s analyses of the Karnataka government’s intervention here.

The Bigger Question: Will the ECI accept them?

The central question, however, is whether Permanent Resident Certificates issued under such a simplified and inclusive framework will actually be accepted under the SIR process.

The answer is far from certain.

Lessons from West Bengal

The West Bengal example, along with the ECI’s approach and directives regarding such inclusiveness makes it clear that the ECI will not permit this level of inclusiveness.

When the Union government initiated the SIR process in Bihar, the Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal proactively simplified the issuance of domicile certificates in July 2025 to make them easier for citizens to obtain.

However, once SIR began in West Bengal, the BJP objected to domicile certificates issued after July 2025, arguing that they should not be accepted. The Election Commission subsequently subjected those certificates to additional scrutiny and, according to the author, later declined to accept domicile certificates altogether before issuing fresh notices even to applicants who had previously submitted them.

Only after widespread protests led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee did the Commission agree to accept domicile certificates again, but with several additional conditions.

Hence, through its February 8 order, the ECI asserted that:

• domicile certificates conform strictly to West Bengal’s Government Order dated November 2, 1999;
• they be issued only by the designated competent authority; and
• Electoral Registration Officers independently verify that every prescribed procedure had been followed before accepting them.

Verification was reportedly assigned to Micro Observers.

With regard to domicile certificates, West Bengal’s Government Order dated November 2, 1999, is available here:

The order prescribes limited eligibility criteria for obtaining a domicile certificate and requires that, in addition to documentary evidence, every applicant undergo verification of citizenship and police verification before the certificate can be issued. This calibration and aggressive re-assertions by the ECI demonstrate how the Commission did not accept the simplified certification process introduced by the West Bengal government. The process may be read about here.

What this could mean for Karnataka

Since the same Election Commission oversees electoral process across India, the Karnataka’s simplified PRC rules may face similar scrutiny. In that case, only PRCs issued in accordance with standards accepted by the Commission—not merely under Karnataka’s revised procedures—would qualify for SIR.

This creates fundamental contradiction: the more citizen-friendly the PRC rules become, the less likely they are to satisfy the requirements of the SIR process. This, then, again underlines the very nature and orientation of the SIR, which is designed as an exclusionary mechanism rather than an inclusive one.

For now, attention will turn to how the Election Commission responds to Karnataka’s new rules.

Moreover, the state government itself has indicated, though indirectly, that the revised PRC rules are intended solely to address SIR requirements and do not create any broader legal rights. Existing rules, it says, will continue to apply in all other contexts.

The ECI, meanwhile, is under no obligation to accept Karnataka’s amendments. As it did in West Bengal, it could reject them altogether or impose additional verification requirements through its own officials.

With the Supreme Court having upheld the Commission’s broad authority in such matters, Karnataka’s battle over PRCs is far from over.

‘Logical Discrepancies’ remain a concern

The author further notes that Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer has rejected demands from civil society groups and the state government to suspend the use of “Logical Discrepancy” criteria in the state. The CEO has already identified six categories of logical discrepancies in Karnataka and has indicated that more could emerge once completed Enumeration Forms are received.

For anti-SIR activists, and the campaign in general, this demands greater vigilance, avoidance of premature celebration and a continued and intensification of the struggle, both in positioning and manoeuvre

Related:

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

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

The Biopolitical Anatomy of Hindutva Fascism: Part II: SIR, EVMs and the Judiciary

The post Karnataka’s new PRC rules are people-friendly, but will the ECI accept them? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A key reason is the limited understanding among affected communities of the long-term implications of SIR. While the NRC was widely perceived as a direct threat to citizenship, the dangers posed by SIR have not been communicated with the same clarity. There is growing concern that individuals removed from electoral rolls through the SIR process could eventually face the erosion of citizenship rights, exclusion from government welfare schemes, and the weakening of constitutional protections. If such consequences begin to materialise, awareness and resistance among marginalised, Dalit, and oppressed communities are likely to intensify. As a result, the demand for the withdrawal of SIR may gather mass support only after the process has run its course, making it essential for people’s organisations to prepare for a longer and grittier struggle.

At the same time, certain assumptions circulating within sections of the movement deserve closer scrutiny. A widely held belief suggests that Karnataka can make SIR more people-friendly through administrative interventions and political will, particularly with the support of the Congress government. This expectation persists despite the fact that similar efforts have not succeeded in states such as West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, where opposition parties and grassroots organizations have mounted a far more sustained resistance.

Several proposals have emerged from within activist circles. These include conducting Gram Sabha-based verification of voter lists (social audit of the electoral rolls), preparing parallel voter registers, allowing Gram Sabha approval to substitute for missing documents, issuing residence certificates at the local level, digitizing available records, creating smart cards for residents, and extending the deadline for document submission by six months. Reported The Hindu.

Underlying these proposals is the hope that Karnataka can prevent the exclusion of any eligible voter from the electoral rolls. Activists have also warned that a larger agitation could follow if the Election Commission refuses to accommodate these demands.

Responding to public pressure, Congress leaders and the Chief Minister have repeatedly instructed party workers to ensure that no eligible voter is left out during the SIR exercise. Such statements have further strengthened the belief in some quarters that Karnataka may be able to overcome the dangers associated with SIR through state-level intervention.

The democratic spirit behind these demands is Unquestionable. Similar proposals have been endorsed by several scholars and former Election Commissioners who view them as part of a broader project of democratizing electoral administration.

The central issue, however, is not the democratic aspirations themselves. The question is whether these aspirations can actually be implemented within the legal framework governing SIR.

Here lies the fundamental contradiction. SIR, by its very design, appears to function in a manner that limits democratic oversight rather than expanding it. Even the modest mechanisms of public accountability that existed in earlier electoral processes seem increasingly inapplicable within the current framework.

This raises important questions about the constitutional character of SIR, the extent of authority available to state governments to intervene in the process, and the realistic prospects of protecting vulnerable communities from exclusion.

Demands for Gram Sabha oversight, smart cards, social audits, and community verification are undoubtedly democratic and desirable. Yet there is a danger in assuming that existing governments can simply implement these measures and thereby neutralise the exclusionary potential of SIR. Such expectations rest on the assumption that state governments possess meaningful authority over a process that is largely beyond their control.

That reality may help explain why states with stronger grassroots movements, more active civil societies, and comparatively responsive governments—including Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu—have been unable to introduce significant people-friendly modifications to the SIR process.

A serious engagement with SIR therefore requires moving beyond optimism, assumptions, and administrative wish lists. The challenge is to understand the process in its existing legal and political form and to develop strategies of resistance grounded in that reality rather than in expectations of accommodation.

SIR and the Constitutional Limits of State Governments

A recurring demand in the ongoing opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is that state governments should intervene to make voter verification more democratic and inclusive. Proposals such as Gram Sabha scrutiny of voter rolls, social audits, community verification mechanisms, and locally issued documentation have gained support among activists and sections of civil society.

These demands arise from legitimate democratic concerns. Yet a closer examination of the constitutional and legal framework governing electoral rolls raises an important question: do state governments actually possess the authority to introduce such measures within the current system?

The Constitution of India, through Articles 324 to 326, vests the superintendence, direction, control, and conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures in the Election Commission of India (ECI). This arrangement has long been criticized for limiting democratic oversight and accountability. Nevertheless, until constitutional reforms alter this framework, it remains the governing reality.

Precisely because of these limitations, proposals such as Gram Sabha-based verification and social audits represent important democratic reforms that deserve serious consideration. The issue, however, is not whether such reforms are desirable, but whether state governments can legally implement them under the existing constitutional structure.

The answer appears to be clear. Without constitutional amendments or changes to the relevant laws governing elections, state governments do not possess the authority to introduce such reforms in the preparation of Assembly electoral rolls.

The need for a legislative reform on how state elections function may be read here. A year ago, Janaagraha found that only 34 of the State Election Commissions had the powers to undertake delimitation and reservation exercises, revealing that state commissions are unable to enforce independent timelines for the conduct of local elections. This study may be read here.

The legal basis for the current SIR exercise is found in Article 324 (1) of the Constitution, Sections 21 and 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the relevant provisions of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Article 324(1) places the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections under the authority of the Election Commission of India.

Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 grants the Commission broad powers to undertake revisions of electoral rolls whenever it considers such action necessary. Electoral rolls prepared outside the Commission’s directions do not possess legal validity.

But the SIR process goes beyond a routine electoral revision and effectively operates as a form of citizenship verification and exclusion. Whether such an exercise falls within the Commission’s constitutional authority remains a matter of intense legal and political debate. However, Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality and the legal basis of this exclusionary SIR in its May 27, 2026 judgement.

Read Vote for Democracy and SabrangIndia’s special analysis of the verdict here.

Section 13CC further strengthens the Commission’s authority by placing all election officials, including Chief Electoral Officers of the states, under the control, superintendence, and disciplinary authority of the Election Commission while performing election-related functions. This is arguably against the intrinsic federal principals also vaguely enshrined in the Constitution, especially if the central ECI becomes a handmaiden or tool of the regime in power.

Read Vote for Democracy’s multi-lingual Timeline: From shielding Election Commissioners to restricting scrutiny of election documents, including video footage here.

As a result, the design, implementation, and operational guidelines governing SIR fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction. During the conduct of the exercise, state election machinery functions under the Commission’s authority rather than under the direct control of state governments.

Some activists have pointed to provisions contained in the Election Commission’s 2023 revision manual, which allow draft electoral rolls to be read out in Gram Sabhas during certain revision exercises. However, those provisions apply to the routine Intensive Revision -IR- categories of electoral roll revisions and not the exceptional and Special Intensive Revision-SIR which is envisaged to verify and exclude citizens and not just routine voter verification.

Read Citizens for Justice and Peace’s exclusive training manual for activists here and here.

The guidelines issued separately for SIR do not provide for Gram Sabha scrutiny. Consequently, any attempt by a state government to impose alternative procedures outside the Commission’s framework could potentially conflict with the legal obligations imposed on election officials under Section 13CC.

A distinction must also be drawn between the Election Commission of India and State Election Commissions. State Election Commissions conduct elections to local bodies and operate within a different constitutional framework. Their powers do not extend to the preparation of electoral rolls for Parliamentary and Assembly elections.

The recent SC judgement has made it mandatory even for the voter list prepared for the Local Body elections to pass the SIR test. Thus it has further reinforced the centralization of authority in matters linked to SIR. As a consequence, even the limited space available to state institutions appears increasingly constrained.

The broader implication is that unless constitutional reforms transfer greater authority over electoral roll preparation to states or create stronger mechanisms of local democratic oversight, state governments have little room to modify the framework established by the Election Commission.

This constitutional reality helps explain why states such as Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu—despite possessing strong opposition parties, an active citizenry, and robust grassroots movements—have been unable to implement many of the democratic safeguards demanded by activists.

Read SabrangIndia’s exclusive interrogation into numbers of exclusion of voters, state-wise, here.

Previous robust analyses by the Reporter’s Collective into the ongoing West Bengal SIR process, that revealed issues like a) how the Commission misled the Supreme Court, b) serious software glitches that facilitated mechanical exclusions, c) ECI’s authorisation of hand-picked personnel to supersede legally designated officers responsible for voter verification, d) rules changes without public notice and e) WhatsApp messages and oral commands complementing written regulations. These investigations may be read here, here, here and here.

The debate surrounding SIR is therefore not simply about the possibility of constitutional (read sympathetic) administrative interventions. It is also about the unchecked concentration of electoral authority within existing constitutional structures and the lack of constitutional mandate for the state governments to intervene. Unfortunately this authority has also been lent judicial affirmation.

Smart Cards and Residence Certificates are not SIR Documents

Recent statements by the Karnataka’s Congress leadership have highlighted efforts to address concerns surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Chief Minister has reportedly directed officials to expedite the issuance of Residence Certificates, while the newly-appointed KPCC president BK Hariprasad has urged the state government to adopt a people-centric approach in dealing with SIR-related issues.

The difficulty, however, lies in the distinction between a general residence certificate and the category of requirements of documents for a Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) and recognised under the SIR framework.

Read an earlier caution on the issue here.

According to the criteria laid down by the Election Commission, the relevant requirement is not merely proof of current residence but proof of permanent residence through documents recognised under the prescribed verification process.

Experiences from other states especially West Bengal illustrate the limits of state-level intervention. In West Bengal, the Election Commission initially declined to accept even the permanent Domicile Certificates leave alone what was called as the arbitrary Residence Certificate! Only after sustained political opposition, public mobilisation, and legal challenges was the Commission persuaded to recognize Domicile certificates. Even then, their acceptance was made contingent upon specific procedures, verification requirements, and certification by competent authorities.

This precedent raises doubts about whether residence certificates issued through an expedited state-level process would automatically satisfy the Commission’s requirements. The authority to determine the validity and acceptability of documents remains with the Central Election Commission.

More over the recent May 2026 SC judgement has endorsed the constitutional authority and legal power of the Election Commission to prescribe documentary regime that it deems fit to satisfy eligibility criteria, discretion in determining timelines, documentary requirements, and verification procedures under SIR. This has significantly expanded the Commission’s unchecked autonomy while reducing opportunities for democratic oversight.

“Eleven Logical Discrepancies”: Illogical Criteria

One of the most controversial aspects of the process concerns the use of what are described as “logical discrepancy” tests. According to reports from earlier phases of implementation, these checks are intended to identify inconsistencies within submitted records and family-linkage claims.

When it was first introduced exclusively for the West Bengal SIR only four or five “discrepancies were listed. Now emboldened by the SC judgement the ECI has increased this exclusionary criteria 11 (“absurd”) discrepancies for the remaining states, despite facing strong independent criticisms on the four/five listed for West Bengal. Some of these criticisms may be read here and here.

The fresh list of logical discrepancies include:

1. More than six individuals claiming the same parents.
2. A parent-child age gap of less than fifteen years.
3. A parent-child age gap exceeding fifty years.
4. Less than nine months between the birth dates of siblings.
5. Differences in parental names between earlier and current records.
6. Age records that do not correspond logically across different electoral revisions.
7. Reliance solely on Aadhaar as supporting documentation.
8. A grandparent-grandchild age gap of less than forty years.
9. Mismatches in the father’s name across records.
10. Spelling variations in names.
11. Changes in the recorded relationship between individuals across different electoral records.

Supporters of SIR view such checks as tools for maintaining the integrity of electoral rolls. However, these criteria risk excluding large numbers of genuine voters because discrepancies in names, ages, and family records are common in official documents across India.

The broader concern is that each successive phase of implementation appears to introduce additional layers of scrutiny increase the likelihood of exclusion rather than inclusion, particularly among poor, marginalised, migrant, Dalit, Adivasi, and minority communities whose documentation histories are often incomplete or inconsistent.

Within this framework, proposals such as Gram Sabha certification, locally issued smart cards, or residence certificates face a fundamental obstacle. Unless the Election Commission formally recognises such documents, they do not automatically qualify as valid proof under SIR procedures.

A Second Freedom Struggle as the Only Way Forward?

In the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the central issue is not merely the exclusion of voters from electoral rolls but the broader implications such exclusions may have for citizenship, constitutional rights, and democratic participation.

From this perspective, partial safeguards and administrative adjustments are unlikely to address the underlying problem, as has been proved in the 13 states where SIR has been completed. As long as SIR remains in force, concerns persist that millions of poor and marginalized citizens who lack complete documentary records may remain vulnerable to exclusion. Those possessing stronger documentation may be able to withstand the immediate impact, but the structural risks embedded in the process would remain unchanged.

This requires a political response of a much larger and more intense scale.

Calls are increasingly being made for a nationwide democratic mobilisation comparable in spirit to a second freedom struggle—one aimed not at colonial rule, but a new colonial interpretation of Citizenship. Hence the need of  defending constitutional democracy, civil liberties, and the rights of citizens against what is perceived as growing centralization of power.

Within this framework, opposition parties should move beyond rhetorical criticism and undertake forms of organised political resistance capable of confronting the Election Commission and the Union government directly. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary measures and that routine electoral politics may be inadequate to meet the challenge.

But the willingness of mainstream opposition parties to pursue such a course is in doubt. The electoral calculations, competition for office, and institutional constraints have limited the capacity of opposition forces to mount a sustained challenge to the prevailing political order.

The result, in this view, is a widening gap between the scale of the perceived threat and the scale of the political response.

Attention therefore turns to the Indian citizenry, people’s organisations, social movements, trade unions, student groups, and ordinary citizens. The democratic resurgence must emerge through broader public mobilization “WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA”

At the same time, significant obstacles remain. Although concerns about democracy, citizenship, and constitutional rights are growing, public awareness of the long-term implications of SIR remains uneven. Organisational capacity is fragmented, and the kind of nationwide movement required for a sustained democratic struggle has yet to take shape.

Karnataka is not unique in this regard. The limitations visible within the state’s anti-SIR movement reflect broader challenges facing democratic movements across the country. Dependence on political parties, particularly on ruling Congress party, and within existing institutions, has often weakened the autonomy, preparedness, and strategic clarity of people’s movements.

These tensions are increasingly evident in debates over the direction, goals, and methods of the anti-SIR campaign itself.

The democratic resurgence demand the complete withdrawal of SIR and the protection of democratic rights and the strategies for the same should be directed towards grass root democratic mobilisation and not a dependence on the half-willing or unwilling and impossible intervention of the ruling congress party in Karnataka.

The struggle over SIR is therefore is not an electoral issue, but as a test of the country’s democratic foundations. The choices made by political parties, civil society organizations, and citizens in the coming years may determine how that larger contest unfolds.

Related:

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

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

The Biopolitical Anatomy of Hindutva Fascism: Part II: SIR, EVMs and the Judiciary

The post To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dear friends,

Some newspapers reported that after a meeting with officials yesterday, Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar instructed authorities to immediately provide residence certificates to those who require them for SIR. As per a report in The New Indian Express.

However, according to the list of 11 documents released by the Election Commission for SIR, a simple “Residential Certificate” is not sufficient. The Commission specifically requires:
Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) issued by the competent State authority
To obtain a Residential Certificate, documents such as Aadhaar, ration card, electricity/water bills, rental agreements, etc., are usually sufficient.
However, for a Permanent Residence Certificate, additional proof is required showing permanent residence in the state for more than six years. This may include long-term ration cards, property records, or evidence of having studied in the state or resided in the state for more than six years.
Only after verification of such documents can the competent authority—the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar—issue the certificate.

The question is: if the government hurriedly issues certificates without fully following these requirements, will the Election Commission accept them?

The West Bengal Experience

When SIR was conducted in West Bengal, residents submitted domicile certificates issued by the state government to prove their status. Attention: These were not ordinary residence certificates but permanent residence (domicile) certificates.

However, the Election Commission initially rejected them, arguing that they did not satisfy its prescribed Permanent Residence Certificate requirements. It also ordered that even those who had already submitted domicile certificates could be issued fresh notices. This was reported here.

As a result, then Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee publicly protested and later approached the Supreme Court. Only after these developments did the Election Commission, on February 9, agree to accept West Bengal domicile certificates as SIR eligibility documents, subject to several conditions. The conditions included:

1) EROs and AEROs could accept only those residence certificates issued in accordance with the West Bengal Government Order dated November 2, 1999.

2) The certificates had to be issued only by competent authorities such as District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Officers, or the District Collector of Kolkata.

3) The certificates had to be issued strictly according to government guidelines.

4) All officials were required to be informed of and comply with these guidelines.

This has been detailed here.

This demonstrates the Election Commission’s “strict” (or exclusivist) approach—even toward permanent residence certificates issued by a state government. The Supreme Court has also upheld this authority.

States like Karnataka May Face Greater Difficulties

The ordinary residence certificate referred to by the Chief Minister of Karnataka, DK Shivakumar does not meet the “Permanent Residence Certificate” requirement under SIR. Given the West Bengal experience, only a Karnataka Domicile Certificate is likely to satisfy the Commission’s Permanent Residence Certificate requirement.

However, the same conditions imposed in West Bengal may effectively apply in Karnataka as well.
Generally, to establish Karnataka domicile status, one may need to show:

– Residence in Karnataka for seven years,
– More than six years of education in Karnataka,
– Parents residing in Karnataka, or
– Ownership of property in Karnataka.

These documents must then be verified and approved by the competent authority, usually a Tahsildar or higher-ranking official.

Therefore, since the Election Commission appears determined to use SIR to remove/exclude as many people as possible from electoral rolls on technical grounds, even minor procedural lapses in obtaining domicile certificates could be treated as discrepancies and lead to rejection.

Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer, Ambu Kumar, has already stated that a “discrepancy” AI will be applied after submission of Enumeration Forms in Karnataka as well.

Consequently, D.K. Shivakumar’s general instruction to issue residence certificates to everyone who needs them is unlikely, by itself, to protect Dalit and other marginalized communities in Karnataka from the risks posed by SIR. For this reason, the instruction to issue residence certificates should not be viewed as a victory, nor is a cause for complacency.

Therefore, let us remember:
– A Residential Certificate does not satisfy the Permanent Residence Certificate requirement.
– Obtaining a Domicile Certificate that may satisfy the Permanent Residence Certificate requirement is not easy for many eligible members of marginalized communities.

– Documents obtained without following the proper procedure and authority may not be accepted by the Election Commission.

Let us remain alert and not get carried away

Let SIR be completely withdrawn — let democracy survive

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

Related:

Jharkhand’s Biggest Democratic Test Yet: The SIR Challenge

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

Documents Cannot Decide Democracy: How CJP is training communities to navigate the SIR process

The post Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Neither the government nor the Commission has answered this question.

Without conducting any proper study on illegal migration, how and why are they undertaking a potentially harmful exercise such as the SIR? Even the Supreme Court, while examining the constitutional validity of the SIR, unfortunately did not ask this fundamental question.

Thus, three-fourths of the SIR process was ‘completed’ without any respect for due process or empirical foundation whatsoever. After as many as 75 million Indians had already been pushed out of the electoral rolls, the Modi government, on May 26—just a day before the Supreme Court was due to deliver its verdict in the SIR matter —constituted a “High-Level Committee on Demographic Change” under the chairmanship of retired Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naik.

A close look at the committee’s composition, its members, and its terms of reference makes it abundantly clear that this is, yet another, carefully plotted political-bureaucratic plot designed to perpetuate the harassment of Indian Muslims. First, as Justice Prakash himself has reportedly admitted, he possesses no expertise whatsoever in this subject. He was also not informed in advance about the assignment.

Second, the other members of the committee include a retired bureaucrat, Durga Shankar Mishra; a retired police officer, Balaji Srivastava; and Shamika Ravi, an economic adviser to the Prime Minister. This is the same scholar who recently dismissed concerns about the rupee falling to 100 against the dollar by saying that it is “just a number.” Shamika also has the unique distinction of being the daughter of none less than former Tamil Nadu governor, R.N.Ravi, notorious for his attacks on federalism in that state. So critical has Ravi been to the services of the New Delhi regime that, in March 2026, he was transferred as the governor of West Bengal where he oversaw not just the notorious SIR but also the recently concluded ‘elections’ to the State Assembly!

Most strikingly, in a committee specifically constituted to study demographic change, there is not a single expert on the subject, demography. Every member appears to have been selected for political allegiance and loyalty rather than for any recognised expertise in population studies.

The terms of reference assigned to the committee raise even more serious concerns. Notably, the committee has not even been asked to investigate whether there is, in fact, any large-scale and systematic illegal migration into India from neighbouring countries.

Terms of Reference Designed to Officialise Propaganda

Instead of first establishing whether such large-scale, organised, and malicious illegal migration is actually taking place, the committee has already proceeded on the assumption that it is. The questions it has been asked to study include:

i) To comprehensively deliberate upon the challenges arising from demographic changes, including illegal immigration.

ii) To study the possible causes of such demographic changes, such as cross-border activities (including illegal immigration), economic opportunities, and other socio-environmental factors.

iii) To identify the underlying factors behind these changes, which include illegal immigration, abnormal settlement patterns, and orchestrated migration

iv) To analyse structural population changes at the level of religious or social communities, particularly where they deviate from broader trends.

v) To recommend a streamlined and permanent operational mechanism for the legal, fair, and time-bound identification, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants already residing in the country.

vi) To recommend an appropriate institutional mechanism to strengthen border management, population stabilization, and identification systems for the continuous monitoring of such trends.

The committee has been instructed to study these issues and submit its report and recommendations within one year.

Thus, it is clear that the Modi government’s agenda effectively treats as established facts several partisan and communal claims that the RSS and the BJP have long propagated regarding demographic change in India. These include:

• That the Muslim population in India is growing disproportionately, not only because Muslims allegedly do not practise population control, but also because of illegal migration from Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries.
• That this demographic growth is part of a deliberate project to reduce the proportion of Hindus and eventually transform India into a Muslim-majority nation.
• That this constitutes an international conspiracy in which Indian Muslims are complicit, making the entire Muslim community suspect. The only way to defeat this conspiracy, according to this narrative, is to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra.

A careful reading of the committee’s terms of reference makes it clear that it has been constituted primarily to validate these long-standing falsehoods and lend official legitimacy to a campaign of communal polarisation.

This propaganda has already succeeded in fostering a deeply anti-Muslim and fascistic social mind-set across large sections of the country. That is why, even when large numbers of Hindus lacking proper documentation are themselves being excluded through exercises such as the SIR, a narrative is being constructed that Modi is protecting Hindus from Muslims. As a result, poor Hindus are being persuaded to support policies that ultimately harm their own interests.

Economic Refugees or Illegal Conspirators?

Viewed in perspective, although both the Congress and the BJP have governed this country over the past seventy-seven years, it is unlikely that illegal migration into India has ever occurred on the scale of millions. At most, it may have involved thousands or perhaps lakhs of people entering the country in search of livelihoods.

Moreover, since around 2005, Bangladesh has recorded rapid economic progress, particularly in sectors such as ready-made garment exports. In fact, its per capita income has, at times, marginally surpassed that of India. As a result, illegal migration from Bangladesh into India has declined significantly.

This is precisely why neither the Election Commission nor the Modi government is willing to answer a simple question: in the states where the SIR exercise has already been completed, including Bihar and West Bengal, how many illegal migrants were actually identified through the process? Was it hundreds, thousands, or lakhs? No answer has been forthcoming. The Supreme Court, too, has not pressed the Commission on this question.

Meanwhile, reports over the past two weeks indicate that the BJP governments in West Bengal and Gujarat have identified around three to four thousand impoverished Bangladeshi nationals who were either overstaying their visas or residing in India without proper documentation. This is not fundamentally different from the thousands of Indians who attempt to enter the United States illegally every year in search of economic opportunities and are subsequently detained.

When Indian Hindus migrate illegally to the United States in significant numbers, they are not doing so as part of a demographic invasion aimed at altering America’s racial composition or taking over the country. By the same logic, the few thousand undocumented workers who may have migrated from Bangladesh to India are economic refugees in search of survival, not conspirators engaged in a grand political project.

Yet the purpose of the “Committee on Demographic Change” appears to be precisely to brand Muslims as perpetual illegals, keep them under a constant cloud of suspicion, and reduce them to a condition of permanent insecurity and uncertainty.

In reality, neither illegal migration by foreign Muslims nor the growth of India’s Muslim population poses the demographic challenge facing the country.

India’s population challenge lies elsewhere entirely. By deploying fascistic political strategies and manufactured fears, the Modi government is obscuring the real issues confronting the nation.

The Myth of Muslim Population Growth

If the BJP were to think about the interests of the country, even once, rather than viewing every issue through the prism of partisan advantage, a few realities would become immediately apparent:

• India is not facing a population explosion.
• Population growth is not the primary cause of poverty in India. On the contrary, India’s large youth population presents a historic opportunity for rapid economic growth.
• The rate of growth of the Muslim population has been declining sharply over the past two decades, and in fact has been falling faster than the growth rate of the Hindu population.

These facts are clearly borne out by the third, fourth, and fifth rounds of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), conducted under the aegis of the Government of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as well as by the population census reports of 1991, 2001, and 2011.

India’s Population Growth Rate Is Declining

One of the biggest myths surrounding India’s demographic situation is that because India has one of the largest populations in the world, its population growth rate is spiralling out of control and therefore requires urgent and stringent intervention.

The reality is precisely the opposite. India’s population growth rate is steadily and healthily declining, not increasing.

The most widely used measure for assessing population growth is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). TFR refers to the average number of children a woman is expected to give birth to during her reproductive years, generally between the ages of 15 and 49.

At the time of Independence, India’s TFR stood at approximately 5.9. In other words, an average Indian woman gave birth to nearly six children during her lifetime. Had that trend continued unchecked, India’s population today could have reached 2.5 to 3 billion people.

However, from the very beginning, India placed considerable emphasis on family welfare programmes, awareness campaigns, access to contraception, and reproductive health services. Wherever awareness increased, healthcare became accessible, and women gained greater educational and economic empowerment, fertility rates began to decline rapidly.

According to the 2015–16 National Family Health Survey, India’s average TFR had fallen to 2.3. Compared to 1951, this represents a decline of well over fifty per cent in the rate of population growth.

Women’s Empowerment, Not Coercive Laws, Drives Fertility Decline

Apart from the excesses associated with forced sterilisation during the Emergency, India’s family planning programme has largely relied on persuasion, access to healthcare services, and women’s empowerment rather than coercive legal measures.

This is not unique to India. Across the world, every successful population stabilisation programme has followed the same path. At the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994, India reaffirmed its commitment to this rights-based approach.

The variation in fertility rates across Indian states further reinforces this conclusion.

According to the 2015–16 NFHS, while India’s average TFR stood at 2.3, relatively developed states such as Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Gujarat recorded fertility rates of only 1.7 to 1.8—well below the national average.

In stark contrast, Bihar recorded a TFR of 3.4 and Uttar Pradesh 2.7, both substantially above the national average. The difference is not difficult to understand. States with lower fertility rates generally exhibit higher levels of female literacy, educational attainment, women’s participation in public life, and overall socio-economic development.

Indeed, the fertility rate among Hindus in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is higher than the fertility rate among Muslims in many southern states. In other words, Muslim women in the southern states are, on average, having fewer children than Hindu women in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

That is precisely why the phrase “Development is the Best Contraceptive” has become a widely accepted principle across the world. Development reduces fertility rates far more effectively than punitive laws ever can.

Equally important is the finding of the 2020–21 National Family Health Survey that 54 per cent of Indian women have only two children, while 76 per cent of women married during the past decade have expressed no desire to have a second child.

The implication is clear. When women are empowered to make decisions about their own bodies and reproductive lives, and when families become more democratic and egalitarian, population growth declines naturally without the need for coercion or state-imposed restrictions.

Muslim Population Growth Is Declining Faster Than Hindu Population Growth

Another important fact revealed by the National Family Health Surveys is that, over the past three decades, the fertility rate among Muslims has been declining faster than that among Hindus.

According to the third round of the NFHS conducted in 2005–06, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) among Hindus stood at 2.59, while the corresponding figure for Muslims was 3.4.

A decade later, according to the fourth round of the NFHS, the Hindu TFR had fallen from 2.59 to 2.13—a decline of 0.46 points.

During the same period, the Muslim TFR fell from 3.4 to 2.61—a decline of 0.79 points.

In other words, although the Muslim fertility rate remains higher than the Hindu fertility rate, it has been declining much more rapidly over the past decade. Consequently, the rate of Muslim population growth has also been falling significantly faster than the corresponding rate among Hindus.

In 2005, the gap between Muslim and Hindu fertility rates stood at 0.81. By 2015, that gap had narrowed to just 0.4. If this trend continues, the difference between Hindu and Muslim fertility rates is likely to become negligible within the next decade.

Equally significant is the fact that fertility rates among Muslims have been falling most rapidly in states with substantial Muslim populations, including Kerala, Assam, West Bengal, and Jammu & Kashmir.

The government’s own demographic data therefore establishes three important conclusions:

• India’s population growth rate is declining in a healthy and sustainable manner.
• The rate of Muslim population growth is declining far more rapidly than is commonly portrayed in public discourse.
• Wherever socio-economic development has advanced, fertility rates have declined across all communities, irrespective of whether they are Hindu or Muslim.

The logical conclusion is straightforward. If the government is genuinely concerned about population stabilisation, its focus should be on education, employment, healthcare, family welfare programmes, access to reproductive health services, and above all, women’s empowerment.

The Real Challenge Is Not Population Growth—It Is Population Decline

In fact, both the NFHS findings and demographic research from around the world point to a very different concern. The challenge confronting many societies today is not unchecked population growth, but declining population growth.

According to a study published in The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, India’s population, currently around 1.4 billion, may continue to grow and reach approximately 1.6 billion by 2048. However, because fertility rates are steadily declining, India’s population is projected to begin shrinking after that point.

By the end of the century, India’s population is expected to decline substantially.

Even more significant than the overall decline in numbers is the changing age structure of the population. The proportion of elderly citizens is expected to rise sharply, while the share of the working-age population will steadily decrease.

This will have profound economic consequences. A smaller workforce will be required to support a much larger elderly population. Governments will face growing pressure to provide pensions, healthcare, and social security, while economies may increasingly depend on migration and labour inflows from younger populations elsewhere.

These are the demographic challenges that demand serious attention.

The issue before India is not an imaginary population explosion. The real question is how to create productive employment opportunities for the country’s vast youth population and harness this demographic advantage while it still exists.

At the same time, policymakers must begin preparing for the economic, political, and social consequences of an ageing society that will emerge over the coming decades.

Instead of confronting these real challenges, communal fearmongering and demographic myths are being used to divert public attention from the issues that genuinely matter.

Related:

Three Years of the Congress Government

Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR?

Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !!

The post High-Level Committee on Demographic Change (HLC-DC): Another Offensive on Indian Muslims! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, only time can answer whether this was merely a display of rivalry between the two competing power centres within the Congress government — Siddaramaiah and D.K. Shivakumar — or a sign of the emergence of a new one. Likewise, the criticisms made by the opposition BJP regarding the Congress government’s three-year rule carry neither genuine public concern nor sincerity.

All these are discussions and critiques driven by the ruling circles’ own power interests. They attempt to portray their class interests as public interest. Therefore, these mainstream discussions should not overshadow the real questions concerning the people — namely, whether the Congress government has brought real winds of change into the lives of the people of Karnataka in the past three years.

Should not this be the fundamental question?

In 2023, the people of Karnataka, who had been distressed by the continuous attacks carried out by the Bommai-led Sangh-affiliated BJP government against Muslims, Dalits, and the poor of this land, brought the Congress government to power with a clear majority. Compared to the BJP, Congress received 7% more votes (43%) and won 70 more seats (136 seats).

In its manifesto and budget speeches, the Congress party had promised to provide a genuine alternative to the BJP government. In particular, it assured communal harmony, punishment for divisive forces, social justice, welfare, guarantees, and people-oriented development.

Although politically aware sections and large parts of the public may not have had very high expectations regarding these promises, the disappointments and betrayals committed by the Siddaramaiah government over the past three years have exceeded expectations.

In fact, when the Siddaramaiah government completed two and a half years, several scholars under the leadership of a Bengaluru civic organization conducted a detailed study of the government’s budget promises and their implementation and released a comprehensive report. According to that report, even after half the government’s tenure had passed, only 6% of the budget promises had been fulfilled. The remaining 94% were categorised as promises that had either not yet begun, had begun but were limping along, or had still not been fully implemented. The report identified lack of resources, lack of political will, and administrative negligence as the primary reasons.

Recently, the Karnataka Muslim Federation also conducted an in-depth study on the promises made by the Congress government to the Muslim community during the last three years and the manner of their implementation, and released its report through a massive convention.

The report mainly exposed the immense political irresponsibility shown by the government in failing to curb Hindutva oppressive forces that continue targeting the Muslim community even after three years, in not repealing laws introduced by the BJP government specifically to harass Muslims, in failing to provide adequate representation to Muslims within the party and government, and in protecting the state from the SIR measures currently being implemented by the Modi government allegedly to further marginalise Muslims. The organisation also warned of massive resistance if time-bound solutions were not provided.

Read reports on this initiative here and here.

In addition, various farmers’, workers’, Dalit, student-youth, women’s, transgender, slum dwellers’, and minority organizations have individually and collectively criticised several policies implemented by the Congress government over the last three years through their struggles and protests.

Taken together, all these constitute a public review of the Congress government’s three years in power.

At a time when the Congress government is celebrating its third anniversary with self-deception and self-indulgence, these public reviews must be used to examine the government’s promises. In particular, there is a need to remind people of the disillusionments experienced over the past three years regarding communal harmony, social justice, welfare of the poor, and development.

Communal Harmony or Soft Hindutva?

As soon as the Congress came to power, it had promised to consider banning the Bajrang Dal. But immediately after assuming office, the respected Home Minister performed a ceremonial foot worship (Padapooja) of Pejawar Swamiji, regarded as a spiritual patron of the Bajrang Dal, at  his  residence and declared that there was no proposal to ban the organization. According to studies, such organisations have been responsible for 270 communal incidents over the last three years. Whenever public pressure increased, the government merely registered FIRs and washed its hands of the matter.

On the other hand, in support of the saffronisation of the Baba Budan Dargah — considered one of the root causes for the BJP’s rise in Karnataka — the Congress government also agreed to appoint Vedic priests at the dargah! The anti-cow slaughter law and anti-conversion law introduced by the BJP government have still not been repealed. Only after suffering setbacks in the Davanagere by-election and realising that Muslims were prepared to organise warning conventions against the Congress despite all pressure, did the government reluctantly withdraw the hijab order.

Furthermore, as the West Bengal elections have reportedly made clear, the Election Commission’s implementation of SIR under Modi’s direction is primarily aimed at denying citizenship rights to Muslims. SIR is set to begin in Karnataka from June. Yet even on this issue, the Congress government’s stance appears mute indirectly helping SIR. After repeated perusal by the civil society organisations and protest movement on the streets, the cabinet met recently and deliberated about the SIR problems. Even though a larger meeting of the leaders of the Congress party and Minsiters has been scheduled to discuss the way in which it could intervene, it has been clubbed with the agenda of discussing upcoming Greater Bangalore Authority (GBA) and other local body elections. The Government is not even thinking of approaching the SC pleading to postpone the Third Phase of SIR until it settles the question of Unconstitutionality of the SIR or the question ill-intentioned Logical Discrepancy or the SC;s own promise of looking into specific issues where the SIR deletions is more than the margin of victory, which has happened in at least 83 constituencies all favouring BJP!

Behind all this lies not a commitment to communal harmony, but rather “soft Hindutva” — the fear that taking a stand for truth and justice may invite accusations of being anti-Hindu and result in losing Hindu votes.

Thus, the Congress government is not defeating the BJP. Instead, by continuing the BJP’s policies, it is helping the BJP to further its agenda. The Congress government is implementing BJP-style policies to such an extent that people may begin to wonder whether they elected Congress or BJP to power.

Social Justice or Injustice?

The deliberate delay in implementing the internal reservation policy, along with the manner of its implementation that allegedly harms the most oppressed communities, both serve as evidence that the Siddaramaiah government is continuing social injustice in much the same way as the BJP.

In particular, nomadic communities categorized as extremely backward were grouped within “Group C” alongside socially advanced touchable castes among Scheduled Castes, and allocated only 4.5% reservation, resulting in severe injustice. Although the law passed with BJP support during the Belagavi session created an additional internal reservation within Group C — reserving the fifth of the first five positions for nomadic castes — it also provided that if eligible candidates from nomadic communities were unavailable, those positions could be filled by touchable Scheduled Castes, thereby creating yet another layer of injustice.

Additionally, in the response prepared for submission to the court, the government reportedly argued that nomadic communities are socially as advanced as Lambani-Bhovi groups and therefore were included in Group C — a position described here as deeply unjust.

Beyond this, there continues to be neglect regarding implementing the much-needed internal reservation within the ST community and increasing the existing 17% reservation for Dalits to 24% along with constitutional protection for the same.

Although the Congress manifesto promised that resources for the guarantee schemes would be generated through development and administrative efficiency, none of this was done. Instead, every year ₹12,000–14,000 crore is being diverted from the SCSP-TSP fund — which was meant to reduce welfare and development disparities affecting SC and ST communities and the wider society — thereby worsening social injustice.

The Kantharaj Commission report, which was specifically constituted to ensure social justice, was withdrawn under pressure from socially dominant groups. Likewise, the newly constituted Nayak report has allegedly been prevented from being published.

All this, according to the writer, proves that the Congress government too is continuing the BJP’s deceptive policies regarding social justice.

Congress Government – BJP Bulldozer?

The demolition of the huts of the economically marginalised in both Kogilu and Thanisandra was carried out by the Congress government’s bulldozer. Across the country, it is BJP bulldozers that are rendering lakhs of poor people homeless, but in Karnataka the Congress has taken up that contract. Is there then really any difference between the BJP and Congress in this regard?

The bulldozer has become a symbol of the oppressive and anti-poor development model followed in this country. BJP governments use bulldozers treating people as though they are not even citizens, then classify the displaced as Hindu or Muslim to carry out communal politics. That is social injustice — uncivilised and inhuman.

However, even the Siddaramaiah government, which makes claims commitment to social justice, is running bulldozers overnight and pushing poor slum dwellers onto the streets. Street vendors are displaced to make way for luxury malls. Though slums lack drinking water, tunnel roads costing ₹24,000 crore are being built for car users. Through the Greater Bengaluru Authority, a city for the privileged is being created. For this, thousands of acres of farmers’ land in Devanahalli, Anekal, and Bidadi are sought to be forcibly acquired.

Even though lands acquired from farmers in Devanahalli were reportedly returned after protests, several deceptive and corporate-friendly conditions were imposed so that farmers would not remain complete owners of their land.

What difference exists between Modi’s corporate-driven “Developed India,” which legalizes encroachments by builders occupying over 25,000 acres in Bengaluru while criminalizing the poor living in tin sheds and huts, and Siddaramaiah’s “Greater Bengaluru” project for builders — apart from chanting the mantra of social justice?

Likewise, just as the BJP-led central government uses the NEP bulldozer to close down the government schools serving poor children in the remote villages in the name of ensuring excellence in few centres,  the Congress government in Karnataka is using the KPS (Karnataka Public Schools) as a  bulldozer to close down all government primary schools in the vicinity of 5-6 kms to act as feeder to the KPS schools.

If depriving children in remote villages of even basic literacy through the BJP’s NEP is injustice, does the same act become justice when the Congress government follows the same policy in the name of KPS?

A Socialist Land Grab?

On one hand, the Congress government has continued the BJP’s practice of forcibly acquiring fertile agricultural land from farmers for corporate interests. On the other hand, like the BJP, it has remained deaf for over a decade to the demands of landless and homeless people in this state.

Yesterday in Tumakuru, ministers proudly spoke about providing e-Pauti and land survey (darakhastu podi) records to farmers across the state. It is true that those who already possess at least some documentation may benefit from this scheme. But the Siddaramaiah government has rejected 3.4 million applications submitted by poor peasants and agricultural workers — many of whom have survived through bonded labour and tenant farming since Independence — seeking legal rights over the lands they cultivate and sites to build homes.

Despite the Karnataka government owning 1.11 crore acres of land, it refuses the demand to enact a law that would guarantee even one acre of land to landless farmers. Additionally, the Congress government has still not repealed the corporate-friendly APMC Amendment Act introduced by the BJP government.

How, then, is all this any different from the BJP’s position of “land to the wealthy instead of land to the tiller”?

Dissent Mukt Karnataka?

There is little doubt that the Modi government at the Centre seeks not merely a Congress-free India, but an opposition-free India by suppressing dissent. Even though the BJP currently rules at the Centre, it uses UAPA laws originally introduced during the UPA regime to imprison or eliminate dissenters.

But how is the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government in Karnataka fundamentally different?

While the Congress government grants permission to Sangh Parivar groups to conduct hate speeches and marches in every neighbourhood, lane, and street of Bengaluru, it tells protesting farmers in Devanahalli — because the area falls under the Bengaluru Commissionerate — that they cannot protest there and must instead demonstrate only at Freedom Park in Bengaluru, 40 kilometers away.

Even though the Congress party itself has taken a stand against Israel’s attacks on Palestine, the government denies permission even for peaceful protests demanding “No War, We Want Peace.”

During the Naxal surrender process, the Siddaramaiah government assured surrendered Naxals and the civil society groups mediating the process that it was committed to granting them immediate bail and livelihood support, claiming that the Congress government was different from the BJP. But even after one and a half years following this surrender, not only has bail not been granted, even a single case trial has not begun, and all of them continue to languish in prison.

Meanwhile, it is reported that in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra, BJP governments have reportedly not continued cases against surrendered Naxals. Most of those who surrendered there have either been released without charges or are out on bail.

Similarly, the Congress government has not conducted the necessary investigation into the alleged inhuman killing of unarmed Naxal leader Vikram Gowda, nor punished those responsible. In effect, the Karnataka Congress government too is assisting the BJP’s project of creating a “Naxal-free India.” Furthermore, it is cooperating in body, speech, and spirit with the BJP’s dream of turning India into an authoritarian nation free of dissent.

This does not mean that the BJP is better than the Congress. Certainly not.

The BJP is the Nations’ Menace.
The Congress is Indians’ disappointment.

The BJP is the problem.
The Congress has so far not been the solution but a continuation of the problem.

Even when Siddaramaiah is Chief Minister,
the Congress government softly continues the BJP’s capitalist and Brahminical policies.

The BJP implements the same policies more aggressively.

So, in summary:

Congress and BJP are not One and the same.
But…
the difference is too narrow to pin people’s hopes on.

Therefore, merely changing parties in power will not improve people’s lives.

The illusion that fascism can be defeated through the Congress will not succeed.

At the very least, the past three years of the Siddaramaiah government should dispel that illusion.

To realise the constitutional ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the country needs another freedom struggle.

Without that, there will be no escape from fascism.

Related:

Karnataka: Hindutva groups call for economic boycott of Muslim vendors at Siddheshwar Temple

In line with the approaching Karnataka polls, BJP MLA KS Eshwarappa gives anti-Muslim speech

Supreme Court takes action amid outrage following Karnataka Judge’s anti-Muslim and gender-insensitive comments in court

The post Three Years of the Congress Government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These 13 questions – sharp, insistent, and impossible to brush aside – cut through the carefully crafted and cunning narrative on women’s empowerment projected by Narendra Modi and his government. Shivasundar is not merely interrogating policy; he is challenging the very intent, timing, and political calculus behind this charade of a law

Through this Shivasundar exposes how the women’s reservation issue has been transformed from a long-awaited democratic reform into an electoral instrument — announced with fanfare, deferred with design, and deployed in moments of political convenience. Here are the questions. Read On.

Question #1

After amending Article 334A of the Constitution in 2023 with unanimous support of all parties and making women’s reservation a law, what was the need for another constitutional amendment?

Question #2

As demanded unanimously by opposition parties in 2023, why was 33% reservation not implemented within the existing 543 seats? Why were unnecessary conditions added—such as implementing it only after delimitation based on the 2026 census—making it impossible to enforce women’s reservation until 2034?

Question #3

Why was the Act, passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in 2023, approved by the President and gazetted, not notified until April 16, 2026?

Question #4

If the intention of bringing the 2026 constitutional amendment bill was to implement women’s reservation quickly, why were manipulative sub-conditions like delimitation based on the 2011 census included?

Question #5

Even knowing that adding highly controversial delimitation conditions would prevent securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament, why was this process initiated?

Question #6

Even now, why is your government unwilling to call a special session and introduce a simple amendment to provide 33% reservation within the existing 543 seats?

Question #7

In 2023, you introduced a women’s reservation bill that could not be implemented until 2034—just one year before elections.

Now, during ongoing elections in five states, despite clearly knowing the bill would fail (due to delimitation conditions), you deliberately introduced and ensured its defeat. You have also started a false and divisive campaign blaming opposition parties for this failure.

Was this bill introduced merely to defame the opposition?

Does this not mean you have consistently betrayed women’s reservation for petty electoral gains?

Question #8

Since 1996, proposals for women’s reservation have been repeatedly introduced in Parliament by Congress governments, United Front governments, your own Vajpayee government, and later the UPA government. One major reason as to why they were not passed was the objection that there was no sub-quota for OBCs within women’s reservation.

Why did even the Vajpayee government not attempt to implement women’s reservation with an OBC sub-quota, like other governments?

Why does the 2026 bill you introduced also not include an OBC sub-quota?

Question #9

One of the reasons why attempts between 1996–2014 failed was coalition governments. But in 2014 and 2019, the Modi government had a full majority. Why did you not use that to pass women’s reservation without delimitation conditions, as you did for EWS reservation for upper caste?

Instead,

a) In 2023, you ensured it could not be implemented until 2034

b) In 2026, you added malicious delimitation conditions and ensured the bill’s defeat

Does this not make the Modi government the most anti-women and opposed to women’s reservation?

Question #10

If the BJP truly has commitment to women’s empowerment, why not voluntarily give 33% tickets to women in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections without waiting for a law? Except for TMC, why does BJP—like most other parties—still limit women’s tickets to around 12–15%?

Question #11

After the bill’s defeat, Prime Minister Modi allegedly misused government machinery and, acting like a BJP leader, delivered hate-filled election speeches falsely branding opposition parties as anti-women. Since institutions like the Election Commission and Supreme Court are not acting against this, does this not further prove that the bill was introduced just to label opposition parties as anti-women and gain women’s votes?

Question #12

In yesterday’s speech, Prime Minister Modi called himself a protector of women.

But over the past 11 years, in cases like Manipur, Kathua, Unnao, harassment of women wrestlers, and honoring of Bilkis Bano case convicts by BJP leaders—why has he remained silent, even when BJP MPs and leaders themselves were accused of crimes against women? Why protect such perpetrators instead of speaking out?

Question #13

Modi compared the failure of women’s reservation to female foeticide. Female foeticide reduces the proportion of women in society compared to men.

In reality, why do states like Gujarat (long ruled by BJP), and Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (with strong BJP and Sangh influence), have among the lowest female-to-male ratios in the country?

Conversely, why do states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana, and West Bengal—where BJP influence is relatively weaker—have higher female population ratios compared to “Hindi-Hindu” states?

Just asking.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Following delimitation, the parliamentary representation of southern Indian states is projected to decline from 23.6% to approximately 20%, whereas the representation of the Hindi-speaking northern and central states—where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has substantial electoral strength—is expected to increase from 38.1% to 43.1%. This shift enables the ruling BJP to maintain political dominance even without substantial support from southern states.

Beyond its federal implications, this issue also raises normative concerns regarding democratic principles.

The delimitation process is grounded in the principle of “one person, one vote and One Vote One Value”, that is  the equal value of each vote. Ideally, each parliamentary or legislative constituency should represent a comparable number of voters across the country. Based on this principle, the allocation of seats in state assemblies and the Lok Sabha is determined.

For instance:

In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Uttar Pradesh (UP) had approximately 15.4 Crore registered voters and 80 parliamentary seats, implying that each Member of Parliament (MP) represented around 19.3 lakhs voters.

In contrast, Tamil Nadu (TN) had about 6.24 crore voters and 39 seats, with each MP representing roughly 16 lakh  voters. This discrepancy suggests that the relative value of an individual vote varies across states.

From a theoretical standpoint, delimitation could address such disparities by standardising representation—for example, by ensuring one MP per 10-15 lakh voters nationwide. However, such an approach would increase representation for more populous states while comparatively reducing it for states that have achieved lower population growth.

This raises a fundamental question for a democracy with many regional complexities and existing regional imbalance in political representation:

How can equitable representation be ensured without exacerbating regional imbalances?

The Modi governments’ approach to delimitation intended to reinforce existing myopic political advantages for the BJP at the cost inciting regional unrest leading to centrifugal tendencies which is already brewing in the republic.

An additional dimension of the debate concerns the interaction between delimitation and SIR. While delimitation determines the number of parliamentary seats, SIR determines the electorate itself.

The combined effect of these processes result in disproportionate disadvantage to southern states. To illustrate let us take the examples of both UP and TN where the SIR process has been completed and check the impact of Delimitaion.

Under the proposed framework (based on the 2011 Census):

Uttar Pradesh’s Lok Sabha seats may increase from 80 to 143.

Tamil Nadu’s seats may increase from 39 to 49.

Following the SIR:

Uttar Pradesh is estimated to have approximately 13.39 Cr voters, after the SIR, resulting in one Member of Parliament (MP) per about 9.36 lakhs voters.

Tamil Nadu, after the SIR, is estimated to have around 5.67 million voters, leading to one MP per approximately 11.57 lakhs voters. Thus, disparities in voter-to-representative ratios would persist, with southern states potentially experiencing relatively lower vote value.

A similar pattern is projected for Karnataka. After delimitation, the state may receive 41 seats. Depending on changes in the voter base following SIR, the number of voters per MP could remain comparatively higher than in northern states.

In comparative terms, if all states were represented at the same ratio as Uttar Pradesh (approximately one MP per 9.36 lakhs voters), Tamil Nadu should get 60 seats instead of 49, with similar implications for Karnataka. Thus both the SIR and delimitation of the Modi government as currently proposed, is a lethal attack on Parliamentary Democracy.

It is for this reason that the country should say a clear NO to both the SIR and the Delimitation.

An alternative framework that preserves the principle of equal vote value while minimizing regional disparities in representation need to be evolved through democratic consultation with the People and States of the Republic.

Related:

Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens

“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

The post Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR? appeared first on SabrangIndia.