More than 200 renowned Adivasi-mulvasi leaders, representatives of people’s organisations, traditional self-governance representatives, academics, and activists have issued a joint statement appealing to Adivasis and all Jharkhandis to observe coming Tuesday, June 9, the martyrdom day of Dharti Abba Birsa Munda, across every corner of the state by commemorating his Adivasi culture, struggles, and the Ulgulan. Most critically, they have urged them to declare a solemn pledge to protect his legacy from manuvadi organizations such as the RSS, the Janajati Suraksha Manch, and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram.

The signatories to the appeal include prominent socio-political leaders such as former minister Geetashree Oraon, former MLAs Bahadur Oraon and Mangal Singh Bobonga, Jyotsna Kerketta, Devkinandan Bedia, Kumar Chandra Mardi, Demka Soy, Ramesh Jarai, Rajni Murmu, Sukhnath Lohra, Durgawati Oraon, Aloka Kujur, Binsay Munda, Hari Kumar Bhagat, Kalicharan Birua, Dinesh Murmu, Sadhu Ho, Jaikishan Godsora, and Vasvi Kido; as well as renowned intellectuals like Jacinta Kerketta, Joseph Bara, Anuj Lugun, and Nitish Khalkho.

Other representatives from numerous organisations have also signed the appeal, including the Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Samiti, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, Sarna Sagom Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Adivasi Moolvasi Adhikar Manch (Bokaro), Bharat Jakat Majhi Pargana Mahal (Ramgarh), Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanvay Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha (West Singhbhum), Adivasi Ho Samaj Sewanivrit Sangathan (Chaibasa), Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Adivasi Samanvay Samiti, Birsa Sena, Adivasi Ekta Manch, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha, Sanyukt Gram Sabha, Yuva Jhumur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, JOHAR, OMON Mahila Sangathan, and Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha.

The appeal has also been supported by several national activists and intellectuals working on Adivasi rights issues, such as Nandini Sundar, Bela Bhatia, Prafulla Samantara, and Ishwar Ahire. The entire list is attached to the appeal.

The appeal draws specifically attention to the ‘Janajati Sanskritik Samagam’ organised in Delhi on May 24, 2026, by the Janajati Suraksha Manch—an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During this event, speakers—particularly Amit Shah—repeatedly addressed the Adivasis as ‘Vanvasis’. Throughout the gathering, not once was Birsa Munda’s struggle for jal, jangal, jameen emphasised and remembered nor was his fight against the exploitation by dikus, commemorated.

The signatories believe that the RSS and its affiliated organisations deliberately avoid using the term ‘Adivasi’ because they view tribal communities co-optively as ‘Vanvasis’—occupying the lowest rung of the Hindu caste hierarchy. On one hand, these organisations are actively seeking to erase the independent identity of Adivasis by propagating the slogan “Sarna-Sanatan Ek”. On the other hand, they are attempting to fracture the collective solidarity of Adivasis by demanding the delisting of Christian Adivasis from the official list of Scheduled Tribes. The RSS, according to the signatories, is appropriating Birsa Munda’s name and legacy to serve its own agenda: to reduce Adivasis to mere ‘Vanvasis,’ to dismantle their collective unity, to plunder their natural resources, and to obliterate the heritage of the dharti aba.

The appeal asserts that Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan—waged for the sake of jal, jangal, jameen and against the British colonialists as well as all forms of exploitative dikus—laid the very foundation of the state of Jharkhand. However, the Sangh is actively engaged in an attempt to rewrite this history. The BJP-led Raghubar Das government, in particular, even attempted to dismantle the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act—a landmark legislation born out of the Ulgulan movement. In the very Munda Disum where Birsa Munda had first raised the clarion call of Ulgulan, the Raghubar government went so far as to label thousands of Adivasis as ‘anti-nationals’. The Modi government, too, state the group, is systematically working to erode the autonomy of Adivasis and to strip them of their constitutional and legal rights. Furthermore, these Manuvadi organizations have consistently opposed the demands of Adivasis for formal recognition of their distinct religious systems and for the inclusion of a separate religious code for them in the national census.

Therefore, prominent figures have appealed to all Adivasis and Jharkhandis, as well as all proponents of Adivasi identity, to safeguard Birsa’s legacy from the RSS and to convey the truth to the people on this death anniversary.

Names of all Signatories may be read here:

1. Geetashree Oraon, Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Ranchi
2. Bahadur Oraon, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
3. Mangal Singh Bobonga, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
4. Jacinta Kerketta, Poet and writer, Ranchi
5. Anuj Lugun, Poet, East Singhbhum
6. Jyotsana Kerketta, Adivasi Mulvasi Manch, Khunti
7. Kumar Chandra Mardi, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, East Singhbhum
8. Neetisha Xalxo, Assitant Professor, Dhanbad
9. Basavi Kiro, Indigenous Women India Network, Ranchi
10. Devkinandan Bedia, Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Ramgarh
11. Joseph Bara, Historian, Ranchi
12. Prabal Mahto, Film Maker, West Singhbhum
13. Ramesh Jerai, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
14. Rajni Murmu, Adivasi feminist organization, Deoghar
15. Aloka Kujur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
16. Sukhnath Lohra, Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Jharkhand, Ranchi
17. Durgawati Oraon, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
18. Binsay Munda, Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanway Samiti Jharkhand, Khunti
19. Chandramohan Birua, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
20. Demka Soy, Jharkhand Andolankari Morcha, East Singhbhum
21. Dinesh Murmu, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
22. Hari Kumar Bhagat, Concerned citizen, Latehar
23. Jaykishan Godsora, Research scholar, West Singhbhum
24. Kalicharan Birua, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha, West Singhbhum
25. Krishna Lohar, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
26. Ajay Bankira, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
27. Anant Kumar Hembrom, Activist, West Singhbhum
28. Anupam Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
29. Asman Hembram, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha Kharsawan, Seraikela-Kharsawan
30. Bablu Munda, Sayukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
31. Bahadur Hans, Sarna Sagom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
32. Basingh Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
33. Chandra Prabhat Munda, Adiwasi Samanway Samiti Khunti, Khunti
34. Chunulal Soren, Ekta Parishad,Jharkhand, Hazaribagh
35. Deepak Ranjeet, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
36. Jaisingh Bodra, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
37. Jamadar Kairam, Birsa Sena Noamundi, West Singhbhum
38. Kamal Purti, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, West Singhbhum
39. Laldeo Soren, Bharat Jakat Manjhli Pargana Mahal, Ramgarh
40. Mangal Singh Kuntia, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
41. Manik Chand Korwa, Samudayik Van Prabandhan Federation Garhwa, Garhwa
42. Mukta Hans, Sarna Sagam Samiti Khunti, Khunti
43. Narayan Kandeyang, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
44. Pramod Khalkho, Adivasi Ekta Manch and Jan Sangharsh Samiti Chainpur, Gumla
45. Renu Oraon, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Latehar
46. Sadhu Ho, Deshauli Foundation, West Singhbhum
47. Sanjay Horo, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
48. Shyamal Mardi, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Saraikela Kharsawan
49. Siddharth Honhaga, Bhagwan Birsa Munda Red Cross Volunteers., West Singhbhum
50. Somnath Pareya, Birsa Seva Dal, East Singhbhum
51. Sukhram Hansda, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
52. Sukhram Pahan, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
53. Sunil Hembram, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
54. Sunil Soren, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
55. Sunita Boipai, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
56. Sunita Lakra, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
57. Tarkan Munda, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha Khunti, Khunti
58. Tej Munda, Adibashi Bhumij Munda Samiti Kukru Balak, Seraikela-Kharsawan
59. Vibhishan Jerai, Birsa Changul Malhar Club, Devgaon, West Singhbhum
60. Ajay Ekka, Adivasi Kshetra Yuva Manch, Simdega
61. Ajit Kumar Tirkey, Jharkhand organization for social harmony, East Singhbhum
62. Aman Kumar Marandi, Concerned citizen, Dhanbad
63. Anjana Besra, Activist, Khunti
64. Ashim Ashish Tigga, Tribal Journalist Association, Ranchi
65. Bineet Mundu, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
66. Elina Horo, Adivasi Women’s Network, Ranchi
67. Gadadhar Tiyu, Kendriya Ho Samaj Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha
68. Gautam Minj, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
69. Jagmohan Singh Angaria, Activist, West Singhbhum
70. James Herenj, Activist, Latehar
71. Jennifer Baxla, Activist, Ranchi
72. Jugal Munda, Jaura Sika Akhara, Khunti
73. Kailu Baskey, Concerned citizen, Sahebganj
74. Krishna Tudu, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
75. Lakhan Mardi, Jhalak (majhi Baba), Seraikela-Kharsawan
76. Madan Mohan, Jharkhand Navnirman Abhiyan, East Singhbhum
77. Manita Deogam, Activist, West Singhbhum
78. Mathiyas Suren, Adivasi Association Noamundi, West Singhbhum
79. Mission Soy, Adivasi Ho Samaj Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
80. Nelshan Munda, Adivasi researcher, Khunti
81. Parmeshwar Manjhi, Concerned citizen, Bokaro
82. Rahul Oraon, HEC Hatia Vishthapit Parivar Samiti, Ranchi
83. Sadhu Charan Samad, Activist, West Singhbhum
84. Saroj Soreng, Concerned citizen, Simdega
85. Suresh Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
86. Abdus Subhan, Activist, Sahibganj
87. Abhinash Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbum
88. Abhishek Kujur, Student, Ranchi
89. Ajay Minj, Activist, Gumla
90. Albinus Lakra, Activist, Simdega
91. Ambika Yadav, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
92. Anamika Hansda, Activist, Godda
93. Ankit Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
94. Arpana Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
95. Ashok Verma, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
96. B B Choudhary, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Jharkhand, Ranchi
97. Badal Kumar Singh, Jharkhand Navnirman Dal,Gumla, Gumla
98. Balma Purty, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
99. Balram Karmakar, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
100. Bharat Birua, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
101. Bharti Barjo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
102. Binod, Adivasi Mahasabha, Simdega
103. Biplab Gorai, BGVS, East Singhbhum
104. Blacius Ekka, Activist, Simdega
105. Deepak Dholakia, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Delhi
106. Deepak Laguri, Student, West Singhbhum
107. Deepti Mary Minj, Concerned citizen, Simdega
108. Divya Vani Tirkey, Adivasi Yuva Chetna Manch (AICUF/AYCM), Ranchi
109. Dorothy Fernandes, Aashray Abhiyan, Patna
110. Emil Kandulna, Activist, Ranchi
111. Eric Murmu, Teacher, Deoghar
112. Faisal Anurag, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
113. Gangaram Jerai, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
114. Gabriel Bodra, Activist, West Singhbhum
115. Gautam Kumar Bose, Jharkhand Qaumi Ekta Manch, East Singhbhum
116. Geeta Godsora, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
117. George Monippally, Van Adhikar Manch, Latehar, Latehar
118. Jagat, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
119. Jano Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
120. Jawahar Mehta, Activist, Palamu
121. Jayman Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
122. Jitendra Baraik, Activist, Ranchi
123. Jitendra Oraon, Concerned citizen, Latehar
124. Jitendra Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
125. Jivan Hembram, Majhi Baba, East Singhbhum
126. Joseph Kisku, Activist, Dumka
127. Jyoti Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
128. Jyoti Behan, Mahila Mukti Sangharsh Samiti, Chatra, Chatra
129. Kamal Pahan, Concerned citizen, Khunti
130. Kamil Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
131. Kamlesh Korwa, Concerned citizen, Garhwa
132. Khetro Mohan Birua, Activist, West Singhbhum
133. Kiran, Sambhava injor, Ranchi
134. Kiran Veer, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Seraikela-Kharsawan
135. Kita Sinku, Activist, West Singhbhum
136. Kumari Leena, Human Rights Activist, Ranchi
137. Madhu Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
138. Manimala, Journalisr, Delhi
139. Manthan, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, East Singhbhum
140. Mathias Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
141. Michael Jojo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
142. Mikhael Hassa, Activist, Khunti
143. Mugli Kandeyang, West Singhbhum
144. Mukesh Hembram, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
145. Narendra Kumar, True Gandhian Group, Bokaro
146. Nawin Lugun, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
147. Nikita Hemrom, Bagaicha, Ranchi
148. Nimesh, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
149. Om Prakash, Azadi Bachao Andolan, East Singhbhum
150. Pius Topno, Student, Khunti
151. Ponderam Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
152. Poonam Deogam, Sprouts Child Grooming Center, West Singhbhum
153. Praphul Kujur, Activist, Ranchi
154. Praveer Peter, Sajha Kadam & Sadbhav Manch (NAPM), India
155. Prince Gill, JCM, East Singhbhum
156. Prof Yogendra, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Ranchi
157. Raj Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
158. Rajendra Champia, Activist, West Singhbhum
159. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Campaign to Defend Nature and People, Chennai
160. Rajshree, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
161. Ram Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
162. Rashmi Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
163. Ravi Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
164. Rita Kandey, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
165. Rose Madhu Tirkey, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
166. Rose Xaxa, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Gumla
167. Sanjana Mehta, Student activist, Garhwa
168. Sarita Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
169. Satish Munda, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
170. Saurabh Sinha, Activist, Deoghar
171. Savita Kachhap, Social activist and Research Scolar, Ranchi
172. Shailendra Sinku, Student, West Singhbhum
173. Shakha Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
174. Shashi Shekhar Singh, Citizens for Democracy’s, Delhi
175. Shivam Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
176. Siraj Dutta, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
177. Solomon, Concerned citizen, Dumka
178. Soumya, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
179. Subhash Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
180. Sunil Champia, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
181. Sunil Kumar Bansingh, Activist, East Singhbhum
182. Sushila Minj, Concerned citizen, central
183. Thakur Baske, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
184. Vicky Beck, Activist, Ranchi
185. Vijay Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
186. Vijay Kumar Barwa, Concerned citizen, Latehar
187. Vikas Das, Concerned citizen, Khunti
188. Vikash Kumar, Activist, East Singhbhum
189. Vikram Minj, Activist, Latehar
190. Vishwanath Azad, Ekal Nari Sashakti Sangathan, Hazaribagh
191. Vivek Vishal, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
192. Ananta, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
193. Ashok Vishwarai, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini (JASWA) / Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Unnao (Uttar Pradesh)
194. Ashok, MKSS, Pali, Rajasthan
195. Avinash Kadam, Shramik Mukti Dal, Thane, Maharashtra
196. Bela Bhatia, Human rights lawyer, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
197. Bimal Ekka, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
198. Sricharan Behera, Campaign for Survival and Fignity, Odisha, Khurdha
199. Shambhu Nath, Jan Sangharsh Vahini, Begusarai, Bihar
200. Ishwar Ahire, Manjur Sangharsh Vahini, Dhule, Maharashtra
201. Jag Narayan Mahto, Concerned citizen, Delhi
202. Joshy Jacob, Samajwadi Janaparishad, Kottayam, Kerala
203. Nandini Sundar, Sociologist, Delhi
204. Narbhinder Singh, Association for Democratic Rights Punjab, Tarn Taran, Punjab
205. Nelson Xess, Concerned citizen, N&M Andaman
206. Nootan, CDNP, Wardha, Maharashtra
207. Prafulla Samanthara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
208. Ranjana Kanhere, Activist, Nandurbar
209. Richa Singh, SKMS, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh
210. Sanjay Kumar Lakra, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
211. Shalini Gera, Lawyer, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
212. Somar Singh Bhokta, Mazdoor Kisan Samiti and Jaswa, Gaya Ji, Bihar
213. Sujata Gothoskar, Nari Atyachar Virodhi Manch, Mumbai, Maharashtra
214. Umakanta Naik, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
215. Vinod Vikram, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, Allahabad (UP)
216. Virendra Kumar, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Mumbai

Related:

How Not To Remember Birsa Munda 

Adivasis protest BJP’s ‘insult’ to freedom fighter Birsa Munda

Jharkhand Adivasis celebrate Birsa Munda Jayanti on Jharkhand formation day

The post Appeal by Adivasi-Mulvasi leaders to Jharkhandis: Protect Birsa Munda’s legacy from the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: Members of the transgender community submitted a memorandum to the Police Commissioner demanding strict action against inflammatory social media posts spreading Hindu-Muslim division. They urged increased monitoring, legal action against offenders pic.twitter.com/6K3Lj4QtvS

— IANS (@ians_india) June 4, 2026

Ironically, while they had approached the Police Commissioner as conscientious citizens, they were not allowed to enter the premises but had to submit the memorandum at the gate. The social media post reflected a police official accepting the memorandum after perusing the contents.

Related:

A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW!

The post Varanasi: Transgender Community demands action against communal social media posts, CP denies them entry into premises appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, this action by the BMC authorities, as reported by India Today, followed two months after BJP leader and former MP Kirit Somaiya visited the place and urged the authorities to demolish the structure that was allegedly constructed on the land of the Maharashtra government’s dairy development project. Somaiya is a key leader who stokes strong communal passions in Mumbai. Soon after the demolition, the veteran BJP leader wrote on X, “Land JIHAD… illegal DARGAH of Aarey Colony Mumbai Demolished today. I had visited & filed a complaint on April 9, 2026.”

AAREY Land JIHAD

70,000 square feet Forest Land was grabbed in the name of Dargah.

After consistent efforts of 12 months 6 visits & 12 meetings with Minister, Officials & 1 FIR yesterday DEMOLITION.

Now this land is to be handed over to Forest Dept, Sanjay Gandhi National… pic.twitter.com/RA8NddmIxe

— Kirit Somaiya (@KiritSomaiya) June 3, 2026

Land Jihad
Land Grabbing in the name of DARGAH

Aarey Colony Reserved Forest Land by

Mahmud Yasin
Anwar Pinjari
Imran Mansuri
Vasim Mansuri & others

I had visited the site half a dozen times in last 12 months. Exposed the Land JIHAD & Filed complaints with Aarey Colony,… pic.twitter.com/CRxgq2UCvx

— Kirit Somaiya (@KiritSomaiya) June 2, 2026

Early on Tuesday morning, an army of bulldozers and cranes arrived on the land to start the demolition drive. The area was cordoned off by a heavy deployment of police forces to prevent any unpleasant situation from arising. Keeping the stone-pelting incident of Bandra Garib Nagar in mind, where the people allegedly threw stones at the officials when a demolition driver headed to raze down a religious structure, the people started throwing stones. Personnel from both Mumbai Police and riot-control forces were present at the spot.

Last week, the BMC also demolished a temple that was illegally constructed in Mumbai’s Dindoshi area.

Related:

Why was a 200-year-old mosque in Varanasi demolished in the middle of the night?

Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP

The post Under heavy police protection, decades-old Mumbai dargah razed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Statesman reported that the Ajgaib Shaheed Mosque, located near Rajghat and falling within the alignment of the railway expansion project, was brought down shortly after midnight amid extensive security arrangements. Officials claimed that the structure stood on railway land earmarked for the station’s modernisation and expansion.

A report in the Deccan Herald said that a Hanuman Temple, which was also built on the railway land, was removed.

This sudden and arbitrary demolition is linked to a major infrastructure project under which Kashi railway station is being transformed into an integrated transport hub with airport-like facilities. Estimated to cost between Rs 330 crore and Rs 400 crore, the project aims to connect rail, road, metro and water transport networks at a single location to improve passenger movement in the city.

According to officials, senior police and administrative officers reached the site late Tuesday night and supervised the operation, which was completed within a short span. Bulldozers and earth-moving equipment were deployed to bring down the structure and clear the debris.

Massive security cover for overnight operation

The administration had put in place elaborate security measures to prevent any law-and-order issues during the exercise.

Joint Commissioner of Police Shiv Hari Meena led the security arrangements, with several IPS officers, police personnel and paramilitary forces stationed in and around the area. Access to the site was tightly restricted during the operation.

Officials said five JCB machines and two Poclain excavators were used in the demolition process.

Senior officers monitored operation

Before the demolition began, senior officials carried out a review of the area and security deployment. Among those present were DCP Kashi Gaurav Banswal, ADCP Vaibhav Bangar, ACP Vijay Pratap and officers from multiple police stations. The heavy deployment continued until debris from the site was removed.

Related:

Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP

Rebuild or Compensate: Nagpur HC confronts NMC over ‘bulldozer’ demolition in riot case

Demolition of Adivasi homes at Sanjay Gandhi National Park on Republic Day

The post Why was a 200-year-old mosque in Varanasi demolished in the middle of the night? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“These violent attacks — while Central forces are still deployed in the state — not only signify the utter and complete breakdown of any semblance of the Rule of Law in West Bengal,” the signatories declared. “They send out grim warning signals to the rest of the country.”

The collective statement also criticised the conduct of the Central Election Commission, noting “91 lakh previous voters [were] divested of their voting rights.” The statement linked the violence to what it described as unchecked repression following the May 2026 assembly election results.

The signatories include former union minister Yashwant Sinha, writers and journalists Susie Tharu, Raju Parulekar, Navin Kumar, Venkitesh Ramakrishnan Teesta Setalvad, Javed Anand, Chitra Palekar, Indra Kumar Theradi, retired civil servant Ashish Joshi, Aditi Mehta, danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, activists Shabnam Hashmi, Ram Puniyani, Dolphy D’Souza, Virginia Saldanha, artists Shakuntala Kulkarni, Navjot Altaf, Kripa, photographer, Ram Rahman, Nandita Narain , Associate Professor( Retd), St.Stephen’s College, Delhi University among several others. Gandhian Tushar Gandhi, Jesuit leaders Father Frazer Mascarenhas and Cedric Prakash, film maker Avinash Das. Medical practioner Harsha Hege are also signatories.

The statement recalled the 2001 assassination of MP Phoolan Devi, when Parliament “took note” of the attack. In contrast, the signatories said today’s institutions have responded with “institutional freeze and silence.”

“We remain mute spectators only to our own peril,” the statement warned, urging citizens to organize and speak out against violence and repression.

The entire statement may be read here:

Concerned Citizens

Mumbai, June 3, 2026

The Saturday May 30-31, 2026 brute attacks in West Bengal, first on Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP), Abhishek Banerjee and thereafter on another MP of the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Kalyan Banerjee mark yet another, but new, all-time low under the present regime under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the current prime minister. The violent attacks 26 days after an election result that has been shrouded under a cloud with the conduct of the Central Election Commission (CEC) –with 91 lakh previous voters divested of their voting rights—needs to be condemned with rigour and foresight.

These violent attacks –while Central forces are still deployed in the state —not only signify the utter and complete breakdown of any semblance of the Rule of Law in West Bengal. They send out grim warning signals to the rest of the country, and are a sign that all out fratricide (more physical, unchecked attacks on the Opposition) may follow. Widespread physical threats and violence in states governed by the same party may well become the norm and it is time, for those Indians, with conscience and voice, to speak out. Now.

Just a day after the controversial May 4, 2026 results in West Bengal, none less than another discredited and authoritarian oligarch leader of the world’s second largest (and ‘oldest’) democracy, Donald Trump doled out widely-publicised words of congratulation to the Indian Prime Minister. These words from one head of state to another, after a state/federal election where several parties participate, were sharply condemned by some members of the Opposition who deemed this as ‘direct interference in internal affairs’ and an ‘attack on Indian federalism.’ Trump is a discredited world leader who’s moral and other failures on the domestic and international front, bear no recounting. Yet the overall immunity that this Regime is functioning under/with, clearly comes from this unholy alliance that it has individually built with a world leader and its state, at the cost of Indian economic and defence interests and its sovereignty.

We, Indian writers and activists who condemn in no uncertain terms the near fatal attacks on Abhishek Banerjee and Kalyan Banerjee, both Members of Parliament, have little hope that the Indian Lok Sabha (Lower House of Elected Representatives) will either move a Privilege Motion nor out rightly demand a response from the ruling dispensation as is the well-established law and practice. On one previous and rare occasion, when an MP like Phoolan Devi was attacked and killed outside her New Delhi residence, in July 2001 in broad daylight, it was also a previous NDA government, led by Bharatiya Janata Party’s Atal Behari Vajpayee that was in power in Delhi. However, there was not just uproar and condemnation but Parliament took note.

This time, the brute attacks that have been widely documented on social media have been met, largely with institutional freeze and silence. This silence from autonomous and independent bodies bodes ill for India and Indians. We remain mute spectators only to our own peril.

Signatories

Raju Parulekar, Writer
Teesta Setalvad, Rights Activist, Journalist and Educationist
Navin Kumar, Journalist and Academic
Yashwant Sinha, former Union Minister for Finance & External Affairs, GOI
Parakala Prabhakar, Political Economist and Author
Anand Patwardhan, noted Film-maker and Activist
Navaid Hamid, Secretary Peoples Integration Council
Ram Puniyani, All India secular forum
Yashodhan Paranjpe
Sheeba Aslam Fehmi, Journalist, Researcher, New Delhi
Lalita Ramdas, Peace Activist
Javed Anand
Mallika Sarabhai
Bharat Bhushan, Columnist and Editor
Mondira Jaisimha
Navaid Hamid, Secretary Peoples Integration Council
Kunwar Danish Ali
Chitra Palekar Theatre Personality & Author
Col Pavan Nair
Sooraj Samant
Yashodhan Paranjpe
Dev Desai
Gautam Mukhopadhaya
Nandini Manjrekar
Aditi Mehta
डॉ. लक्ष्मण यादव, लेखक व सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता, दिल्ली
Meena Karnik
Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Director General Wisdom Foundation
Nikhil Sanjay-Rekha Adsule
Kripa
Frazer Mascarenhas
A C Michael
Indra Kumar Theradi
Kedar Vaidya
Susie Tharu
Tushar A. Gandhi
Harsha Hegde
Cedric Prakash
Avinash Das
Kumud karnik
Jawad A J
Dr. Michael Williams
N.D.Jayaprakash
Atul chakravarty
Mridula Mukherjee
Niloufer Bhagwat
Joy Sengupta
Atul
Shabnam Hashmi
Venkitesh Ramakrishnan
Deb Mukharji
Javed Ali Khan
Naazish Shah
Kamal Malhotra
Suhel Tirmizi
Balveer Arora
Harminder Soni
Manoj Nair
Muniza Khan, Activist and Researcher
Anita Rampal
Niharika JINDAL
Atul Kochar, Under water SME
Sudhir Wilson, Technical Advisor
Navdeep Mathur, Academician
Rajeev Bhargava
Ashish Joshi, Former Civil Servant & Member CCG and CFF
Gautam Vir, Retired
Meera
Priyanka Parulekar, Student
Premanand, Social Activist
Sanjeev Gupta
Balasangameshwara Vollepore , Member AIPC
Nandita Narain , Associate Professor( Retd), St.Stephen’s College, Delhi University
Ram Rahman, Photographer
Lalita Deonalli , Retired
Laly Randolf, Citizen Activist
Ebin Gheevarghese , Journalist
Rajiv Kapoor, Hotel Premdeep Partner
Sancia Sequeira, Tourisn
Natasha Pereira , Self-employed/ part time envt activist
Anand Kumar , President, Citizens for Democracy
Alok Rai
Adv Dr Lubna Sarwath, Indian National Congress, Hyderabad
Ramesh Dixit , Professor (retired) Lucknow University.
Sandhya Honawar, Retd
Sharmeela de Vas , Writing & Copy editing Consultant
Amitabha Basu, Retired scientist, CSIR-NPL, New Delhi
Mohan Abraham
Sanjeev
Brian DSouza , The Bombay Catholic Sabha
नितीन वाळके, व्यापारी
Deepa Navin , Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant
Vickram Crishna, Appropriate Technology Advocate
SUNIL, Businesses
Philomena D’Souza , Satyashodhak
Pervin Sanghvi
Virginia Saldanha , Woman Activist
Rebecca Dlima , Housewife
Elsa Muttathu , Concerned citizen.
Karan D’Lima
Faredoon Bhujwala, trainer
Gracian Alfonso, Retired .Believer in Free speach and freedom.
Smita Crishna , Social worker
Ryan Oliver
Dhananjay Ramkrishna Shinde, Activist
Ashok Sharma, IFS (Retd)
Shubhra verma, Creative director
Dolphy Dsouza, Rights Activist
Chandrasekaran S, Retired teacher
Neeraj Bhai Patel , Editor In Chief National Janmat
Shalini , Retired lecturer
Priya D’S, Retired
Gwen Monteiro
Jennifer Mirza, Retired film and Tv serial production manager
Aruna Gnanadason, Indian Christian Women’s Movement
Ashish Ghosh , Retired teacher
Navjot Altaf , Artist
Susie Jacob Tharu, Academic
Ranjona Banerji, Independent journalist
Ravindra Kulkarni, Senior Solicitor
Terence Gonsalves, Retired
Stanley Fernandez , Citizens for the Constitution
Pradip Mario D’Lima, Subsea Operations & HSEQ
Devdan Tribhuvan, Christian Development Association
David, Mentor Coach
Lekshmi Krishnan
Vani, Program Manager
Aroon DSouza , Demat Share Consultant
Shakuntala kulkarni, Artist
Benito Saldanha, Business
Prabhat Sharan , Journalist
Nio Va, writer and activist
Raymond Nogueira, Business/Proprietor/RedRay Engineers
Suraj Samrat
Catherine John, Nursing
Satish Londhe
Ramesh C
Sharmila F
Surendra Deonalli, Retired
Nanda Ghosh, Activist and Poet, Assam
Megan Gonsalves
Preeti Reddy, Retired
Dr. Vivek Korde, Doctor
DR. VIVEK KORDE, Doctor
Maureen D’Sa, Retired
Gloria, Retired
Rochelle Dsouza
Megan Gonsalves
Faraz Ahmad , Journalist
Dr Asha Saxena Ahmad, Opthalmologist
Errol Mario DeSilva ,
Pyara Lal Garg, DOCTOR PROFESSOR

Related:

Bengal after the Ballot: Fear, retaliation and the politics of territorial power

‘Bangla Pokkho’ founder Garga Chatterjee arrested over alleged EVM misinformation ahead of Bengal polls

As lynchings “normalise” in ‘New India, a Bihar imam is ‘thrashed, pushed’ from train to die in Bareilly

The post Brute Violence in Bengal sparks citizens’ urgent warning appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujjar Bakkerwal community is a recognised Scheduled Tribe (ST) community and has lived in forest areas for centuries, sustaining their livelihoods, while maintaining a close relationship with nature and forest resources. The implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Jammu & Kashmir in 2021 recognized the legitimate rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers over their traditional lands, traditional migratory routes and habitats.
In view of these legal protections, any forceful eviction, intimidation, or use of violence and demolition of the houses of tribal families is a matter of serious concern. The Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted to protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), and following its provisions is mandatory for all authorities.

The signatory organisations have demanded an immediate inquiry into the incident, repair and reconstruction of their demolished houses, protection of the affected families, and strict action against responsible officials regarding this grave violation of the rights of tribal communities.
The statement further says that “it is unacceptable that a sub divisional magistrate who carried out these demolition is faking ignorance of a parliament enacted law. The officer has been directed under FRA, a special Act of the Parliament in 2006 that the rights of the nomadic tribe should be protected. Government departments and authorities are supposed to help the forest communities to claim their rights. To the contrary, in Jammu, a government officer has uprooted dozens of families without any authorisation and violated the law of the land.”

AIWFP and others have demanded that Section 7 of the FR Act should be immediately invoked against the erring official and the person should be immediately punished for violation of this central Act. They have also urged the administration to ensure that no eviction takes place and that the rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act are fully implemented.

The AIUFWP is an Adivasi and Forest Dwellers Union and it has stated that they stand in solidarity with the Gujjar nomadic community and reaffirm our commitment to the protection of rights of forest dwelling communities, environmental justice, and the constitutional rights of all marginalised communities.

Related:

J&K: “Tribals Bachao” protest intensifies over govt move to declare upper castes as ST

J&K to implement Forest Rights Act by March 2021

Bakerwal girl was Brutalised Because She Was a Muslim; Period

The post Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In May 1925, state troops opened fire on protesting farmers in Neemuchana village of Alwar State in present-day Rajasthan. Five years later, in May 1930, another massacre unfolded at Tiladi Sera in the Rawain region of Tehri Garhwal. Though separated by geography, ecology, and language, the two movements reflected strikingly similar tensions over taxation, forests, customary rights, and the changing nature of native states in late colonial India.

The rulers were a retreating British colonial state.

Both movements emerged within princely states that colonial administrators categorised and later historiography continued to categorise as ‘Rajput States’.  Yet in both cases, the protesters themselves were overwhelmingly drawn from Rajput agrarian communities resisting policies imposed by those very states.

The Neemuchana Movement of Alwar State

In Rajasthan, the Rajput socio-political setup traversed through all three stages: a quasi-republican clan, the feudal state and the imperial power, sometimes all three existing simultaneously.

However, Professor Shail Mayaram notes that the most basic unit of the Rajput sociopolitical setup was a coparcenary bhaichara (brotherhood) which was always represented by the khamp (sub-lineage) headed by a chief. (Against History, Against State, p. 202)

The Alwar State was formed by the Naruka khamp of Kachhwahas in 1775. However, at Neemuchana Kisan Andolan in 1925, the Alwar King and the protesting farmers of Alwar belonged to the same Kachhwaha clan.

The protest itself was not unique in Rajasthan. Historian R. W. Stern documents the mobilisation of Jaipur State forces in the early 20th century, to subdue the Shekhawat clansmen of Sikar and arrest their chief Rao Raja Hardayal Singh of Sikar, a move that was met with fierce armed resistance from the Shekhawats, another Kachhwah subclan.

In the Essays on Rajputana, Lloyd Rudolph and Susanne Rudolph observe that the States were confronted with a dual task. First, to weaken the political power of the Rajput chiefs and agrarian clansmen who, despite having played a central role in the formation of these states, were increasingly perceived as threats to centralised authority. Second, to strengthen the State’s centralised governments headed by the King and led by the educated Brahmin elite and the wealthy Mahajan class i.e. Bania and Khatri elites. Efforts to regulate and control farmers and clan-based agrarian structures frequently generated clashes between State police and agrarian clansmen, even compelling minor States to seek colonial intervention for suppression.

In the context of Alwar, Rajesh Kumar writes “The third land revenue settlement in Alwar was revised in 1923-24 by Pandit N.L. Tikko, raising the annual total demand to Rs. 29,39,112. Under this new settlement the land revenue was increased by 50 per cent and no concession was given to the Rajput cultivators, instead their Biswedari rights were forfeited.”(Proceedings of the Indian History Congress,Vol. 73 (2012); pp. 794-798)

In October 1924, the farmers began the first agitation to cancel the rates of land taxation. By early 1925, the Biswedars across Bansur, Thanagazi, Neemuchana, Bamanwas began collecting in huge numbers. Led by Govind Singh and Madho Singh of Neemuchana, they approached the Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and published their grievances in a pamphlet titled “Pukar”. Apart from reversion to previous rates, they demanded cessation of auction of banjad (infertile) land, cessation of blockage at roads connecting Alwar and Bansur, abolition of begar, permission to kill wild animals destroying crops.

In response, the Alwar government began confiscating grain stocks from the Biswedars, a move that deeply angered Rajput cultivators across the region. Many of these farmers were veterans of the First World War and began collecting weapons in anticipation of armed confrontation. They began organizing in Neemuchana. On May 14, 1925, Neemuchana was surrounded by State forces. As per official figures, 156 farmers were killed, while non-official figures claim much higher numbers. The public outrage that followed enabled the British to force Raja into exile, although the extent of accountability faced by the minister N L Tickoo remains far less clear.

Tiladi Movement of Tehri Garhwal State

The region of Uttarakhand — Garhwal and Kumaon— was ruled by three Rajput dynasties for thirteen centuries: the Katyuris of Khas origins who united the entire region in the 8th century, the migrant Panwar dynasty who replaced them in Garhwal and the Chand dynasty who replaced them in Kumaon. Unlike Rajasthan, both the Garhwal and Kumaon states were established through the gradual consolidation of numerous hill chieftaincies, forts, and clan-based polities.

After the Gurkha invasion and Anglo-Gurkha war, the Kumaon state was permanently annexed by the British and the Garhwal state was divided into British Garhwal and the smaller Tehri-Garhwal, which was retained by the Panwar dynasty.

When the Tehri ruler Kirti Shah died, his minor son Narendra Shah ascended the throne. By the late 1920s, Narendra Shah had largely withdrawn from day-to-day governance and was living comfortably in Europe, leaving the administration in the hands of his Diwan, Chakradhar Juyal. Acting in the name of an absentee and politically inexperienced ruler, the Juyal administration embarked upon an ambitious project to construct a new capital, while simultaneously facing growing pressure from the British owing to the rapid expansion of railway infrastructure in the Himalayan region.

To finance these projects and strengthen state control over resources, the administration introduced a series of deeply unpopular measures in the Rawain region. These included a grazing tax of ₹1 per head on sheep and goats, restrictions on grazing rights, fodder collection, and fuelwood harvesting, as well as bans on local forest-based festivals and customary rituals. Such policies directly undermined the subsistence economy and customary rights of local communities, fuelling widespread resentment against the Tehri State.

Author and Human rights activist Vidyabhushan Rawat notes, “Access to forests, fishing, and even keeping cattle became restricted or criminalized. Local people were prohibited from collecting minor forest produce, while British settlers such as Frederick Wilson enjoyed vast forest leases, exporting pine and chir timber to Britain”

Bhoon Singh and Heera Singh of Nagaon; Ludhar Singh, Jaman Singh, and Dalpati of Barkot; Dayaram of Kanseru , Dhoom Singh of Chakargaon started organizing the farmers of Rawain valley. On May 20, 1930, four farmer leaders were arrested and presented before the SDM (sub-divisional magistrate) Surendra Dutt. To protest the arrests, the farmers gathered in huge numbers prompting the Divisional Forest Officer Padamdutt Raturi to open fire, killing three farmers. However, the protesters managed to forcefully, free their leaders.

On May 30, 1930, the protesters gathered in huge numbers in Tiladi Sera on Yamuna bank. Diwan Juyal ordered Colonel Sundar Singh to fire. Sundar Singh refused and was suspended. Natthu Sajjwan was appointed the next army chief and ordered to fire, killing at least eighteen protesters (as per official), although local accounts put the fatality at 60-80. Around 194 farmers were arrested and sixteen more died in custody.

Conclusion

The histories of Neemuchana and Tiladi complicate, rather nuance, over-simplistic understandings of princely India by revealing deep internal tensions between the elite classes emerging within princely capitals — royalty, bureaucratic elites, and wealthy mercantile interests — and rural farming communities, both landed and landless, amid mounting colonial economic pressures. The histories of Neemuchana and Tiladi ultimately undermine the very premise of colonial labels such as the “Rajput State”.

They highlight the growing alienation of largely uneducated Rajput farmers and the increasing dominance of Brahmin and Khatri bureaucratic elites and Bania capitalist classes within the centres of princely power. Questions of taxation, forests, customary rights, and administrative centralisation frequently produced conflict between ruling establishments and the very communities in whose name political legitimacy was claimed..

Recovering, rather re-discovering, these movements is therefore essential not merely for regional history but for understanding the changing nature of power in late colonial India. They remind us that the politics of princely India cannot be understood through simplified dynastic or communal frameworks alone. Beneath the formal authority of princely cabinets existed complex struggles over land, resources, administration, and political representation — struggles that continue to remain insufficiently remembered in mainstream accounts of Indian history.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography; he can be contacted on adityakrishnadeora@gmail.com)

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

Related:

Hindutva’s Rajasthan Project: Brahmin-Bania Power, not just Muslim baiting

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law

PUCL slams recently passed Rajasthan anti-conversion bill as “draconian and unconstitutional”

The post Rethinking the ‘Rajput State’: The Neemuchana & Tiladi agrarian movements appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, a new challenge stands before the state: the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

For some, it is merely an administrative exercise. For many ordinary citizens, however, it has become a source of anxiety, confusion, and sleepless nights.

The Election Commission’s exercise will cover approximately 2.64 crore voters in Jharkhand. On paper, the objective appears straightforward—clean electoral rolls by identifying deceased, shifted, duplicate, or ineligible voters. Yet the question being asked in villages, towns, and migrant settlements is different: will genuine voters be able to navigate the process without difficulty?

A State Built on Migration, Forests and Margins

Jharkhand is not just another state.

More than a quarter of its population is tribal. According to Census figures, Scheduled Tribes constitute over 26 percent of the state’s population. Nearly one in five residents belongs to a religious minority community, including Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and Jains. The state is also home to several lakh forest-dependent households spread across districts such as West Singhbhum, Gumla, Simdega, Khunti, and Latehar.

Many of these communities have historically lived at the margins of state institutions. Their relationship with government paperwork is often more complicated than that of urban middle-class citizens.

A voter in Ranchi may have a file full of documents neatly stored in a cupboard. A migrant worker from Pakur or Godda, working at a construction site in Surat, may not have the same luxury. An Adivasi family in a remote village may find that names are spelled differently across various records. A forest-dwelling household may possess deep roots in a place but limited formal documentation to prove it.

This is what makes Jharkhand different.

The state’s economy depends heavily on migration. Every year, lakhs of workers leave for employment outside Jharkhand. Entire villages in districts such as Dumka, Deoghar, Sahibganj, Pakur, and Giridih have family members working in distant states. When verification teams visit, many of these workers may be hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away from home.

The concern is not merely about documentation. It is about accessibility. Can an absent worker easily respond to verification requirements? Will every family understand the procedures? Will genuine voters be able to challenge mistakes quickly and effectively? These questions deserve attention long before the final electoral rolls are published. There is another dimension that often goes unnoticed.

Jharkhand’s history is also a history of displacement. Researchers and social activists have long argued that development projects—whether mines, dams, factories, or industrial corridors—have displaced well over a million people since Independence. Many of those affected continue to struggle with rehabilitation, land rights, and documentation issues. An exercise that demands accurate records inevitably places additional pressure on populations already burdened by decades of uncertainty.

The overwhelming majority of Jharkhand’s workforce also remains part of the informal economy. Construction workers, agricultural labourers, domestic workers, daily wage earners, transport workers, and countless others survive without the stability enjoyed by the formal sector. For them, losing a day’s work can mean losing a day’s meal. Participating in administrative processes is rarely as simple as filling out a form.

Beyond Electoral Rolls, A Test of Democratic Inclusion

This is why the debate around SIR cannot be reduced to politics alone.

The issue is fundamentally about democratic inclusion.

Supporters argue that clean electoral rolls are essential for free and fair elections. They are right. A credible democracy requires accurate voter lists.

But democracy also requires that no eligible citizen feels intimidated, excluded, or burdened while exercising the right to vote.

That is the balance Jharkhand must achieve.

The real test of the SIR will not be how many names are identified, verified, or removed. Its success will be judged by a more important question: whether the poorest worker, the migrant labourer, the forest dweller, the displaced family, the Adivasi villager, and the religious minority citizen emerge from the process with their faith in democracy strengthened rather than shaken.

In that sense, Jharkhand is not merely undergoing another electoral revision. It is becoming a test case for the future of democratic participation in India. And that is precisely why Jharkhand’s SIR deserves to be watched more closely than ever before.

Courtesy: https://enewsroom.in

The post Jharkhand’s Biggest Democratic Test Yet: The SIR Challenge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Please allow me to introduce myself. I run a boutique vintage woodcraft gig in Colaba. While I live alone, these days, three brats have been camping at my place. Two of them, my nephews Percy and Hormuz, both self-proclaimed tech geniuses, had to scramble back from the US as a result of the H1B crisis. A niece, Dilshan, has just received the shock of her NEET results being cancelled due to a paper leak! My business has slowed a bit, though there are enough moneyed SoBo folks who love their colonial era teak and rosewood antiques. My nephews have already joined the Cockroach Janata Party on the strength of their credentials of being unemployed, chronically online and constantly complaining. The niece is threatening to do the same.

In this fraught atmosphere, I was mighty pleased to see your article in Scroll.in taking Rahul Gandhi to the cleaners. It filled me with unbridled joy and pride to see that I share sentiments with a great public intellectual like you.

You started in your article, by holding Priyanka Gandhi accountable for the Emergency that was executed by her grandmother in the 70s. My father, the late Behramji Puranafurniturewala would be celebrating in his grave now. He would say frequently that the defeat of Mrs. Gandhi post Emergency was insufficient penance for the havoc it caused. I thank you on his behalf.

You have with great insight and evidence pointed out that Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by sycophants. You will no doubt reveal their names soon. I personally prefer the approach of our Beloved Supreme (BS) Leader. He surrounds himself by folks who remain invisible and inaccessible and that ensures that all the halo remains on the BS Leader. In fact, most of the time, one even struggles to recall their names and their job descriptions. Of course, now, thanks to my niece whose NEET exam had paper leaks, and her friends whose CBSE results came out crooked, I now know of one Dharmendra Pradhan. A fine bloke. Super cool in this extraordinary situation. I simply love how he ignores all the naysayers and marches on to his own beat. If only Rahul Gandhi had such Pradhans by his side!

Or that other chap, Gyanendra Kumar. I simply adore him. He executed the electoral roll exercise with the artistic precision of a Leonardo da Vinci, enrolling who he liked and dismissing the others. I tell my nephews, who are IIT alumni themselves, to regard him as their role model. Being independent minded cockroaches, they have treated this advice with contempt.

You have pointed out the organisational weakness of the Congress Party under Rahul Gandhi and its rapid decline. No doubt, in your next article, you will provide a role model that he should emulate. Here are my suggestions. Most importantly, he needs a taskmaster at his side. One who can ensure that all institutions such as Media and the various custodians of democracy work in tandem to support the leader – a Conductor of an Orchestra as it were. Then of course, one needs Big Capital. One or two oligarchs who will bankroll the Dance of Democracy while taking good care of our infrastructure – the ports, the mines, the oil, the airports et al.

You have acknowledged that Rahul Gandhi is a decent bloke. Why should I care? Am I looking for a groom for my niece, Dilshan? Leaders must be ruthless, crafty, parochial and greedy for power. Willing to ring in a demonetisation or call a lockdown at whim. A full 56 inches, in our local parlance.

You have further claimed that many are looking at him as a principal source of hope to push back against the regime and that they should stop doing so. Not so, not so, not so. I can assure you that in my circle of friends and clients in SoBo, there is nobody who fits that description. All of them including me are quite happy with the way things are. Our kids (except my burdensome nephews) are abroad living a good life. We live in our well-guarded gated communities where there is no stench of poverty or disillusionment. Our kitty parties, musical soirees, champagne challenges, keep us busy. Even the dug up roads, the pot holes, the fallen trees and the encroached mangroves don’t bother us anymore. Our quarrels, if any, are often about parking spaces and gymkhana privileges. Never about the Opposition. While it may be a necessary evil of Democracy, it’s not on our radar!

You have spoken of a hate filled environment. Most of us enjoy our Biryanis and Kebabs. Even the veggie folks enjoy it on the sly. So what’s the problem?

Now this Rahul Gandhi, you say, goes abroad frequently. Is he trying to emulate the BS Leader? He would have to work hard at perfecting the beaming smile, the raucous laugh and the bear hugs. Some experience with gifting confectionary will also be useful.

You say he lacks gravitas and job experience. That hits the nail on its head. I could never dig his frequent mingling with the hoi polloi – the rickshaw drivers, the cobblers, the farmers, the cooks and the fisher folk – what kind of politics is this? Nature ordered that there be two people. The Ruler and the Ruled. This fellow wants to blur these sacred lines. Blasphemy! In sharp contrast, one can see the unadulterated joy on the face of the BS Leader when he consorts with the global elite.

Rahul Gandhi, to my utter surprise, does not have a well-chronicled curriculum vitae. He has never sold tea, not begged for alms, not gone on self-discovery yatras to the mountains, never discovered technologies to extract energy from a nalla, never discovered the hidden potential of clouds in escaping radar detection during war, and never issued a decree for demonetarization or a lockdown. He does not even have a unique degree. Could he have found us a new friend like Israel? And strategically ignored old ones like Iran, Russia and Palestine? Could he have nurtured the bonhomie we now enjoy with US? Makes one ponder.

I have also wondered why he personally attacks the BS Leader. The government is run by many people, not one individual. There must be well laid out processes and thoroughly discussed plans in the cabinet and in the Parliament before they are rolled out. To single out one person in a democracy is undermining its very roots. Tut, tut!

You remain hopeful of some phoenix rising from the ruins. My nephews, Percy and Hormuz, newly established cockroaches are firing meme after meme on social media on L’affaires NEET and CBSE. My daily diet has changed from Dhansak and Patra Ni Machi to Pasta and Pizza to accommodate these creepy crawlies. I have even had to surrender my master bedroom to them. Dilshan, my niece, is planning to take the NEETwallahs to court. Are you pinning your hopes on such people?

With affection,

Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala

Model Citizen

Related:

Searchlight on 2025: The polished window and the dry rot

Out with MNREGA: Hitting the Poor for a Six

The Cross Bat Conversation: Air, antiques and force majeure

The Nation needs an Ethanol Republic – A Satire

A Satirical Imperative Request (SIR) to the CEC of India

Cyrus Seeks a Right to Multiple Voter Ids

A Satirical Plea, Dripping with Envy, to President Xi Jinping of China

The post The ‘Unfit’ Gandhi Siblings – A SoBo boy to Ramchandra Guha appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The verdict brings to a close one of the most significant constitutional controversies concerning electoral administration in recent years. While the judgment conclusively answers the question of whether the Election Commission possesses the authority to undertake a SIR, it leaves several substantive concerns unresolved. The challenge before the Court was never confined merely to the legality of electoral roll revision. Rather, it centred upon whether an exercise ostensibly intended to identify eligible electors had, in practice, transformed into a process requiring already registered voters to re-establish their entitlement to remain on the electoral roll, thereby blurring the distinction between verification of electoral eligibility and an unregulated (by law or authority) scrutiny of citizenship.

While upholding the ECI’s powers, the Division Bench simultaneously issued a series of directions intended to regulate the consequences of deletions arising from the SIR exercise. Yet it is within these directions themselves that some of the most difficult constitutional questions continue to persist.

The sudden introduction and expansion of SIR and the deletion of 5.18 crore electors

One of the most consequential yet insufficiently examined aspects of the SIR exercise is its unprecedented scale and the magnitude of voter deletions that followed its implementation across multiple States. No previous exercise of its kind under Election Law or Practice has ever had such intent or result. It is there then that this verdict –by failing to engage in the crucial gaps and issues in implementation highlighted by the multifarious Petitioners—substantively falters.

The result is this: While the Supreme Court has, after rigorous hearings and several interim orders, ultimately upheld the constitutional validity of the SIR framework and accepted the Election Commission of India’s justification (that the exercise was intended to enhance the accuracy, completeness and integrity of electoral rolls). The moot question of what necessitated the adoption of an extraordinary and intensive verification mechanism when the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the established system of continuous revision already provides for detailed procedures for the addition, correction and deletion of names from electoral rolls remains unanswered.

2023-2024, two years prior to the launch of the Bihar SIR in June 2025 were also marked by related issues that directly impact on the autonomy and functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) a hitherto constitutional authority that enjoyed broad respect and acceptance. The present Regime’s overturning of a Supreme Court of India (SCI) final judgement on the need for wider choice and representation (including that of the Chief Justice of India-CJI) in selection of the CEC etc. is one such. The other is the huge accountability crisis in counting methods and transparency by the ECI around the Lok Sabha Polls of 2024, reports around which may be read here and here. Given the outcry by citizens groups and Opposition parties around “Vote Chori” and manipulation during and post 2024 LS polls (including the Haryana, Maharashtra state elections), the ECI even arbitrarily decided to amend its own Rules in ensuring availability of the CCTV footage during storage and counting to citizens and candidates.

The SIR 2-25-2026 was therefore conducted under a shroud of allegations and scrutiny. Thereafter follows the May 27 judgement of the apex court that in a sense obliterates these background developments.

The judgment recognises the Commission’s constitutional authority under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Act, yet neither the Court nor the Commission appears to have fully explained why existing statutory mechanisms were considered inadequate or incapable of addressing concerns relating to migration, duplication, deaths or ineligible entries. The absence of such justification becomes particularly significant when the practical outcome of the exercise has been the near arbitrary removal/deletion of more than 5.18 crore (51.8 million!!) electors across thirteen states/jurisdictions.

Impact of SIR across the States

The Bihar exercise, initiated through the Election Commission’s notification dated June 24, 2025, became the foundation upon which the SIR model was subsequently replicated in twelve other States and Union Territories. According to the available figures, the cumulative impact of these exercises resulted in the deletion of approximately 5.18 crore names from electoral rolls covering an electorate of nearly 50.99 crore voters.

The scale of these deletions was unprecedented in the history of electoral roll revision in India. Uttar Pradesh alone witnessed deletions exceeding 2.05 crore electors, while West Bengal recorded deletions of approximately 83.86 lakh names. Tamil Nadu saw nearly 74 lakh deletions, Gujarat approximately 68 lakh, Madhya Pradesh 34.25 lakh, Rajasthan 31 lakh and Chhattisgarh around 25 lakh. Even smaller jurisdictions such as Goa, Puducherry, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep recorded deletions running into significant proportions of their total electorate.

These figures raise an important constitutional question: When a bureaucratic exercise hurriedly undertaken in the name of electoral ‘purification’ results in the such mass exclusion of more than five crore (50 million) registered voters, should not the burden of transparency and accountability correspondingly become more exacting and higher?

Bihar as the testing ground of SIR

The Bihar experience illustrates the complexity of this concern. Before the commencement of the SIR exercise, Bihar’s electoral roll consisted of approximately 7.89 crore registered electors. Following the intensive revision process, the draft electoral roll published by the Election Commission contained only 7.24 crore electors. This meant that nearly 65 lakh individuals who had previously appeared on the electoral roll were absent from the draft roll. The Commission attributed a substantial portion of this reduction to the non-submission or non-collection of Enumeration Forms during the verification process. However, the omission of such a large number of previously enrolled electors at the draft stage immediately generated concerns regarding the practical consequences of a documentation-based verification exercise conducted within compressed timelines and under challenging administrative conditions.

The Commission subsequently issued its final press release on September 30, 2025 announcing the completion of the Bihar SIR. According to the data disclosed therein, 3.66 lakh names were permanently deleted after detailed statutory verification, while 21.53 lakh eligible electors were either restored or added through Form-6 applications and the claims-and-objections process. As a result, the final electoral roll stood at approximately 7.42 crore electors. At first glance, the Commission presented these figures as evidence of a successful correction mechanism that enabled genuine electors to re-enter the electoral database. However, a closer examination of the numbers reveals a significant discrepancy.

The pre-SIR electoral roll contained approximately 7.89 crore electors, whereas the finalised roll contained 7.42 crore electors. This represents a net reduction of approximately 47 lakh electors. Yet the numerical explanation offered by the Commission does not fully account for this decline. If 3.66 lakh names were permanently removed after verification and 21.53 lakh electors were subsequently added, the total documented movement in the database amounts to 25.19 lakh electors. Even after accounting for these figures, an unexplained variance of approximately 21.81 lakh electors remains between the pre-revision electorate and the final electoral roll. Put differently, the available data does not mathematically reconcile with the final published electoral database.

This discrepancy is not merely statistical. It goes to the heart of the transparency and accountability concerns that surrounded the SIR exercise from the beginning. Electoral rolls are the foundational instruments through which the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage under Article 326 is operationalised. Consequently, when millions of names disappear from electoral rolls during a revision exercise, a clear and comprehensive explanation becomes essential. The available public figures explain certain categories of additions and deletions, but they do not adequately account for the entire difference between the pre-revision and post-revision electorate. In the absence of a detailed category-wise reconciliation identifying how and why the remaining electors ceased to form part of the final database, the figures disclosed by the Commission appear incomplete and internally inconsistent.

The issue becomes even more significant because the revised Bihar electoral roll was not merely a provisional administrative exercise. It became the basis for the conduct of the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections held in November 2025, with the results declared on November 14, 2025. Specifically put, is a state election, where as many as 47 lakh (4.7 million) voters did not cast their franchise because they were not given a chance to prove their electoral status, legitimate in the eyes of the Law, Courts and Constitution?

Consequently, the constitutional questions raised before the Supreme Court were not being examined in an abstract or prospective setting; they concerned an electoral framework that had already been implemented and utilised for a completed democratic exercise. The Court’s eventual decision therefore validated not merely the legal authority to undertake a SIR but also the inefficient and partisan exercise with practical consequences flowing from that exercise.

Yet the larger constitutional concern remains unresolved. The Election Commission consistently maintained that the purpose of the SIR was to ensure that every eligible citizen was included in the electoral roll while simultaneously removing ineligible, duplicate, shifted or deceased voters. However, the public discourse and the statistical outcomes reveal that the exercise was perceived primarily through the lens of deletion rather than inclusion. The overwhelming –and heavily partisan and unaccountable–administrative focus appeared to be directed towards verifying existing entries and identifying names for exclusion. There was comparatively less emphasis on institutional mechanisms designed to assist vulnerable citizens in retaining their electoral status or navigating documentation requirements. For many petitioners and civil society organisations, the concern was not merely the removal of ineligible names but the possibility that genuine electors could be excluded because of absence of access–procedural, technical or documentation-related difficulties.

It is this broader context that explains why the challenge to the Bihar SIR generated such intense public debate. The controversy was not only confined to the Election Commission’s authority to revise electoral rolls. Rather, it concerned the manner in which that authority was exercised, the scale of deletions that followed, the burden imposed upon existing electors to re-establish their eligibility, and the absence of complete public clarity regarding the final numerical outcomes.

Even after the Supreme Court’s judgment of May 27 upholding the legality of the SIR framework, these factual and statistical questions remain largely unanswered. The Court resolved the narrow, legal issue of constitutional powers; it did not fully address the concerns arising from the moral, constitutional and real-life consequences of an exercise that ultimately resulted in the deletion of more than 5.18 crore (51.8 million) electors across the country and left significant discrepancies in the publicly available electoral data. In a democracy founded upon universal adult franchise, those questions are not peripheral. They fundamentally point to the relationship between electoral integrity and electoral inclusion, the right to Universal Adult Franchise, integral to a living, participatory Democracy. On grounds of ‘prevention of illegible voters/voting’, the fundamental and key constitutional question of not ever disallowing any eligible voter from his Right to Vote has been consciously blurred if not obliterated.

Contradictory position on citizenship and deleted voters

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment lies in the Court’s treatment of citizenship-related scrutiny undertaken during the SIR exercise.

In paragraph 186(f) of the judgement, the Court held that the Election Commission is empowered to undertake only a limited enquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself regarding eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. The Court expressly clarified that such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict legal sense and that any action taken pursuant to such an exercise is confined exclusively to electoral consequences. According to the Court, the consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects an individual’s entitlement to remain on the electoral roll and consequently their participation in the electoral process, but it does not divest the individual of citizenship nor foreclose adjudication by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

However, the subsequent directions appear to create a degree of tension with this formulation.

In paragraph 186 (g), the Court directed that where the Commission is not satisfied that a person fulfils the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon the Commission to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Court further clarified that any deletion effected on this ground shall remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication.

If this is genuinely so, and the Commission possesses neither the authority nor the required expertise/wherewithal to determine citizenship, can or should elections be conducted before final and thorough adjudication of all those excluded, given the hastily conducted SIR that excludes staggering numbers of Voters/Electors?

Without linking the final adjudication process under a badly conducted SIR to actual future conduct of elections, the Court has given lent its approval to a basically incomplete and flawed process. Besides, the practical consequence of this direction is significant. Although the Court repeatedly emphasises that the Commission itself does not determine citizenship, the Commission’s dissatisfaction regarding a person’s eligibility may nevertheless become the trigger for a formal citizenship adjudication before another authority. Consequently, while the Election Commission may not be exercising citizenship jurisdiction in the strict legal sense, its findings can initiate a process that ultimately culminates in a determination of citizenship status.

The issue becomes even more pronounced in paragraph 186(h), where the Court specifically directed that all cases involving persons whose names had been deleted from the 2003 electoral roll on the basis of the Commission’s opinion that they were not citizens must be referred within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The competent authority was directed to decide such matters after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing and, preferably, before the next Parliamentary, Assembly or Local Body election, whichever occurs earlier.

The Court further directed that if the competent authority ultimately concludes that the deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral roll. When and if that happens, what of the Denied Right to Vote in all previous elections until the process is completed/conducted?

Significantly, however, the judgment remains silent on the converse situation.

The directions clearly prescribe the consequences where the competent authority determines that the individual is a citizen. Restoration to the electoral roll follows as a matter of course. However, the judgment does not elaborate upon the legal consequences that would follow if the competent authority were to hold that the individual is not a citizen. The judgment neither identifies the statutory mechanism governing such a situation nor discusses the broader legal implications arising from such a finding.

The judgment therefore resolves the question of institutional competence but leaves unresolved the apprehension reflected in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) notification dated June 24, 2025. The notification provides that where the Election Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant Election Registration Officer (AERO) entertains doubts regarding the eligibility of a proposed elector—whether due to non-submission of requisite documents or otherwise—a suo motu inquiry may be initiated, followed by the issuance of notice requiring the individual to show cause as to why his or her name should not be deleted from the electoral roll. Upon completion of field verification and examination of documentary material, the ERO/AERO is empowered to decide upon inclusion in the final electoral roll and is required to pass a reasoned speaking order in each case. Significantly, the notification further directs EROs to refer cases involving suspected foreign nationals to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, while authorising AEROs to independently exercise the powers of the ERO under Section 13C(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Consequently, although the Court has affirmed that the Election Commission’s enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship, concerns persist regarding the practical operation of a framework in which electoral scrutiny may, in certain cases, culminate in processes closely connected with questions of citizenship status.

Lal Babu Hussein and the presumption of validity of existing electoral registration

A central plank of the challenge to the SIR exercise was the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Lal Babu Hussein and Others v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100. In Lal Babu Hussein, the Court was dealing with disputes relating to electoral registration in which questions of citizenship directly arose. Recognising the serious consequences associated with exclusion from electoral rolls, the Court laid considerable emphasis on procedural fairness, adherence to natural justice and independent application of mind by electoral authorities.

The Court directed that the officer conducting the enquiry must entertain all forms of evidence, documentary or otherwise, that the affected person seeks to produce. The affected individual must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut any material relied upon against them. The enquiry was characterised as quasi-judicial in nature, requiring fairness, objectivity and reasoned decision-making. The Court further directed that election authorities must consider the provisions of the Constitution, the Citizenship Act and all related legal provisions before arriving at a conclusion. It also quashed restrictions imposed by the Election Commission on the consideration of certain documents and emphasised that evidentiary value must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, the Court underscored that authorities must conduct themselves in a manner consistent with natural justice and free from preconceived notions.

The significance of Lal Babu Hussein lies not merely in its procedural safeguards but in its recognition that inclusion in an electoral roll carries a presumption of validity. The petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR relied heavily upon this principle. Their contention was that once a citizen has already been included in the electoral roll through a legally recognised process, the burden should not casually shift onto that individual to once again establish eligibility through a fresh and intensive verification exercise.

The Supreme Court, however, distinguished Lal Babu Hussein from the Bihar SIR.

According to the Court, Lal Babu Hussein was decided in the context of individual adjudicatory proceedings concerning specific disputes, whereas the Bihar SIR constituted a systemic and inquisitorial exercise undertaken across the electorate in furtherance of the Commission’s constitutional mandate. Consequently, the Court held that while inclusion in the electoral roll undoubtedly gives rise to a presumption of validity, such presumption remains rebuttable and cannot operate as a blanket embargo upon the Commission’s authority to undertake a Special Intensive Revision.

This distinction forms a critical component of the judgment. However, it simultaneously raises a broader constitutional question. If inclusion in an electoral roll generates a presumption of validity, what practical protection does that presumption provide when millions of electors are subjected to fresh verification through a statewide exercise? While the Court recognises the existence of the presumption, the judgment substantially limits its practical effect by permitting large-scale re-examination of already enrolled electors.

Citizenship by presumption, not by documents: the unresolved core of the SIR debate

One of the most significant yet insufficiently examined aspects of the Bihar SIR litigation concerns the nature of citizenship verification itself. Throughout the proceedings, the Election Commission justified the exercise on the ground that electoral rolls must contain only eligible citizens, while the Supreme Court ultimately held that the Commission is empowered to undertake a limited enquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes.

However, the larger difficulty lies in the fact that Indian citizenship law does not prescribe a single, universally accepted document that conclusively establishes citizenship in every circumstance. Unlike identity verification, which may be undertaken through documents such as Aadhaar, citizenship is ordinarily established through a combination of statutory presumptions, factual circumstances, birth records, lineage, residence histories and legal provisions contained in the Citizenship Act, 1955. Consequently, the entire SIR exercise appears to have proceeded on a presumption of citizenship rather than on the basis of any definitive citizenship document recognised uniformly under law.

This becomes evident from the categories of documents accepted during the SIR process. Aadhaar, for instance, is fundamentally a document of identity and residence; it is not a proof of citizenship. Similarly, documents such as ration cards, bank passbooks, school certificates, board examination certificates, property records or welfare-related documents may establish the existence, residence or identity of an individual during a particular period, but none of them independently constitute proof of Indian citizenship. Even birth certificates, which are often treated as foundational documents, do not by themselves establish citizenship in every case, particularly because citizenship by birth in India is governed by different statutory conditions depending upon the date of birth and the status of parents under the Citizenship Act. In that sense, the controversy surrounding SIR was never merely about the production of documents but it was about the legal assumption that citizenship could be inferred through a documentation framework despite the absence of any statutory provision prescribing a definitive citizenship document.

A departure from established electoral practice

The controversy is further accentuated by the fact that the SIR exercise marked a substantial departure from the traditional process of electoral roll maintenance. Historically, electoral registration in India has operated on the basis that inclusion in an existing electoral roll carries a presumption of validity unless specific grounds for deletion are established through the procedure prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged this principle by recognising that inclusion in the electoral roll creates a presumption of validity, though one that is rebuttable. Yet the SIR framework effectively required millions of already enrolled electors to re-establish their eligibility through fresh documentation and verification procedures.

The contrast with earlier exercises becomes particularly relevant in light of the experience of Assam. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam was conducted under a unique statutory and historical framework, involving specific legacy documents, electoral roll references dating back to 1951 and a legal architecture shaped by the Assam Accord. The documents accepted in the NRC process were tailored to that specific context. By contrast, the Bihar SIR exercise adopted a different framework altogether, while simultaneously rejecting reliance upon certain forms of prior electoral inclusion that had historically been treated as relevant indicators of eligibility.

Foreigners’ tribunals and the limits of analogy

Pertinently, comparisons were frequently drawn with the Foreigners Tribunals functioning in Assam. However, such analogies are not straightforward. The Foreigners Tribunal system emerged from a distinct historical and statutory context linked to immigration concerns in Assam and derives authority from specialised legal provisions applicable in that region. There is presently no equivalent nationwide mechanism automatically applicable to citizenship disputes arising from electoral revision exercises in other States.

Consequently, while the Court’s directions contemplate referral to a competent authority, they do not identify whether any existing institutional structure is capable of handling such disputes on a large scale. Nor do they explain how citizenship determinations are expected to be completed within the timeframe contemplated by paragraph 186(h), particularly when citizenship questions often involve complex inquiries into birth, descent, migration, residence and statutory status extending across decades.

The missing context behind the Bihar SIR

Any assessment of the Supreme Court’s verdict must necessarily be situated within the broader actual, on-ground, reality/factual context in which the Bihar SIR was conceived and implemented. According to the Commission, the exercise was intended to ensure that every eligible citizen was enrolled, no ineligible voter remained on the rolls and entries relating to deceased, shifted or duplicate electors were removed.

The notification stated that the Commission would scrupulously adhere to the constitutional and statutory framework governing electoral eligibility, particularly Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Article 326 guarantees elections based upon adult suffrage, while Section 16 identifies circumstances under which an individual may be disqualified from registration as an elector, including non-citizenship, unsoundness of mind and disqualification arising from electoral offences.

The Commission invoked Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act as the source of its authority. It further stated that the exercise represented the first intensive revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls since 2003 and was necessary to preserve the integrity of electoral rolls in light of rapid urbanisation, migration, demographic changes, underreporting of deaths and concerns regarding the presence of foreign nationals.

To implement the exercise, Booth Level Officers were directed to conduct extensive house-to-house verification. Existing electors were required to complete Enumeration Forms and provide supporting documents. Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers were entrusted with processing claims and objections before final publication of the revised rolls.

Although the stated objective was to ensure inclusion of all eligible voters, the implementation of the exercise generated widespread concerns from civil society organisations, political parties and election law scholars. Critics questioned the compressed timeline, the documentary requirements and the practical feasibility of requiring millions of electors to complete the process within a matter of weeks. These concerns ultimately formed the foundation of the constitutional challenge that reached the Supreme Court.

The significance of this background cannot be understated. The legal controversy surrounding the Bihar SIR did not arise merely because a revision of electoral rolls was undertaken. It arose because the revision was conducted through an extraordinary and unprecedented methodology that fundamentally altered the manner in which existing electors were required to establish their continued presence on the electoral roll.

The full judgement dated May 27, 2026 can be read here

Related

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

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

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

The post Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded? appeared first on SabrangIndia.