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.

We were disheartened to see media outlets amplify his post without context or critique, so we have unpacked his argument in depth here. His post is merely an illustrative case. In our time in so-called elite institutions, we have seen many professors share similar attitudes, and this analysis draws on that lived experience of the system as much as on his words. With this critique of a public argument, we hope to prompt reflection on the individual and institutional biases that harm students from marginalised groups in elite institutions.

I am disturbed to see Prof. Suryanarayana Doola being vilified over the recent controversy at IIT Bombay. I know Surya personally. He is one of the finest faculty members I have known in the IIT system, and a gentleman of the highest integrity. Whatever concerns have been raised… pic.twitter.com/PwlAWQWvW9

— V. Ramgopal Rao, Ph.D. (@ramgopal_rao) September 23, 2026

This post is veiled but vile. It is hard to spot unless one recognises casteism not merely in visceral acts but as structural and systemic, deeply embedded in elite institutions as much as in society at large. The post invokes casteist prejudices within the reader without saying the quiet part aloud, leaving room for deniability. The argument leans on this prejudice so heavily that it doesn’t even bother hiding its own contradictions. 

He says “With students coming through an intensive coaching culture, and classrooms bringing together students whose JEE Advanced ranks range from single digits to five digits (in the same class -for example CSE in IIT Delhi), we now have highly heterogeneous classrooms across the IIT system. Language also further adds to the challenge.

The question to ask therefore is, with such heterogeneity, can we expect every student to learn at the same pace?”

He invokes two kinds of heterogeneity, ability and background, and seamlessly equates them, which is itself casteist. He further laments that a teacher cannot teach effectively to such a heterogenous class properly. 

What heterogeneity in ability could he possibly be referring to at IITs, which are defined above all, by their exclusivity? IIT intake is about 1% of those who appear for the JEE, and JEE aspirants themselves are only about a tenth of those who sit the Class 12 boards. 

The question to ask, therefore, is this: what does it say about your competence as a teacher if you cannot cater to the brightest 1% of the country, by your own institute’s standard? Why shouldn’t we question the merit of a teacher who makes excuses about supposed heterogeneity in the country’s most exclusive and selective classrooms?

JEE Advanced is scored out of 360 marks, yet those few hundred points are stretched into ranks running into the tens of thousands. A difference of a handful of marks, often within the margin of error of any exam, can separate ranks by hundreds or thousands of places. 

As Pierre Bourdieu argued, competitive exams do not measure pre-existing differences in ability so much as manufacture them, forcing a largely undifferentiated pool into an ordinal hierarchy where marginal, often arbitrary gaps in marks are treated as real, stable differences in ‘ability’.

The heterogeneity in ability that the professor describes is not a fact, but an artifact manufactured by the ranking system. When educators talk about ability solely in terms of these ranks, as if they were an absolute, hierarchical measure of ability across the cohort, this serves a narrative that justifies discrimination and shields educators from scrutiny.

He claims, “We now have highly heterogenous classrooms across the IIT system.” What does he mean by “now”? Does he mean after the implementation of reservations? He never says so outright, but he implies it to any reader who already carries that prejudice.

He says “There is nothing wrong with opening the doors of our best institutions to students from different backgrounds. The question is whether we have addressed this heterogeneity in our teaching-learning methods.”

This statement, by itself, is a valid goal if the question is an invitation to introspect whether the pedagogy in IIT classrooms is sensitive to the diversity of students in it. 

However, he follows it up with, “A faculty member cannot pitch every class at several levels at once. Move too slowly, and some students lose interest. Move too quickly, and others are left behind.”, where he is talking about heterogeneity in learning achievement levels or ability. 

He seamlessly jumps from heterogeneity in (caste) backgrounds to heterogeneity in ability, equating the two. This sleight of hand lets him imply, to a prejudiced audience, that students who enter through reservation lack ability, without saying it openly.

He contradicts himself: he says those with lower JEE Advanced ranks cannot learn at the same pace as top rankers yet also claims that even top rankers struggle because coaching trained them for familiar questions and not independent thinking.

If JEE rank is such an accurate arbiter of merit and ranks people by ability so precisely that a difference of a few thousand ranks makes them incompatible in ability to share a classroom, and by those very standards, the toppers are struggling too. 

The top rankers struggle and the bottom rankers struggle, In other words, the ‘less meritorious’ struggle and the ‘more meritorious’ struggle. Perhaps, then, the problem is not the students. Perhaps it is the teaching.

If you reject that explanation, the alternative is that the JEE selection system itself is biased toward coachability rather than independent thinking, so much so that even top rankers struggle once they enter college. The skills required to win a filtering system are not directly relevant to college, nor is rank an absolute arbiter of merit. That would mean the system was never a ‘pure selector’ of ability whose function is ‘compromised’ by reservation; it did not select for merit in the first place. 

Despite this glaring contradiction and the casteism underlying it, people still fail to consider the obvious possibility that the teacher is incompetent, or the system is. This lazy, contradictory narrative stokes anti-reservation prejudice only because a prejudiced reader is blind to the holes in it.

He assumes throughout that the teacher is competent, and that the only real difficulty is the heterogeneity in ability among students. What about the heterogeneity in the ability of teachers? Or is that assumed not to exist, because of the lack of heterogeneity in the backgrounds of IIT faculty, by his logic? 

In reality, many professors at elite institutes like IITs are not selected for their ability to teach, but for their research record. Many take pride in identifying primarily as researchers and openly detest teaching. Not every good researcher is a good teacher. But because teaching is systematically undervalued, the hierarchy between research and teaching lets the system excuse its own failure to prioritise teaching skills in the selection and appointment of these faculty. Teaching skill includes sensitivity to students, something fundamentally incompatible with the meritocratic logic that reduces them to their ranks. 

Hence, unless these issues are addressed, extending the programme from four to five years only prolongs students’ time under a system that fails them.

Notably, Prof. Rao, who now defends a colleague accused of casteism by a deceased student’s parents, chaired the 2020 committee that recommended IITs be exempt from reservation in faculty recruitment.

“A public campaign against an individual serves no one” he says. Except, that’s precisely what IIT Bombay and the media did to Sahil, and he shows no comparable concern for that trial of a student who can no longer defend himself.

Any real solution to the crisis of student deaths in elite institutions like IITs must begin with confronting and dismantling the prejudices that kill. Diversifying the faculty by effectively implementing reservation norms is one concrete way forward. It further requires faculty and institutions to introspect on their biases and unlearn them, with a commitment to equality, and to recognise that equality is not at odds with excellence but a condition of it. 

(Authors: Sulochana R is a research scholar in Science Education in Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR Mumbai; Pranav Jeevan P holds a PhD in Artificial Intelligence from IIT Bombay. He has earlier studied quantum computing in IIT Madras and Robotics at IIT Kanpur.)

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

Related:

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

Mumbai Dharna for Darshan Solanki makes calls for law against caste discrimination

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

A Long Battle, A Swift Stay: The Fight for Equitable Campuses

The Anatomy of Humiliation: Defining caste violence in the Constitutional era

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

The post Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The demands were raised at a press conference held at the Guwahati Press Club on September 25, following the Nagarik Abhibartan (Citizens’ Convention) organised on September 20 at Lakshiram Baruah Sadan, Guwahati. The press conference was addressed by Harkumar Goswami, Dr. Ghanashyam Nath, Prof. Taizuddin Ahmed and Manoram Gogoi on behalf of the convention convenors.

At the September 20 convention, the Forum had opposed the implementation of SIR in Assam and called for the completion of the pending National Register of Citizens (NRC). The convention had taken the position that the 2014 voter list should be treated as the base or “freeze” for completing the NRC.

The concerns raised at the convention have assumed renewed significance following an investigation published by The Indian Express on September 23, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally recorded objections at least 14 times over ten months to decisions and orders issued in the name of the Election Commission. The objections reportedly concerned matters including voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6 and the management and centralisation of the electoral database. The investigation also reported that the two Commissioners had described certain changes as “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

The Election Commission, however, has maintained that decisions relating to SIR and other matters were taken with the approval of all three Election Commissioners and described the reported differences as part of the institutional deliberative process.

Against this backdrop, the Forum has said that the contents of the objections recorded by the two Election Commissioners, the action taken on them and the way the issues were resolved must be made public. “This is not a question of any individual or any political party. This is a question of every citizen’s right to vote and the credibility of Indian democracy,” the Forum said.

The organisation placed four demands before the authorities:

• Scrap the SIR process and restore genuine voters’ names: The entire SIR process must be scrapped and all genuine voters whose names have been deleted because of the exercise must be restored to the electoral rolls.

• Stop the process of disenfranchisement and guarantee an effective right of appeal: No voter should be deleted from the electoral roll without a transparent, fair and effective opportunity to challenge the proposed deletion. The Forum has demanded that no election be conducted based on a process that, in its view, risks excluding eligible voters from the electoral rolls.

• Ensure transparency and accountability within the Election Commission: The Forum has called for complete transparency in the Election Commission’s internal decision-making process. It has demanded independent audits and scrutiny wherever there are large-scale deletions of voter names, along with individual and institutional accountability wherever the rights of genuine voters are infringed.

The Forum has also demanded the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner through due process if he does not resign voluntarily, citing what it describes as concerns over the credibility of the Commission arising from the SIR process and allegations of voter exclusion.

• Restructure the Election Commission to strengthen its independence and transparency: The Forum has demanded restructuring of the Election Commission to make it a more independent, transparent and democratic institution. It has called for the Chief Justice of India to be included in the body responsible for selecting Election Commissioners, arguing that the selection process should not rest solely with holders of political office such as the Prime Minister.

The Forum has further proposed that, after a selection body identifies credible candidates, Election Commissioners should ultimately be elected by the general electorate to strengthen their democratic legitimacy and public confidence.

The Forum said the right to vote cannot be reduced to the presence of a citizen’s name on an electoral roll. It described voting as a fundamental means through which citizens participate in the democratic process and said that ensuring that eligible citizens are not deprived of this right in the name of electoral-roll revision is a constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission and the State.

‘What we said on September 20 was proved by the Indian Express on September 23’

Speaking at the press conference, Harkumar Goswami linked the Forum’s concerns over SIR to the issues discussed at the September 20 Nagarik Abhibartan. “What we said at the Nagarik Abhibartan on 20th September was proved by the Indian Express on 23rd September!” Goswami said.

He said the statewide citizens’ convention had been organised in Guwahati at the call of 150 distinguished citizens of Assam and in cooperation with the Forum for Social Harmony, with discussions covering land, eviction, destruction of nature, workers’ rights, economic inequality and citizenship.

Goswami said the convention had adopted two significant resolutions: that the incomplete NRC in Assam should be completed using the 2014 voter list as the base or “freeze”, and that the SIR process being undertaken across the country should be strongly opposed. “Our apprehension and opposition on the 20th [of September] was exposed before the entire country by the front-page news of the Indian Express on 23rd September. Today, the whole of India has understood how dangerous SIR is,” he said.

Prof. Taizuddin Ahmed said the concerns surrounding citizenship verification in Assam could not be viewed in isolation from the proposed nationwide electoral-roll revision. “Atrocities have been going on in Assam for many years in the name of citizenship. We know this very well because we are from Assam. Now, there is a conspiracy to do the same thing across India through SIR. Therefore, the time has come for the democratic people of the entire country to resist it in a democratic and peaceful manner,” he said.

Dr. Ghanashyam Nath said the Forum would continue to press for the four demands. “Our four-point demand must be met; otherwise, we will consider our next course of action,” he said.

The Forum has appealed to democratic citizens, social organisations and concerned groups in Assam and across the country to strengthen the demand for protection of voting rights and electoral democracy through a peaceful and democratic citizens’ movement.

Related:

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

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

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

Assam FT deems Assam NRC to be final NRC

The post Scrap SIR, Restore Names of Genuine Voters, Stop Disenfranchisement: Forum for Social Harmony – Nagorik Udyog appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

— Anzar Afaque (@AnzarAfaque) September 28, 2026

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

— Anzar Afaque (@AnzarAfaque) September 28, 2026

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

— Anzar Afaque (@AnzarAfaque) September 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restore the rolls before asking citizens to defend their vote

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

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

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

Put the electoral roll to a public audit

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

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

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

Open the SIR files

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

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

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

Sibal questions whether the Commission can speak through one voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resignation, impeachment and a new appointments mechanism

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

What happens to those excluded from welfare?

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

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

An independent inquiry into SIR

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

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

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

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

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

The official press statement may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Saturday night, September 26, IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib led protesters to Kumar’s official residence in New Delhi, demanding his resignation and accountability over the functioning of the Election Commission during the electoral-roll revision exercise. The demonstration came days after the Youth Congress marched towards Jantar Mantar and as protests against the Election Commission were reported across several States.

आओ गद्दार ज्ञानेश तुम्हें ‘हलफनामा’ देते है

गद्दार ज्ञानेश कुमार के घर के बाहर IYC अध्यक्ष @UdayBhanuIYC और युवा कांग्रेस के बब्बर शेर कार्यकर्ता पहुंचे और घर के बाहर WANTED पोस्टर लगाए जा रहे हैं।

राहुल गांधी जी ने चुनावी प्रक्रिया को लेकर देश के सामने गंभीर सवाल रखे हैं,… pic.twitter.com/ocOZ4vWHU0

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) September 27, 2026

IYC President @UdayBhanuIYC and the youth congress workers reached Gyanesh Kumar’s residence with one clear message: ‘Gaddar Gyanesh Ko Girftaar Karo’

Gaddar Gyanesh.. You can change your location, but you cannot escape accountability. pic.twitter.com/ss5FPmlJgv

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) September 27, 2026

The escalation follows The Indian Express’s September 23 investigation reporting that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning decisions related to electoral-roll revisions and database access. The reported objections included voter additions and deletions, restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll systems.

The disclosures have intensified an already contentious debate over the SIR exercise and the constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls. For the Youth Congress, the issue is no longer simply about an administrative exercise. It has framed the controversy as a question of citizens’ right to participate in elections and of the accountability of the constitutional institution entrusted with conducting them.

Gyanesh Gaddar, there’s no way to escape now..

Youth Congress is on the watch pic.twitter.com/2NPtLCc79g

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) September 27, 2026

गद्दार ज्ञानेश तिहाड़ जेल तुम्हारा इंतजार कर रहा है..

लोकतंत्र की हत्या करने वाले और वोट के अधिकार पर हमला करने वाले गद्दार ज्ञानेश कुमार को हम जेल भेजकर रहेंगे..

ECI-BJP-RSS के वोट चोरी के खेल को राहुल गांधी जी ने पूरे देश के सामने Exposed किया और सच आज सबके सामने है।… pic.twitter.com/K8cEkvlt33

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) September 27, 2026

ज्ञानेश गद्दार के घर के बाहर पहरा देने पहुँचे Youth Congress के बब्बर शेर, साथ में अध्यक्ष @UdayBhanuIYC जी भी मौजूद।

घर के आसपास WANTED के पोस्टर भी लगाए जा रहे हैं।

जब से ज्ञानेश गद्दार की गर्दन राहुल गांधी के हाथों में आयी है, और देश के सामने पूरा सच आया है, ये देशद्रोही… pic.twitter.com/YHph1Bl3uQ

— Indian Youth Congress (@IYC) September 26, 2026

Youth Congress puts CEC at the centre of its campaign

The IYC has placed Kumar personally at the centre of its mobilisation. At the September 26 demonstration outside his residence, as reported by PTI, Chib said Youth Congress members would maintain a “watch” outside the CEC’s residence and claimed that members would also be present at airports. The protesters demanded Kumar’s resignation and raised slogans over alleged irregularities in the electoral process.

The language used by some Youth Congress leaders has been deliberately confrontational. At an earlier protest, Chib accused Kumar of betraying the country and claimed that he would eventually face imprisonment. But beneath the rhetoric is a more fundamental demand: that the Election Commission account publicly for the decisions taken during the SIR and for the concerns reportedly raised by two of its own members.

The Youth Congress has already taken the campaign beyond Delhi. Protests have been held or announced in several States, including Bihar, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur.

In Delhi, the IYC’s demonstrations have included masks bearing Kumar’s face and protesters displaying their hands in chains. The symbolism is unmistakable: the organisation is seeking to transform what could otherwise remain an institutional dispute into a public accountability campaign.

The strategy also reflects the political importance of young and first-time voters. Student groups have separately raised concerns about changes to Form 6, the application used for inclusion in the electoral roll, arguing that procedural changes could make registration more difficult for young citizens.

A detailed report on the #QuitGyaneshKumar protests may be read here.

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

The SIR controversy behind the protests

The immediate trigger for the current mobilisation is the controversy surrounding the SIR and the reported objections within the Election Commission. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi raised questions on multiple occasions about decisions relating to voter deletions, additions and restoration, the modification of Form 6 and access to electoral databases. The newspaper reported that some of the objections concerned whether changes were being made without adequate consultation within the Commission.

The Election Commission has disputed the political interpretation of these reports. It has maintained that operational queries, internal observations and administrative suggestions are a normal part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body and has asserted that its final decisions on the SIR were unanimous. That response, however, has not ended the controversy. Instead, it has intensified demands for greater transparency about how the Commission arrived at its decisions, what objections were recorded internally and how those objections were resolved.

The question is particularly important because electoral rolls are not merely administrative databases. They determine who can exercise the franchise. Any erroneous deletion can therefore have consequences far beyond paperwork. For citizens whose names disappear from electoral rolls, the burden of establishing eligibility and navigating the restoration process can become a practical barrier to exercising the right to vote. This is why the controversy has increasingly been framed by protesters as one concerning disenfranchisement rather than simply electoral administration.

Questions over deleted voters

Opposition parties and civil society organisations have raised particular concerns about the scale of deletions during the SIR. The Hindu reported that CPI(ML)-Liberation conducted surveys in selected constituencies in Bihar to verify the status of voters whose names had been deleted. In Aigaon, the party said 46 of 204 deleted voters surveyed were still living in their villages. In Ziradei, it said 122 of 665 voters deleted during the SIR were found to be residing in the village.

These figures are based on a party-conducted survey of selected booths and cannot, by themselves, establish the scale of wrongful deletions across Bihar or the country. They have nevertheless been cited by the Left as evidence of why deleted names require systematic verification.

The concern is particularly acute for communities for whom documentary requirements, migration, displacement or unstable residence can already make access to official records difficult. Trade unions have similarly entered the debate. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions has argued that poor and migrant workers could face disproportionate difficulties in restoring their names to electoral rolls if they are deleted during the revision process.

The electoral-roll debate has therefore acquired a wider social dimension: who bears the burden when a name disappears from the voter list, how easily can that person challenge the deletion, and what safeguards exist against wrongful exclusion?

It is completely illegal and unethical. It shows that those at the highest level of our election system and the institutions that conduct elections have party leanings and are actively propagating those parties.

How can they conduct fair elections?

It’s only one in a series of… pic.twitter.com/6vTF4CmzoC

— Congress (@INCIndia) September 27, 2026

From electoral rolls to institutional accountability

The controversy has also raised questions about the internal functioning of the Election Commission. The reported objections of Sandhu and Joshi are significant precisely because they came from within the constitutional body itself. The issue is not that members of a multi-member institution can never disagree. Institutional disagreement is neither unlawful nor unusual. The question is what happens to those disagreements.

An RTI response obtained by activist Anjali Bharadwaj has added another layer to the debate. According to The News Minute, the Election Commission responded to a query concerning the decision to undertake a nationwide SIR by stating that it had not taken any decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025. The RTI application had sought, among other things, the files and decision-making records relating to the exercise. Bharadwaj subsequently questioned how the national rollout had been decided if the requested decision-making records were unavailable. The RTI response raises a legitimate transparency question about the documentary trail behind an exercise affecting electoral rolls on a massive scale.

Police action adds another layer

The protests have also generated concerns about the policing of dissent and the treatment of journalists covering the demonstrations. The Press Club of India condemned the detention of Frontline journalist Vedaant Lakhera and The Wire journalist Mohammad Irfan while they were covering a September 25 protest at Jantar Mantar. According to the PCI, both journalists were wearing press identification. It said Lakhera was taken to Parliament Street police station and told to delete a photograph, while Irfan was detained for several hours. The PCI described the episode as a matter of serious concern for press freedom.

This is significant because scrutiny of an electoral institution depends not only on formal mechanisms of accountability but also on the ability of journalists and citizens to document public protests and report on the conduct of authorities.

At the same time, Delhi Police has said protesters were detained because permissions had not been obtained for demonstrations at certain locations. Reports from other States have also documented the use of water cannons and tear gas during protests. The emerging picture is therefore not simply one of a political confrontation with the Election Commission. It is also becoming a debate over the space available for public dissent and independent reporting during an intensely contested electoral controversy.

Opposition parties prepare for the next phase

The Youth Congress mobilisation is now converging with a broader opposition campaign. The Congress Working Committee is scheduled to meet on September 29 to discuss its strategy on the Election Commission and SIR. Opposition INDIA bloc parties are expected to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss a coordinated response. The proposed meeting follows outreach between parties that have otherwise been political rivals in their respective States.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and a halt to the SIR. The Trinamool Congress has also called for coordinated opposition action, while CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby has reached out to opposition leaders seeking wider mobilisation.

Opposition parties are also reportedly preparing another parliamentary notice seeking Kumar’s removal, potentially in both Houses of Parliament. It would be another attempt to initiate the constitutional process concerning the removal of the CEC.

A heavy police contingent and concertina wires were deployed outside the @INCJammuKashmir office in Srinagar by the LG administration to foil a protest against #VoteChori and the weaponisation of the ECI to favour the BJP.

From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, the same demand is… pic.twitter.com/KyuTirLPWT

— Pawan Khera ಪವನ್ ಖೇರಾ (@Pawankhera) September 28, 2026

Mumbai set for another round of protests

The next major flashpoint is likely to be Mumbai. Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) have announced a joint rally for October 4 against the SIR and the functioning of the Election Commission.

MNS and Shiv Sena (UBT) to hold a joint October 4 protest in Mumbai against ECI’s SIR electoral roll revisions.
The Hindu Bureau pic.twitter.com/MmG9txXG3Y

— The Hindu-Mumbai (@THMumbai) September 27, 2026

As reported by Hindustan Times, Raj Thackeray has called for the mobilisation to be treated as a public protest and appealed to political parties to participate. Aaditya Thackeray has also backed a wider mobilisation beginning October 2 if Kumar does not resign.

The Cockroach Janta Party has separately announced a nationwide protest campaign beginning in Mumbai on October 2, with plans to subsequently take the mobilisation to other cities. Even after permission was denied by Mumbai police, the call for the agitation has stayed.

Mumbai Police has also denied permission for our protest on 2nd October.

Such tactics to suppress citizens’ voices are unacceptable. If we are denied the right to protest, CJP will launch a Jail Bharo Andolan in Mumbai on Gandhi Jayanti.#SaveDemocracy

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) September 27, 2026

Gyanu Must Go! pic.twitter.com/pZc7CCjd9P

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) September 28, 2026

Jail Bharo Andolan in Mumbai.

October 2, Shivaji Park. #SaveDemocracy

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) September 28, 2026

#Watch | CJP co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka reached out for support ahead of the nationwide protest set to begin in Mumbai on October 2. The protest demands the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the ongoing Election Commission controversy.

Video: PTI pic.twitter.com/bukOJv9phi

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) September 27, 2026

VIDEO | Guwahati, Assam: CJP leader Ashutosh Ranka says, “…Apart from the Election Commission, all BJP leaders are protesting, campaigning and holding press conferences over ‘vote theft’. I would also say, call Gyanesh Kumar and ask him to hold a press conference and clarify.”… pic.twitter.com/IyTk5ZGxEA

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

For the protestors, the strategy is clear: keep the controversy visible, take it to young voters and expand it from Delhi into a national campaign. The organisation’s protests have moved from marches to demonstrations outside the CEC’s residence. Its leaders have announced continued mobilisation, while Congress workers have taken the issue to State capitals and district-level centres. The immediate demand remains Kumar’s resignation.

But the larger issue being placed before the public is whether an electoral-roll revision affecting millions of citizens can be conducted with sufficient transparency, procedural safeguards and accountability. The protesters are demanding evidence of that institutional accountability.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

·         Indian Muslims need not look to Pakistan-centric preachers or scholars for intellectual and religious direction—particularly when some of them have yet to fully internalise and articulate the demands of pluralism within their own national context.

·         Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s intellectual trajectory itself reflects an important Indian influence: his thought was significantly shaped by the rationalist and reformist legacy of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. What Indian Muslims need today is not a wholesale importation of religious discourse from across the border, but a creative regeneration of the reformist, rational and pluralist intellectual tradition that emerged on Indian soil.

·         We need to take that legacy forward—critically, creatively and in response to India’s own civilisational, constitutional and pluralistic realities. The real task before us is to recover, renew and radically regenerate the Indian tradition of Islamic thought—not merely repeat imported formulations. We need scholars who can engage Islam through the lived realities of India: its constitutional framework, civilisational diversity, interfaith encounters, Sufi heritage and deeply plural social fabric.

·         There is an irony here that deserves to be confronted. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s intellectual formation was significantly influenced by the rationalist and reformist thought of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan—an Indian Islamic thinker who spent decades arguing for peace, dialogue, intellectual renewal and a non-confrontational engagement with modernity. If that intellectual inheritance could travel from India to Pakistan, why should Indian Muslims now imagine that their intellectual regeneration must necessarily come from Pakistan?

·         Indian Muslims do not need borrowed certainties. They need an indigenous intellectual renaissance. The time has come to stop importing answers and start producing them. We must learn to think beyond perpetual reaction, beyond every immediate political provocation, and beyond the anxieties of the next news cycle. A community that may define its intellectual agenda primarily! An intellectual renewal must mean more than changing rhetoric. It must produce new institutions, new scholarship and new answers to contemporary questions.

If Maulana Abul A’la Maududi’s political project emerged from the specific crises of colonial India and was subsequently articulated within the political realities of Pakistan, can his political theology provide an adequate framework for Indian Muslims in the twenty-first century?

For me, the answer is increasingly clear: Indian Muslims need not make Maududi’s political Islam the organising framework of their contemporary intellectual life. But that immediately raises a more difficult and important question:

What about Javed Ahmad Ghamidi?

Here the answer cannot be as simple. Ghamidi represents a substantially different intellectual trajectory. His work has challenged a number of inherited assumptions about Islamic law, politics, religious authority and the relationship between revelation and historical circumstance. His approach gives considerable importance to the Qur’an as the primary source of religious understanding, distinguishes enduring religious principles from historically conditioned arrangements, and subjects inherited interpretations to renewed scrutiny.

For Indian Muslims searching for an intellectually serious alternative to political Islam, these features make Ghamidi’s thought worth studying.

But worth studying is not the same as suitable for wholesale adoption. That distinction is crucial.

Ghamidi’s Real Significance

Ghamidi’s importance lies less in providing a ready-made political programme for India than in demonstrating that Islamic thought can be reconstructed through disciplined interpretation rather than ideological repetition.

This is an important departure from the tendency to treat every inherited formulation as equally immutable.

His engagement with questions of governance, jihad, citizenship, religious authority and Islamic law opens space for a different kind of Muslim intellectual conversation—one in which historical context, textual interpretation and reasoned argument matter.

In this respect, Ghamidi offers something that Indian Muslims urgently need: an example of intellectual disentanglement from the idea that every political claim made in the name of Islam is necessarily a religious obligation.

Yet there is a second side to the assessment.

Ghamidi’s intellectual framework was developed within the Pakistani context and within a particular South Asian scholarly genealogy. His formative relationship with Maududi and Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi is significant, even where his later conclusions differ from theirs. The reformist thought of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan also provides an important Indian parallel, particularly in the movement away from confrontationist political readings of Islam towards peace, dialogue and intellectual engagement.

Therefore, it would be historically simplistic to present Ghamidi as an entirely independent intellectual phenomenon—or as a straightforward continuation of Wahiduddin Khan.

His significance is better understood as part of a larger South Asian argument over what Islam means in the modern age.

And that argument has not ended.

Where Ghamidi Helps—and Where Indian Ulema Must Go Further

For Indian Ulema, Ghamidi’s approach can be useful precisely where it encourages critical examination of inherited political theology.

But India presents questions that require more than a Pakistani reformist framework.

The Indian Muslim intellectual condition is shaped by a constitutional order, a multi-religious society, India’s own civilisational history, regional cultures and languages, and the lived experience of Muslims as a large religious minority. Therefore, the Indian question cannot simply be: What does Ghamidi say about the Islamic state?

It must be: What does Islam mean for Muslims living as equal citizens in India’s constitutional and plural social order?

That leads to an entirely different intellectual agenda. Can Islamic ethics provide a theological vocabulary for equal citizenship?

How should concepts such as adl (justice), ihsan (moral excellence), rahmah (mercy) and shura (consultation) be interpreted within democratic public life?

How should Muslim jurisprudence address freedom of conscience, interfaith relations, gender justice, economic participation and constitutional rights?

What can India’s Sufi, Rishi and Bhakti traditions contribute to an Islamic theology of coexistence?

And how should Muslim scholars respond to artificial intelligence, biotechnology, environmental crisis, economic inequality and technological transformation?

These questions require Indian Muslim thinkers thinking from India—not merely Indian Muslims reading thinkers from elsewhere.

The Missing Indian Dimension

India has never been intellectually barren in matters of Islam.

The subcontinent produced powerful traditions of Qur’anic scholarship, Islamic philosophy, Sufism, Persian literature and Urdu thought. The Sufi centres of Delhi, Ajmer and the Deccan, the Rishi–Sufi traditions of Kashmir, the encounters between Sufis and Bhakti saints, and the reformist and intellectual contributions of figures such as Shah Waliullah and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan all demonstrate that Indian Muslim thought has historically interacted creatively with its surrounding civilisation.

This inheritance needs to be recovered—not as nostalgia, but as raw material for a new intellectual synthesis.

Ghamidi can therefore be read alongside this Indian inheritance rather than above it.

His work may help Indian Muslims reconsider inherited assumptions. Wahiduddin Khan may offer another model of religious engagement. Maududi may remain important as an object of historical and intellectual study. Iqbal may reopen questions of selfhood and creativity. Indian Sufi and Bhakti traditions may provide resources for interreligious ethics.

But none should become the final template.

From Following Thinkers to Producing Thought

This is ultimately the central issue. Indian Muslims have spent too much intellectual energy asking which scholar to follow and too little asking which institutions, methods and questions will produce the next generation of scholarship.

The answer cannot be another personality-centred movement.

India needs research institutions devoted to Qur’anic studies, Islamic philosophy and theology; centres for Islam and constitutional citizenship; serious academic study of Indian Sufism and Rishi traditions; madrasa–university intellectual programmes; Muslim public-policy and data research; translation and publishing initiatives; and fellowships for young scholars.

The purpose should be to create an intellectual culture in which disagreement is possible, inherited positions can be examined, and new interpretations can emerge without fear. That is where the Ghamidi question becomes genuinely useful.

Ghamidi need not be the answer to India’s intellectual crisis. His example can instead become part of the reason Indian Muslims begin asking better questions.

Maududi’s political theology belongs to an important chapter of South Asian Islamic intellectual history, but its political premises cannot simply be transplanted into twenty-first-century India. Ghamidi represents a more reformist and interpretive trajectory, and therefore deserves serious engagement. Yet his framework too emerged from a particular historical and national context.

The Indian Muslim intellectual project must ultimately move beyond both. Not by rejecting the wider Muslim intellectual world, but by entering it as a producer rather than merely a consumer.

India should not merely import Islamic thought. It should generate Islamic thought rooted in India’s constitutional reality, civilisational plurality and lived Muslim experience.

The decisive question is: Can India produce a new generation of Muslim thinkers who are deeply rooted in Islam, intellectually independent of imported ideological templates, conscious of India’s civilisational inheritance, and capable of addressing the realities of the twenty-first century?

That is the intellectual renaissance Indian Muslims should now begin building.

Today, Indian Muslims have no shortage of pan-Islamic intellectuals, transnational preachers or scholars speaking in the name of a global Ummah. What we lack is not voices—but an intellectual vision and renewal adequate to modern India’s reality.

What would that renewal actually look like?

It would mean developing an Indian Islamic theology of constitutional citizenship—one that explains, in substantive theological terms, why equality before law, freedom of conscience, democratic participation and fraternity are not merely political compromises but can be understood through the ethical resources of Islam.

It would mean producing a serious Islamic intellectual response to science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, climate change and the digital revolution, rather than allowing Muslim discourse to remain trapped in questions inherited from nineteenth- and twentieth-century ideological battles.

It would mean rethinking madrasa education so that classical disciplines—Qur’an, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic and Islamic theology—are placed in meaningful conversation with constitutional law, philosophy, economics, history, sociology, comparative religion, technology and the natural sciences.

It would mean recovering India’s own Sufi, Rishi and Bhakti traditions of ethical coexistence, not as romantic folklore but as serious intellectual resources for understanding India’s religious pluralism, shared sacred spaces and the ethics of disagreement.

It would mean developing a contemporary fiqh of citizenship and minority participation appropriate to a constitutional democracy—moving beyond the old binaries of dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb and asking what Islamic ethics requires of citizens living together under a common constitutional order.

It would mean making women’s education, intellectual leadership and economic participation central to Muslim social reform, rather than treating them as peripheral questions.

It would mean creating research institutions that produce data-driven scholarship on Muslim education, employment, poverty, entrepreneurship and social mobility, replacing anecdote and political rhetoric with evidence.

It would mean cultivating a new generation of Muslim scholars capable of speaking to Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian and Jewish intellectual traditions without either polemical hostility or superficial interfaith symbolism.

And it would mean developing a distinctly Indian Muslim intellectual vocabulary around peace, pluralism, environmental responsibility, ethical economics, social justice and human dignity—drawing from the Qur’an and Islamic intellectual history while engaging seriously with the realities of contemporary India.

Contributing author at New Age Islam, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar, writer and researcher on Indian Sufism, interfaith ethics, and the spiritual history of Islam in South Asia. His latest book is “Ishq Sufiyana: Untold Stories of Divine Love”.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Maududi Is Not Relevant for Indian Muslims — Nor Is Ghamidi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are parents’ details being collected?

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

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

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

Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers

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

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

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

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

The NPR question

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government’s position and the trust deficit

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

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

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

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

The 1951 precedent

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

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

Caste Census: historic opportunity, unresolved methodology

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

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

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

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

The OBC question

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

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

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

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

A questionnaire that may become too long to be accurate

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

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

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

Migration creates another risk

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

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

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

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

Digital Census, digital vulnerabilities

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

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

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

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

The legal framework is itself in transition

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

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

The Census and the compact of trust

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

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

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

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

Related:

Census v/s NPR

Census v/s NPR

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

Ensure transparency and inclusion in the 2027 Census: CCG

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

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

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

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

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

Today, two days after the expose by The Indian Express that exposed serious fissures within the Election Commission, with two Commissioners disagreeing or dissenting with CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s decision 14 times in ten months since October 2025.

Protests were seen in Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh and Manipur, among other states, with party workers marching towards Election Commission offices and raising slogans against the CEC.In Dehradun, Uttarakhand Congress leaders and workers, led by state in-charge Kumari Selja and Pradesh Congress Committee president Ganesh Godiyal, marched from the PCC headquarters towards the Election Office at the state Secretariat to gherao the office (as reported by ANI)

The Indian Youth Congress also held a protest march on Friday from 5, Raisina Road, to Jantar Mantar, with Kumar’s removal among its key demands. The demonstrations come as political parties intensify their criticism of the Election Commission’s functioning and the SIR exercise.

The protests have also spread to several other states. The Madhya Pradesh Youth Congress held a protest outside the office of the state Chief Electoral Officer in Bhopal on Thursday, raising slogans against the CEC and demanding his resignation over alleged irregularities in the poll panel’s functioning and the revision process.

Protesters carried posters bearing messages such as “arrest Gyanesh Kumar for treason” and “Vote-Chori magic trick exposed”. Bhopal district Youth Congress president Ankit Dubey alleged that no proper inquiry had been conducted despite objections by two Election Commissioners over the deletion of voters’ names and access to the voter database.

The Indian Youth Congress also launched a nationwide online citizens’ petition titled “Gyanesh, It’s Done Bro”. Through the campaign, it sought action against Kumar and urged citizens, especially young people, to support electoral transparency and accountability.

In Punjab, too the Congress protested.

Massive protest erupt across various cities against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, with Congress workers demanding his resignation.

Chandigarh : Police use water cannons on Congress workers.

Gyanesh Kumar Gupta’s “Gupt Yojana” exposed. pic.twitter.com/aAjipYReAS

— Priya Purohit (@Priyaa_Purohit) September 25, 2026

Uttarakhand PCC president Ganesh Godiyal told ANI, “Rahul Gandhi has been saying this for the past three years that under vote theft, the Election Commission is getting BJP governments installed, and this fact has been proven true today. I salute Rahul Gandhi for his steadfastness… Certainly, this will benefit the nation. We want neutral and clean elections. If clean and neutral elections are held, it will have its own impact.

“Leader of Opposition in the Uttarakhand Assembly, Yashpal Arya said, “For three years, Rahul Gandhi has been highlighting the conduct of the Chief Election Commissioner, specifically how rules regarding ‘Form 6’ were disregarded and how votes were deleted or added via the SIR process. Although the other two Election Commissioners raised objections 14 times over a ten-month period, the Chief Election Commissioner ignored them. It has now come to light that 13 crore votes were deleted over the past few years, and the BJP central government manipulated the electoral process… a criminal case for sedition should be registered against him, and he ought to be dismissed immediately.”

In Lucknow, Congress workers gathered at the party’s state office and staged a demonstration over the SIR exercise, with plans also reported to lay siege to the State Election Commission office in Hazratganj.In Manipur, Congress workers led by Pradesh Congress Committee president Okram Ibobi Singh and Congress Legislature Party leader Keisham Meghachandra Singh marched towards the Chief Electoral Office at Lamphelpat, demanding the arrest and prosecution of Kumar.The protest came with a rally carrying slogans of immediate arrest of Gyanesh Kumar and also burnt the effigy of Gyanesh Kumar. The protest became violent, and the protesters scuffled with police; later, the police personnel resorted to firing tear gas shells.Furthermore, in Jammu, heavy police deployment was made outside the Election Commission office during a Congress protest. Congress leader Chaudhary Lal Singh said demonstrations were being held across the country wherever Election Commission offices were located.”Demonstrations are taking place everywhere, statewide and nationwide, wherever there is an Election Commission office. The reason for these protests is the rigging orchestrated by the Election Commission in collusion with the government; they have misused the people’s right to vote. The manner in which the government was formed is utterly absurd; a losing government was declared the winner, while the actual winners lost. This gross injustice has now been proven,” he told ANI.

In Srinagar, Congress MLAs staged a protest inside the Legislative Assembly and raised banners demanding the immediate resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Congress leaders and workers also staged protests in Guwahati, Chandigarh, Dehradun, Lucknow and Kolkata, demanding the resignation of Kumar.

The protest was organised as part of the nationwide programme directed by the All India Congress Committee (AICC), which asked state units to hold marches to their respective Election Commission offices.The protests come amid reports that The Indian Express on Thursday said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

In its defence, the Election Commission, however, has rejected the characterisation of these objections as evidence of institutional dissent, saying operational queries, internal feedback and administrative suggestions during the drafting process are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member constitutional body. The ECI has maintained that all final decisions, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous.The Congress has also indicated that opposition parties may move an impeachment motion against Kumar in both Houses of Parliament, as per sources.The controversy over SIR and the Election Commission’s internal functioning is expected to be taken up at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29 in New Delhi. (ANI)

Meanwhile, the Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) president B. Mahesh Kumar Goud said the Congress would organise protests at all district headquarters across the State on Monday (September 28, 2026) against what he described as the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) mishandling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Left parties demand CEC’s removal, announce week-long protest against SIR

The CPI, CPI (M), CPI (ML)L, RSP, and All India Forward Bloc seek Gyanesh Kumar’s ouster, suspension of the SIR, and restoration of voting rights to those wrongfully excluded from electoral rolls. Left parties issued a joint statement demanding the ouster of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and a halt to the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The parties also announced a week-long protest to be held across the country from September 26 to October 2 on the issue.

The parties have demanded not only that the CEC be removed from office, but also that the SIR be halted and that voting rights be restored to all those who have been wrongfully excluded from the electoral rolls. The parties also demanded that the Election Commission’s “independent and democratic functioning” be reinstated and that the present system of appointment of Election Commissioners be replaced with a mechanism based on the Supreme Court’s proposed selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

The statement said the latest expose confirms concerns repeatedly raised by Opposition parties and civil society organisations and expose the hollowness of claims that the SIR and electoral roll management process are transparent and decentralised.

The issue, the Left parties said, goes far beyond the SIR. “It concerns the transparency and democratic functioning of the ECI and the protection of the fundamental democratic principle of universal adult franchise. Any system that makes the right to vote dependent on opaque, centrally controlled processes undermines public confidence in the electoral system,” the statement said.

Related:

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

‘BJP, EC looted the West Bengal polls’: Mamata seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh elections with pre-SIR voter list

EC evades, shrugs off serious questions on fissures & divisions within the ECI

The post #QuitGyaneshKumar protests at 36 locations countrywide, Congress takes the lead appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Expansion of SIR and the unresolved accountability test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Press Note pic.twitter.com/xIQvXHqMSt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An African American interpretation of Buddhism, it is a collection of articles by scholars and Buddhist activists who, writing from their personal experiences of racial exclusion, explore “trauma, belonging, healing, and transformation,” even as they “wrestle with their suffering.”

Subtitled Buddhism Can Teach Us about Race, Resilience, Transformation & Freedom, the book prompted a thought even as I carried it in my hand: if Dalits in India have been embracing Buddhism in large numbers, why wouldn’t Black Americans do the same, given that they, too, have experienced a qualitatively similar form of discrimination?

Even before I began reading the book, which was published in 2020, I sought to find out what percentage of Americans are Buddhists and, of these, how many are Black. This is what I found: Buddhists represent approximately 1.0% to 1.3% of the U.S. population, or about 3.5 to 4.4 million people. A majority are of Asian descent—roughly 60% to 67%—while about a quarter to one-third are White.

As for Black Americans, they make up roughly 3% of all Buddhists in the United States. And within the broader Black American population, less than 0.5% identify as Buddhist. Yet, from my personal interactions in the United States, I have found that Buddhist cultural presence, visibility, and affinity appear to be growing rapidly.

Someone I know intimately is by no stretch of the imagination a Buddhist. Yet he is among the millions living in America who identify as Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or “spiritual but not religious,” while regularly practising Buddhist meditation or adopting aspects of Buddhist philosophy. Not without reason, according to one source, the absolute number of Buddhist practitioners in the United States grew by more than 20% between 2010 and 2020.

Yet, as far as Black Americans are concerned, they haven’t gone the Dalit way.

Buddhists in India may make up a minuscule 0.7% to 0.8% of the country’s population, or about 8.4 million people, but a vast majority of them are Dalits—around 85% to 90%.

In all likelihood, many of them followed their icon, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who publicly converted to Buddhism at the fag end of his life—in October 1956, just two months before his death in December 1956—after concluding that the caste hierarchy and the practice of “untouchability” were inextricably embedded in orthodox Hindu scriptures.

Returning to Black & Buddhist, I couldn’t find any direct reference to Ambedkar or Dalits in its chapters. This could be because the anthology’s primary focus is specifically on the African American and Black diaspora experience in the United States, examining intergenerational trauma, white supremacy, capitalism, and the distinctive resilience of Black Buddhist practitioners in America.

However, in the book’s introduction, the two editors, Pamela Ayo Yetunde and Cheryl A. Giles, explicitly name “caste designations” alongside racism, sexism, white supremacy, imperialism, and colonialism as inherent, exploitative features of the capitalist system that Buddhism must actively confront.

There is, of course, a critique of Mahatma Gandhi by one of the contributors, Sebene Selassie, similar to what some Indian Dalit intellectuals, as well as the well-known litterateur Arundhati Roy, have been saying.

Selassie writes: “When (Gandhi) was living in South Africa as a young lawyer, his stance on anti-Black racism was well-defined and expressed: he believed Indians and whites to be part of an Aryan brotherhood and inherently superior to Black people, which was not an uncommon stance of Indians living there at the time.”

I didn’t expect Selassie to go on to examine whether Gandhi changed his views thereafter.

But let me turn to the book now.

Each of the eight contributors—Cheryl A. Giles, Lama Rod Owens, Sebene Selassie, Lama Dawa Tarchin Phillips, Pamela Ayo Yetunde, Gyozan Royce Andrew Johnson, Kamilah Majied, and Ruth King—gives graphic details of the suffering and trauma they have experienced, which led them to adopt the Buddhist way of life as a way out.

They go on to conceptualize Buddhism by identifying the paths they believe have helped them overcome their suffering: Right View, Right Mindfulness, Right Intention, Right Livelihood, Right Concentration, Right Action, Right Speech, and Right Effort.

Given this framework, what appeared particularly interesting to me was the way the book looks at capitalism.

While pointing out that in the capitalist society in which they live there is “creativity and freedom,” the book also underscores—and let me quote here—that the system leads to “exploitation, poverty, classism, caste designations, racism, sexism (and other ‘isms’ related to sex and gender), ageism, white supremacy, human supremacy, imperialism, and colonialism.”

Further, capitalism “allows for shortened lifespans for poor people due to chronic stress, hunger, thirst, and treatable but untreated diseases.”

This is quite close to the Marxian analysis—something the powers-that-be in the United States would perhaps detest from the bottom of their hearts.

A closer look, however, suggested that it is nowhere near the typical Communist way of thinking—the proletariat versus the capitalists.

One of the solutions offered is “Right Action.”

The book wonders: “A question Black Buddhists ponder is ‘What is Right Action when confronted by a violent racist?’ Our actions are not just about our own self-preservation but”—and here I paused—“also about the well-being of those around us, including violent perpetrators.”

It says that Black actions, from a Buddhist perspective, should lead to “domino effects and we vow not to become oppressors even while being oppressed.” Insisting that “hatred does not transform hatred” and “only love does that,” it underscores the importance of responding without reproducing the very violence one is confronting.

Quite Gandhian, I thought.

Further: “Right Action, at its core, is love. Love in Right Action applies to everything we do, including our hobbies, vocations, work, and activism. Right Action is necessary in the economic system we live in.”

And how does one observe “Right Livelihood” in a capitalist setup?

Not by rebelling against the system, but by ensuring that one does not make “money in a way that harms others.” In fact, one must live as “spiritually integrated, nonexploitative, generous, and constructive human beings” by beginning with “examining if and how greed operates in our lives.”

The book warns: “Capitalism can breed greed if we have the wrong view that possessing a multitude of things, or having much more money than we need, brings real security and real joy.”

Here, it cites “studies in the US” to argue that “being rich does not make one happy and does not promote mental, emotional, or psychological security.”

Regretting that Black people have “been the objects of capitalism and exploited as property,” the book says that, through the generations, they “have created a collective psychological defense against the vulnerability of being seen as financially insecure.”

The result is that “some of us have come to value things that don’t bring lasting joy.”

Often, “a large home, a luxury car, precious gems and metals, and expensive designer clothing, and paying for these things through doing work that exploits, maims, causes addictions, or kills others” are considered “symbols of success,” feeding the delusion “that being wealthy or appearing to be wealthy protects Black people from exploitation.”

The book believes: “Right Livelihood promotes safety, truth, nonharming, and constructive enterprises. Right Livelihood is not the pursuit of greed and has no interest in impressing others with material excess.”

It adds: “It is not a way to demonstrate economic viability or invulnerability. It can be used as a springboard to create economic alternatives within the system in which we find ourselves. Right Livelihood is certainly a fitting description for Right and Noble anti-racism activism…”

And how does one achieve Right Action and Right Livelihood?

The answer the authors offer is through Right Concentration.

“Supported” by experienced meditation teachers and students, one can undertake “meditation retreats” for this purpose. But here, they warn, one must be selective. One should check whether the retreat centre would be in a position to support participants during what could be an emotionally and mentally vulnerable period.

The book underlines: “Long meditation retreats evoke mental and emotional vulnerability because returning to one’s object of meditation over and over again can trigger trauma.”

But this “should not be taken to mean that meditation is not right… The real questions are these: What type of meditation retreat is appropriate? How long? How often? To what end?”

Why would an African American anti-racism activist want to experience Right Concentration?

By committing to “cultivating peace of mind and peace of body as we struggle for liberation”; by helping each other so that “our collective souls and collective selves may be nourished for generations of communities to come.”

Right Concentration, the book believes, would help one know one’s “traumatized history, without the constructs of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion and without preferences and desires, fears and terrors, anger and rage—imagine how much freedom there may be.”

“We would come out of that experience knowing ourselves as part of the Universal Renaissance in Black Self-Knowledge…”

All this would have to be done, says the book, at a time when, in the United States, one often hears African Americans being told: “Go back to Africa where you belong!”

It says: “Black belonging has always been contested in the United States and we are now being asked to support the exclusion of Brown people at our borders, Black people from African countries, and the Muslim world which is largely populated by people of color.”

This, the book argues, ought to be overcome through “benefactor practice,” which “weaves together the threads of ancestral myth, memory, and connection with others, all of which may be modes of healing intergenerational trauma that lives in our bodies.”

It says: “Integrating these threads is a lifelong process that can be supported by bringing our benefactors into our meditation practice. We know trauma lives in the body. We carry it every day. Trauma cannot be buried, ignored, pushed aside, or denied. As long as we breathe, trauma reminds us it is with us and rises to the surface. Transforming trauma means being willing to address it in our lives.”

“In other words,” the book argues, “being Black-identified does not mean that I am also anger-identified. To be Black has come with significant woundedness and trauma from having to survive a white supremacist culture as well as having to hold the transhistorical trauma of (the) ancestors who also survived the same trauma and passed it on unknowingly” to the next generation.

Yet, through meditation practice, one can experience “Blackness” as something “based upon resiliency, community, deep joy in the face of violence, and a profound gratitude” for Black culture, “which continues to transform marginalization into celebration.”

Courtesy: CounterView

The post From caste to race: Reading ‘Black & Buddhist’ through an Indian lens appeared first on SabrangIndia.