Alarming scale of duplicate entries

According to Mid-Day, the SEC’s scrutiny shows that 4.33 lakh voters appear more than once in the rolls published last week. Multiple entries for the same individual range from two to an astonishing 103 repetitions, taking the total number of duplicate enrolments to 11,01,505.

The Commission attributes these anomalies to printing mistakes, migration, and failure to delete names of deceased voters. Booth-level staff have been instructed to conduct door-to-door verification, collect forms, and secure undertakings to ensure each citizen appears once and only once on the list.

A senior SEC official acknowledged, as per The New Indian Express, that the civic elections — mandated by the Supreme Court to be completed by January 31, 2026 — could face minor delays. Depending on the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) progress on correcting the rolls, polls may be held by late January or pushed to early February.

Opposition-held wards show highest duplicate counts

Four of the five wards with the highest number of duplicate entries are from areas formerly represented by Opposition corporators, particularly from Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Nationalist Congress Party (SP). Two such wards fall within the Worli Assembly constituency, represented by Aaditya Thackeray.

The top five wards with duplicate voters are:

• Ward 199 (Worli) – 8,207 duplicates
• Ward 131 (Ghatkopar) – 7,741
• Ward 203 (Parel–Lalbaug) – 7,624
• Ward 205 (Kalachowki) – 7,585
• Ward 194 (Century Mill) – 7,584

As reported by TNIE, a senior BMC official emphasised that the “11 lakh figure” refers not to individuals but repeated entries, and that a citywide clean-up drive is ongoing. The rectification process, supervised by 25 Assistant Municipal Commissioners designated as nodal officers, will run from November 27 to December 5.

Aaditya Thackeray escalates charge of manipulation, flags “millions” of repeated entries

On November 24, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray met senior SEC officials to protest the integrity of the voter roll revision. He also submitted a formal letter to the Chief Electoral Officer.

According to the Mid-Day report, Thackeray told the media that citizens were “desperately waiting” to vote but were confronted with arbitrary delays and unexplained irregularities. The draft list — initially due on November 7 and then on November 14 — was eventually released only on November 20, which he termed a “deliberate strategy” by the government to influence upcoming local body elections.

He alleged that government-held wards witnessed minimal or no changes, while Opposition strongholds saw “disproportionate and suspicious restructuring.”

Thackeray also questioned why the list’s summary data did not match its detailed entries, and criticised the roll for not being machine-readable.

In a post on X, he described the draft as “absolutely disgraceful and unpardonable”, demanding immediate remedial action from the SEC.

Our exposé on the corrupt practices of the election commission and the vote fraud in millions has led the the election commission giving us a week more to further find the vote chori.

Our exercise is not to only speak about it or only expose it, we expect corrective action on…

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) November 26, 2025

Key discrepancies highlighted by Aaditya Thackeray

In a detailed public note on X, Thackeray alleged:

• Over a million duplicated entries, with some voters appearing up to seven times
• 26,319 households showing more than 10 registered voters each
• Hundreds of addresses listing over 1,000 voters
• These suspicious entries, totalling more than 8,32,000, amount to “fraud, not error”
• Nearly 7 lakh voters with no house numbers or usable addresses

He warned that such patterns hinted at systematic manipulation, insisting that “one person must have only one vote.”

His demands to the SEC included:

• Extending the suggestion-objection window from 7 to 21 days
• Allowing bulk objections by political parties
• Deploying full Commission manpower to identify possible fraud

This afternoon, we called on the State Election Commission pointing out the absolutely disgraceful and unpardonable chaos in the draft electoral roll for the BMC.

We have demanded:
1) 21 days for suggestion/ objections, instead of 7 days
2) The Election Commission accept our… pic.twitter.com/u1pycrGLCB

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) November 24, 2025

Growing anxiety over ‘elected unopposed’ trend in local elections

A parallel controversy has emerged over the sharp increase in candidates being declared elected unopposed, raising serious concerns about coercion and misuse of political influence.

One prominent example came from Angar municipal corporation, where:

• An NCP candidate’s nomination was abruptly declared invalid
• The daughter-in-law of a leader who recently switched from NCP to the BJP was declared elected unopposed

According to Times of India, BJP state president Ravindra Chavan then publicly announced that the party had already secured around 100 seats even before voting, triggering backlash from Opposition parties. They accused the BJP of pressuring rival candidates into withdrawing.

Supriya Sule flags “deeply worrying” pattern

As reported by TOI, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule has written to SEC Chief Dinesh Waghmare expressing grave concern about this trend. She said Maharashtra has a long tradition of robust local democracy, rooted in the legacy of Yashwantrao Chavan, which is being undermined.

Her letter states:

• Capable candidates are being discouraged from filing nominations
• This climate is undemocratic, weakens local self-government, and violates the spirit of decentralised democracy
• In areas with no alternative candidates, citizens are effectively denied choice
• The SEC must conduct serious investigations wherever allegations of pressure or intimidation arise

Congress also seeks extension, flags ward-wise discrepancies

Following similar moves by Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray, according to TOI, the Maharashtra Congress has written to the SEC demanding a 15-day extension for filing objections to the BMC draft rolls.

In their letter,

• State president Harshavardhan Sapkal,
• CLP leader Vijay Wadettiwar, and
• MLC group leader Satej Patil,

stated that in several municipal areas, draft rolls were not properly divided ward-wise, and many names were erroneously shifted to other localities.

Related:

The Deadly Deadline: “I Can’t Do This Anymore”—India’s electoral revision turns into a graveyard for BLOs/teachers

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

The post Massive duplicate entries in Mumbai voter rolls trigger political uproar; opposition flags “fraudulent patterns” and pressures SEC for action appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing the Union’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order directing the repatriation of six persons who were pushed across the border in June 2025. Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Sanjay Hegde argued that the Union had delayed compliance and initiated its challenge only when the families moved for contempt.

During the hearing, Hegde pointed out that the Union had allowed the High Court order to “lie in defect” for nearly a month. “These are Indian citizens who have been thrown across,” he submitted, according to a report of LiveLaw.

“What prevents you?” — CJI questions Union’s resistance

After examining the record, the CJI noted that substantial documentary material had emerged: birth certificates, land records, Aadhaar and PAN details of the deportees or their family members. These, he said, constituted “evidence of probability” that warranted a proper enquiry — something the authorities had “hardly” undertaken before deportation.

According to the LiveLaw report, the CJI observed: “If somebody has something to show you — that wait, I belong to India, I am born and brought up here — he has a right to plead before you. Earlier you hardly held any enquiry. The allegation is that the deportee was never heard.”

He then posed the central question to the Union: “So what prevents you? Why don’t you, at least as a temporary measure, bring them back, give them an opportunity of hearing, verify all these documents and take a holistic view?”

The Court directed the Union to obtain instructions by Monday, indicating that the government may consider facilitating their return while the enquiry is reopened.

Background of the case

The High Court order the Union has not complied with: This Supreme Court hearing stems from the Calcutta High Court’s September 26, 2025 judgment in Bhudu Sheikh v. Union of India, which quashed the deportation of six persons, including:

• Eight-month pregnant Sunali (Sonali) Khatun,
• Her husband Danish Sheikh,
• Their eight-year-old son Sabir,
• Sweety Bibi, and
• Her two minor sons.

The individuals had been picked up in Delhi during an “identity verification drive” and deported within 48 hours, allegedly without inquiry or notice to the West Bengal authorities. The petitioner — Sunali’s father, Bhudu Sheikh, a resident of Birbhum — maintained that all six were Indian citizens.

HC finds “hot haste,” disregard of MHA rules: The Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that:

• The deportation violated the MHA memo dated May 2, 2025, which requires a 30-day verification through the home State.
• Statements allegedly made by the detainees admitting they were Bangladeshis were inadmissible, since statements to police “without procedural safeguards” carry no presumption of voluntariness.
• Aadhaar and PAN records established that Sunali was born in 2000, making it impossible for her to have “entered India illegally in 1998,” as claimed.

Observing that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof,” the Court declared the deportation unconstitutional and held that the executive’s conduct had “crippled the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness.”

HC ordered repatriation in 4 weeks: The High Court directed the Union, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the six individuals within four weeks, via the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. It refused to stay its own order, noting that:

“Liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.”

The four-week deadline expired on October 24, 2025, without compliance. Instead, the Centre filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court on October 22 — two days before the deadline.

Bangladesh Court also found them to be Indian citizens: In a development with diplomatic implications, the Senior Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Chapainawabganj (Bangladesh) on September 30, 2025, also held that all six deportees were Indian citizens.

The Magistrate cited:

• Their Aadhaar details,
• Proof of residence in Birbhum,
• And the absence of evidence that they were Bangladeshi nationals.

The Court concluded that they had been “wrongfully pushed across the border,” directing that its order be transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for appropriate action.

This created an extraordinary situation: both Indian and Bangladeshi courts had recognised the deportees’ Indian citizenship, while the Union government declined to bring them back.

Union’s defence of jurisdiction, suppression, and “confessional” statements: Before the Supreme Court, the Union contended that:

• The Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction as similar matters were pending before the Delhi High Court.
• The petitioner had allegedly suppressed this fact.
• The detainees had confessed to being Bangladeshi nationals during interrogation.

However, the High Court had already rejected these assertions, holding that:

• Jurisdiction for a habeas petition lies where the petitioner resides or where the effect of the detention is felt.
• Statements to police cannot form the basis of deportation under Articles 14, 20(3), and 21.

Detailed report on this may be read here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post ‘They Have a Right to Be Heard’: Supreme Court suggests Union brings back alleged deportees from Bangladesh “at least as a temporary measure” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Hindu, the bench remarked “We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this country”. Stressing the constitutional architecture already in place, the judges noted, “There are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They are already in place.”

The Supreme Court’s latest remarks—disclaiming responsibility for monitoring hate-speech incidents and directing petitioners to High Courts and police stations—represent an increasingly pronounced judicial retreat at a time when hate speech has become pervasive, organised, and often politically sanctioned. Coming from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Court’s insistence that it “cannot legislate or monitor every small incident” may appear administratively pragmatic, but constitutionally, it raises serious concerns.

‘Approach the High Court; We cannot monitor the entire country’

The Bench initially directed the applicant to raise the grievance before the concerned High Court. “How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country?” it asked, according to The Print. “You approach the authorities. Let them take action, otherwise go to the high court.”

Counsel for the applicant, Advocate Nizam Pasha, submitted that he had filed an application in an already pending writ petition on hate speech, bringing forth “additional instances” of boycott calls. When the Bench observed that the calls appeared to be made by private individuals, counsel responded that “some public representatives are also issuing similar calls.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected sharply: “Public interest cannot be selective to one particular religion… There are severe hate speeches going on amongst all religions. I will supply those details to my friend (applicant). Let him add that and espouse that public cause on a pan-religion basis.”

The applicant’s counsel insisted that he approached the Court only because the authorities “are not taking any action,” and invoked earlier directions of the Court where State inaction on hate speech was to trigger suo motu registration of FIRs and potential contempt for non-compliance.

Mehta maintained that while “no one can be indulging in hate speech,” a public-spirited litigant “cannot be selective.” The Bench reiterated that statutory mechanisms existed: “Whichever state you have a problem with, you approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief.”

Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for journalist Qurban Ali and others, reminded the Court of its October 2022 order. In October 2022, disturbed by the “unabated ferocity” of hate crimes and warning that a “climate of hate prevails in the country,” the Court had directed police authorities to suo motu register cases against hate-speech offenders. However, these remarks suggest a recalibration: the Supreme Court asserting that enforcement must be handled at the proper institutional levels, not continuously escalated to the apex court.

In addition to this, Pasha also referred to an affidavit flagging a post shared by an Assam minister following the BJP’s victory in Bihar, claiming it referenced the 1989 Bhagalpur massacre by alluding to “Bihar approving gobi farming”—an alleged nod to victims whose bodies were buried in cauliflower fields.

The Bench listed the matter for further hearing on December 9, 2025.

To read about the surge of hate speech during elections, read here, here and here.

A Court that once called arresting hate crimes a “sacrosanct duty” now says: go elsewhere

These oral observations represent a notable moment nearly seven years after the Court’s landmark Tehseen Poonawala (2018) judgment, where it held that preventing hate crimes is the State’s “sacrosanct duty.” The Court had then laid down extensive guidelines to prevent mob violence and lynching.

In Tehseen Poonawala (2018), the Supreme Court emphatically held that preventing hate crimes is the State’s “sacrosanct duty” and placed considerable constitutional responsibility on the judiciary to ensure compliance.

When the Bench says: “We are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident”, the question naturally arises: What counts as “small” in hate speech? Hate speech is not an isolated “X, Y, Z pocket” problem; it is a structural, national, and increasingly legitimised phenomenon that fuels violence, radicalises communities, and undermines constitutional fraternity. Treating each incident as merely local—best handled at the nearest police station—ignores the systemic, not episodic, nature of the problem.

Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel explicitly reminded the Court of its own earlier directions: If States fail to act on hate speech, police must register FIRs suo motu; if police fail, contempt proceedings follow. By refusing to even monitor compliance with its own framework, the Court creates a paradox:

• Duty to act remains,
• but enforcement evaporates.

This turns constitutionally mandated preventive oversight into judicial suggestion, not judicial command.

In regards to Solicitor General’s assertion that public interest cannot be selective and that all religions face hate speech is a familiar rhetorical manoeuvre that:

1. Equates majority-to-minority hate speech with minority-to-majority rhetoric, flattening unequal power structures;
2. Deflects from documented, systemic hate speech targeting Muslims, including political campaigns;
3. Reframes structural discrimination as generic social disharmony.

The Court’s willingness to echo the “pan-religion basis” line dilutes the urgency of addressing majoritarian hate speech, a constitutional and empirical reality widely acknowledged by previous benches.

For detailed report of significant orders of Supreme Court on hate speech issue, read here.

Chhattisgarh High Court: Reinforcing judicial distance from enforcement

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision on November 21 in a separate hate-speech matter further illustrates the judiciary’s growing reluctance to scrutinise investigative lapses in such cases. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a plea seeking coercive action against Johar Chhattisgarh Party leader Amit Baghel, accused of repeated inflammatory statements against Agrawal, Sindhi, and Jain communities

The Division Bench held firmly that the petitioner had failed to substantiate allegations of State inaction, emphasising that mere accusations of “State apathy” could not justify extraordinary judicial intervention.

The Court observed:

• “The Petitioner has not brought forth any cogent material to demonstrate that the investigating agency has either shut the investigation or refused to act on the FIRs.”
• “Mere dissatisfaction with the pace or nature of investigation cannot, in law, furnish a ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The Bench cautioned that the reliefs sought—direction for arrest, supervision by a specific-rank officer, periodic status reports, consolidated chargesheet—would amount to “judicial micromanagement” of investigation and intrude into the statutory domain of the police.

The Court reiterated established law: a writ of mandamus cannot compel arrest, dictate the course of investigation, or require a consolidated chargesheet when the statute does not mandate one. “The Petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstance to indicate non-compliance with these guidelines, nor is there any imminent threat to public order warranting extraordinary measures,” the Court added in its order.

Finding no exceptional urgency or imminent threat to public order, the petition was dismissed.

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s dismissal of the plea against Amit Baghel fits seamlessly into this larger pattern of institutional distancing. By insisting that:

• dissatisfaction with investigation pace is not enough,
• courts cannot “micromanage,”
• no “exceptional circumstances” exist,

the High Court reinforces a trend where judicial review of State inaction on hate speech is increasingly restricted, even as hate speech intensifies.

Order of the Court may be read here.

The constitutional misdiagnosis at the heart of India’s hate-speech crisis

The core difficulty lies in the Court’s very conceptualisation of hate speech: by repeatedly characterising it as a routine “law-and-order” matter to be handled by local police or challenged before jurisdictional High Courts, the Supreme Court collapses a profound constitutional crisis into an administrative problem. This framing disregards the Court’s own jurisprudence recognising hate speech as a threat to equality, an assault on dignity, a catalyst for mob violence, a barrier to democratic participation, and a weapon disproportionately used against minorities and dissenters—phenomena that cannot be meaningfully addressed through ordinary policing. Far from being “pocket-level incidents,” contemporary hate speech is intimately connected to electoral mobilisation, vigilante networks, and entrenched patterns of institutional discrimination, placing it well beyond the capacity or neutrality of local law-and-order mechanisms. The Court’s withdrawal from scrutiny therefore carries structural consequences: it signals to State authorities that inaction will not attract judicial oversight; it chills public-spirited litigation by suggesting that constitutionally significant harms are too “small” or “local” for the Supreme Court’s attention; and it sits uneasily with the Court’s own earlier precedents mandating suo motu FIRs and warning States of contempt, thereby diminishing both doctrinal coherence and the credibility of constitutional adjudication. In effect, reducing hate speech to a routine policing matter does not merely minimise its gravity—it risks normalising it.

Conclusion: A constitutional moment demanding vigilance, not withdrawal

India is living through a documented and politically charged escalation in hate speech, and at such a moment the Supreme Court’s assertion that it cannot monitor “every small incident” risks being interpreted not as judicial restraint but as a signal that State authorities may do less, not more. No constitutional court is expected to police every episode—but it is expected to ensure that State machinery functions, that fundamental rights are meaningfully protected, and that its own earlier mandates are not rendered hollow through non-enforcement. By appearing to withdraw just when constitutional vigilance is most necessary, the Court creates a troubling gap between constitutional promises and institutional practice. At a time when hate speech carries structural, electoral, and communal consequences, this is not a moment for judicial distance but for principled constitutional engagement; stepping back now risks weakening precisely the safeguards the Constitution relies on courts to uphold.

Related:

Unveiling the diverse impact of Hate Speech: From elections to escalating violence

Hate speeches, stone pelting, brandishing of weapons – what VHP’s Shaurya Yatras have achieved till date

India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech

Three separate benches of the Indian Supreme Court interrogate hate speech

CJP writes to Minorities Commission over repeated attacks on Muslims

The post A New Silence: The Supreme Court’s turn toward non-interference in hate-speech cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The first  day saw 11 witnesses give testimony of evidence regarding both genocide and ecocide, from the likes of Raji Sourani from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Dr. Omar Nashabe of Lebanon, and Maria Zendrera with the Global Sumud Flotilla. The proof of intent on the deliberate destruction of Gaza’s environment at-large, the destruction of all means of the ability to sustain life beyond the complete blockade, and the day-to-day impact on the Palestinian people was highlighted in the evidence delivered.

The second day of the Tribunal explicated on much of the same topics and included 5 witness testimonies. With the court in session, the prosecution began with the effects on women in a written testimony on Day 1 from Nadia Bakri, a feminist and human rights activist that served as director of the Women’s Affairs Staff in Gaza for 30 years before being forcibly displaced to Egypt due to the genocidal war. “There has been a deliberate targeting of women’s health centres and clinics in order to stop Palestinian people from reproducing, in line with Zionist strategy,” stated Suzanne Adely of the National Lawyers Guild, the Tribunal prosecutor representing Bakri.

The jurors then intervened with their own line of questioning to Raji Sourani and Dr. Omar Nashabe in order to clarify different aspects of their testimonies.

Sourani was asked by the prosecution about the recent historical precedent behind the UN Security Council’s recent vote around Trump’s ‘peace’ plan. He responded with, “There isn’t one word about the unalienable right of Palestinian people, the occupation is institutionalized, and supported more by the American presidencies who are involved directly with the genocide and supporting Israel directly. . . 30 years ago, we were extremely critical about the Oslo Accords which did not mention anything about ending the occupation and self-determination – and that was intentional.”

Dr. Nashabe added during his portion that it is not only a genocide or ecocide stating, “I’d like to reiterate that the ecocide and genocide is a fundamental part of this policy of total extermination. It can’t take place by just killing people, but you have to kill all forms of life that will allow the people to rebuild. It is a metacide, the destruction of everything.” Furthermore, he spoke about the schism within the United Nations due to this ‘peace’ plan and the deep crisis within the intergovernmental body, “What other kind of creative, destructive, violent tactics can [Israel] come up with now when they haven’t been able to achieve their vile, obscene objective? We are going through a crisis in international law never seen before – this is like George Orwell’s 1984 on an unseen scale.”

After the jurors’ line of questioning, the five witnesses testified on the stand either in-person, over Zoom, or through pre-recorded videos on the collective punishment, deliberate targeting of entire families, intentional blockades of food and water, direct targeting of farmers and fisherfolk by airstrikes and settler mobs, and even direct evidence of systematic repression and silencing of Palestinian voices by other states in collusion with the Zionist government.

Mushier Ek Farra, an activist and filmmaker that was in the midst of a project centring on the plight of Gaza’s fisher people until 2023, was the first witness on the stand. He spoke on the collective punishment inflicted in Gaza right from the beginning of the genocide, as soon as October 9th, 2023. He stated, “In one instance, 67 people were killed and 52 houses were destroyed to target a Hamas operative. That is collective punishment which even one of the accused [Joe Biden] has condemned.”

After Ek Farra, two written testimonies from Gaza – first a collection of testimonies from an activist, then a worker – were delivered by the prosecution. The collection of testimonies were procured through great difficulty due to the chilling effect from 172 journalists deliberately killed in their role of revealing the truth to the world. One of the Palestinian farmers willing to testify stated, “Israeli tanks and bulldozers entered the land to destroy and raze it again, cutting irrigation networks, destroying water sources like agricultural ponds and wells, and shredding the remnants of the trees into very small pieces with massive machines.” In line with that, the testimony of the worker from Gaza illustrated the strategy behind this destruction, “The aim was to inflict the largest possible number of deaths and injuries among civilians and medical personnel to force them to leave northern Gaza.”

Three real-time Zoom testimonies along with videos of Palestinian farmers and fisher people conducted by a journalist who gave his own written testimony followed. Throughout the video testimonies, the strategy of complete destruction – not just of killing people en masse, but destroying the basic means to assure their existence – were exhibited throughout. In particular, the dire situation and sheer destruction of Gaza’s sole port was illustrated, compounding on the complete blockade that Israel has imposed, “The port, heavily bombarded with roughly 26 rockets on the third day of the war, was split in half. About 95% of fishing boats were destroyed. There is a deliberate strategy to create famine: the occupation closes crossings, blocks the entry of food supplies, and prevents fishermen from feeding our people.”

The real-time Zoom testimonies began with Mohammad el Bakri, an engineer specializing in agricultural infrastructure and board member of the Urban Agriculture Forum, “They have destroyed [the crops], there is nothing now. In the north and south of Gaza, all this land is agricultural land and Israel has not allowed anybody to access or reach this land. There is no income, there is no water as its polluted — the sewage water has gone into aquifers directly.” Founder and director of the Palestine Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainability at Bethlehem University, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, added to this point in his testimony and illustrated how this is connected to the strategy of occupation of Israel in the West Bank as well, which has escalated to unprecedented heights since 2023. He stated, “In the West Bank, they are draining the wetland of the Hula, redirecting waters of the Jordan River to their settlements, and uprooting millions of indigenous trees to plant an invasive monoculture of European trees. This squeezes remaining indigenous Palestinians into “concentration areas” and refugee camps increasingly surrounded by environmentally damaging walls and military infrastructures.”

As the environmental aspects of ecocide and the many aspects to genocide aside from mass slaughter being thoroughly investigated, Dr. Diana Nazzal’s testimony touched on the devastating health impacts from the forced starvation, and hyperinflation along with targeting aid recipients as an aspect of the starvation. “The hair becomes thin and lost, the nails become brittle, the concentration and mental health of people become very poor, and their whole life becomes about how they can get their next meal,” stated Nazzal. “The hospitals would always prepare for when the Gaza Humanitarian Fund was providing ‘aid’ because children were deliberately killed – it was another example of using humanitarian aid to commit genocide.”

A kilogram of the following foodstuff had risen to these exorbitant prices, showcasing the impact of the complete blockade through land, air, and sea aside from the ecocide:

• Tomatoes: 163 euros in the North; 17 euros in the South
• Meat: 175 euros in the North; 95 euros in the South
• Flour: 1000 euros in the North; 90 euros in the South
• Sugar: 46 euros in the North; 40 euros in the South
• Coffee: 135 euros throughout Gaza

Throughout the testimonies around the massive destruction of Gaza’s environment, the massive loss of life and ability to sustain life, and the countless violation of international humanitarian law, the experts and witnesses all resolved that the true solution to end the horror inflicted by the Zionist entity is the struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination. From the witnesses and experts:

• Mushier Ek Farra: “[Those killed through collective punishment] are people I knew who were not even part of the resistance, I would have supported their resistance, but they were just civilians. . . We need support out of solidarity, not charity. This is a political matter, we must extend our political support first and then sympathize. The same oil, mining, and timber companies destroying Gaza are destroying the rest of the world.”
• Dr. Diana Nazzal: “We want to have our land and right to self-determination and be left alone. We are able to build our own society but we aren’t given the chance to do so.”
• Mazin B. Qumsiyeh: “Only we, the Palestinian people, can challenge against our corrupt leaders and the occupation”

After the testimonies came to a close, the lead prosecutor – Jan Fermon – delivered his final statement:

• “I would say, from a broader perspective, we do have to say that this is even beyond genocide and ecocide–and that is metacide: the destruction of everything. I think that terminology is absolutely appropriate with what we’ve been hearing and witnessing. . . The liberation of Palestine is the work of the Palestinians. The work of the rest of us is solidarity. Nazism was brought down by the resistance of the people of the world. The US intervention in Vietnam was ended by the struggle of the Vietnamese people and the solidarity of the people of the world. Apartheid was brought down by the struggle of the South African people and the solidarity of the people of the world.”

At the end of the jurors’ deliberation, they delivered the verdict: finding Israel, the United States, and other complicit entities guilty of genocide, ecocide, and forced starvation – finding Israel as the principal perpetrator of these crimes and the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany complicit in aiding, abetting, and enabling the crimes found in the verdict. “Free, free Palestine!” rang through the hall, with attendees celebrating the decision, and committing to use the findings to exact justice and accountability in the streets through mass mobilizations and action in solidarity with the Palestinian peoples’ struggle for self-determination.

Earlier today, organisers and attendees of the Tribunal took a copy of the full verdict produced by the jurors to the Zionist consulate and held a demonstration. Representatives of the Zionist occupation refused to attend the Tribunal and subsequently refused to receive a copy of the verdict.

Throughout the two days of testimonies and evidence, the final guilty verdict of the International People’s Tribunal stands in line with what international institutions have also determined, but have either moved too slowly on or have wholly ignored. The verdict, based on a mountain of evidence showcasing Israel’s and US’s clear intent and exposing the ecocide rarely touched in the mainstream narrative, has put the power into the hands of the people to exact justice and accountability in solidarity with Palestinian people’s right to and struggle for self-determination.

The verdict serves only as a start. True justice will only be found through continued movement building and mass actions in the streets and in any venue possible if advocacy efforts will have any hope of contributing to justice and accountability. What the Tribunal proved is that true justice belongs with the people, and the people will fight for it until the end of all economic, political, military, and diplomatic support from Israel.

There will be more activities and campaigns in relation to the Tribunal in the coming months available for press to cover.

About the International People’s Tribunal for Palestine:

The IPT for Palestine is a civil society initiative organized by the International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS), International Peoples’ Front, and the Peoples’ Coalition on Food Sovereignty, with the cooperation of endorsers including the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and Palestine Land Studies Centre, among others. It aims to establish a historical record of crimes against the Palestinian people, mobilize international solidarity, and exert moral and political pressure on complicit governments and international institutions.

Watch the full Tribunal recording here: https://bit.ly/IPTPalestineRecordings

Related:

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

How AI mistook Chhattisgarh truce move as religious leaders’ appeal for Israel-Palestine peace!

Former DU Professor, Achin Vanaik, stands by his lecture on Palestine despite pressure

The post Israel, United States & and other complicit entities guilty of genocide, ecocide, and forced starvation in Palestine: International People’s Tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the country, says PUCL,  is an exercise that is leading to the disenfranchisement of lakhs of voters. Notably, the SIR in Bihar led to the deletion of almost 65 lakh voters. While lakhs of eligible voters, mostly women, migrant workers, Muslims and Dalits have, according to investigative reports by independent media, been “robbed of their right to vote in Bihar,” now, across several other states, people from across the country have expressed angst and fears of being deleted from electoral rolls.

While the constitutionality of the SIR is a matter pending in the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has hurriedly ordered for its implementation in nine states and three union territories: Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Assembly elections are scheduled for six of these states in 2026. The enlisted Guidelines by the ECI introduced new procedures, which were contrary to the gazetted Rules for Registration of Electors, and set new thresholds for proof of citizenship before being enrolled as voters.

Before the release of the PUCL report too, civil servants and citizens had demanded a “social audit of the ongoing process.”

Outlining the well- known process, the first phase of the SIR, ie, the enumeration phase began on 4th November, 2025 and is scheduled to be completed on December 4, 2025. In the enumeration phase, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are supposed to visit every household and provide them with a pre-filled enumeration forms containing the name, Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC), also known as Voter ID, address, details of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies and their photos. Voters then have to fill some details in this form, which will be collected by BLOs, who will give an acknowledgement receipt. The most important part of the enumeration phase is that voters are required to establish a link with the last SIR (2002).

Sabrangindia was among the first to do a detailed comparative analysis of the processes that the ECI has launched. Our reports may be read here, and here. Since then we have also been collating and publishing reports on the acute distress caused by the ongoing process all over the country. These reports may be read here and here.While initially it appeared that West Bengal was worst hit by this inordinate administrative pressure causing distress, across states including Tamil Nadu and Kerala –both opposition ruled—a trail of despair can be seen.

This first phase of submission of documents has been given only one month to be completed, which has imposed a great deal of pressure on BLOs. This has pushed several BLOs into severe health crises, and even forced some to take their own lives. Rinku Tarafdar (aged 52) and Shantimoni Ekka (aged 48) from West Bengal, Mukesh Kumar Jangid (aged 45) from Rajasthan, Arvind Mulji Vadher (aged 40) from Gujarat, Mukesh Chand Jangid (aged 45) and Aneesh George (aged 44) from Kerala are the names of the BLOs who committed suicide. The bereaved families have said to news agencies that it was due to the immense pressure they were facing in implementing the SIR. Several BLOs across the country have been admitted to hospitals due to sudden ill health, heart attacks, suicide attempts and cerebral attacks, which families have attributed to the tight deadlines and extended working hours to collect and upload enumeration forms. An NDTV report (November 25) said that nine BLOs have died in total, by suicide and otherwise, while Rahul Gandhi, Congress MP, claimed on November 24, that 16 BLOs have lost their lives. PUCL is appalled at the apathy of the Union government and the Election Commission of India towards the loss of so many lives, and the working conditions of the BLOs, despite several protests, resignations and letters communicating their exhaustion and the excessive stress they are under.

Ordinary people have also expressed their distress and frustrations with the process of SIR, fearing that they will be deleted from the electoral rolls. Jahir Mal (aged 30), Shyamal Kumar Saha (aged 70), Tarak Saha (aged 52), Bimal Santra (aged 51), Kshitish Majumder (aged 95), Mahul Sheikh (aged 45) and Pradip Kar (aged 57) are the names of people in West Bengal who were forced to take their own lives over fears of being deleted from electoral rolls.

It is following these widely reported instances in independent media and social media that PUCL reached out to activists and organisations in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh to collate the experiences of the ongoing implementation of SIR, and to document the challenges being faced by people in filling these enumeration forms.

Here is what the PUCL report documents:

1. Chhattisgarh:

At the end of October 2025, PUCL-Chhattisgarh put out a call, inviting everyone to form a new forum, solely for the purpose of addressing SIR-related issues. Consequently, the “SIR Sachetan Matadhikar Bachao Manch (SSMBM)” was formed in Chhattisgarh. In English, the name translates to ‘Forum to Raise Awareness on SIR and Protect the Right to Vote’. Apart from meetings to train volunteers and spread awareness, the Forum also met with the CEO-Chhattisgarh to outline the problems people are facing.

One of the issues in Chhattisgarh is that BLOs are required to visit each voter twice – to distribute the pre-filled enumeration forms, and then to collect them. This phase has been given only 30 days, but on ground, it is being done in a very slow manner. The Forum has also pointed out that given the length and breadth of the state of Chhattisgarh, and the lack of road connectivity with many remote villages in tribal districts, the SIR has been planned in an impractical timeline. However, the Forum has also acknowledged the tremendous burden being unnecessarily put on the BLOs, and have been consistently seeking an extension of time required to complete the SIR exercise.

The Forum pointed out that frequent realignment of polling booths since 2003 makes it very difficult for people to find their names in the correct constituency or polling booth. Further, it is extremely difficult for voters to trace their names and those of their relatives in the 2003 SIR voter list.

The Forum also pointed out that there is inadequate training and a lack of clear instructions to BLOs. Despite the Supreme Court clarifying that Aadhar can be accepted in this phase to verify the identity of the voter, most BLOs in Chhattisgarh have instructions not to accept it as one of the documents establishing validity of the voter. While the Guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India specifically state that no documents are required for the initial phase of filing Enumeration Forms, many BLOs all over the state are asking people for various documents at this stage itself, such as documents showing ownership of property. Not only is this causing a lot of confusion.  It is also discriminatory against those poor and landless people, who may not have such documents.

The Forum pointed out that many BLOs are school teachers, who have been pulled out of their schools for this exercise. This is having a deleterious effect on the school education of children. In Bastar Division, which has one of the highest rates of illiteracy and poor school performance, a total of 3,128 teachers have been employed in the SIR process, leaving many students in the lurch.

Additionally, the SIR exercise is being carried out during the peak of harvest season, where a large population of the state is engaged in the harvest of the paddy crop, which is highly time sensitive. This will be followed by the post-harvest activities of drying, threshing, milling and preparing the crop for sale, which is also bound to the schedule of the state for purchasing the paddy crop. This is the busiest time of the year for farmers, who form the majority of the population of the state. It is inconceivable why this crucial exercise is kept at this time, when most people are hard-pressed to make time for arranging their documents to complete this process.

The Forum has also written to the CEO fearing that a large number of valid voters, including women, will be unable to procure their documents from the limited set of 13 documents indicated in the enumeration form, leading to many unwarranted deletions

Another issue raised by the Forum was regarding the difficulties that people were having in submitting two colour photographs, as required. Many voters are in remote tribal villages, with no photo studios, or any other photo printing facilities. They are having to forgo a day’s wages to go to the nearest town in order to get photographs. In response, the CEO issued an order to all Collectors that day itself, affirming that photos are not mandatory, and if some voter wishes to update his/her photo, the BLO can use the BLO App in his/ her smartphone to directly capture the voter’s photo. This came as a big relief to the voters.

The delegates also showed the CEO some examples of enumeration forms which had wrongly been filled out by the concerned BLO. Taking immediate action on it, the CEO ordered that all forms of the concerned BLO and supervisor to be re-done, re-verified and re-submitted.

2. Gujarat:

Though the SIR was formally announced on October 28 and was scheduled to begin on November 4, enumeration forms were ready in many districts only by the November 10. BLOs therefore do not even have the entire one month for the enumeration phase. This time limit imposed by the ECI is one of the main roots of most of the issues.

Also, there was little to no efforts by the CEO-Gujarat, in ensuring awareness about the SIR process. Wherever the DEO and ERO were proactive, they collaborated with civil society organisations to get help in the enumeration phase.

Various civil society organisations have organized camps and written representations documenting the difficulties faced by people in filling the enumeration forms. In rural areas, BLOs took the support of many local organisations for the distribution of enumeration forms.

Though the Guidelines say that voters must be given duplicate copies of the filled forms, in rural areas and many towns, only a single copy of the form is being given to the voters. Therefore, a large number of people today do not have any copy of their filled SIR form.

One of the biggest issues is that the 2002 list of voters has not been made available in a searchable format. They are shared as PDFs in zip folders with unnamed files. It is therefore a mammoth task for people to go through hundreds of folders to locate their names. Due to a technical ‘font’ issue, the second link that was given by the CEO was not even accessible. People who had voted in 2002 could not trace their names in the list. In cities and towns, BLOs did not even have the 2002 list in hand. In metropolitan cities like Ahmedabad and Surat, after the exercise of delimitation, wards and booths have changed, leading to frustration among people about non-searchable lists of 2002. Also, the provision to fill enumeration forms online did not work because people could not find their names in the 2002 list, and because there were discrepancies in spellings in their Aadhar card.

The Guidelines also state that the digitization of collected enumeration forms must be done in real time. Till November 23, only 37% of the forms were digitized. Shockingly, the CEO announced in a half page advertisement, that people can submit blank forms by signing it and attaching a copy of their Aadhar cards.

Another issue is that BLOs are facing extreme pressure from the EROs, supervisors and political party representatives. Nine of them told PUCL that they were asked to fill the form on behalf of the people who had migrated to another place long ago. They are also facing difficulty collecting the filled forms from people. They are required to work after 6 PM to upload the forms, but many BLOs are not familiar with technology and are facing internet and server issues. Women BLOs are facing several challenges, especially those who are pregnant and are forced to work for long hours, walk long distances in rural areas and climb stairs. BLOs are also facing the brunt of being answerable on issues of governance, as many people are treating them as representatives of the government.

In Gujarat alone, four BLOs have lost their lives, one of whom, committed suicide.

Overall, people are worried that their names will be deleted from the draft electoral rolls, and will have to undergo processes to re-register.

3. Goa –

The seriousness with which Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been instructed to conduct the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Goa is evident. They have been told that this is a very serious exercise and that there can be serious consequences if anything is found to be wrong. Yet, on the ground, BLOs are visibly under pressure—caught between demands to include certain names and exclude others.

In this cross-fire, exclusionary practices emerge at the very first stage of enumeration. BLOs are found asking for documents that could potentially disqualify individuals. As anticipated, in Goa, some BLOs have been asking people to show their passports, claiming they have instructions to check whether a person may hold a Portuguese passport. This creates a serious problem: many individuals may not possess any passport at all. More fundamentally, it raises the question of whether the ECI has the authority to make determinations about citizenship based on information gathered by BLOs, without due process, and without the Government addressing the long-standing demand of Goans for special status through dual citizenship, in view of their belated entry into the Indian Constitutional framework. This issue is compounded by the specific circumstances under which Goans are enabled Portuguese citizenship notwithstanding their Indian citizenship, and by recent developments in Portuguese law, where registration of birth in Portugal is assumed to confer Portuguese citizenship.

Another difficulty faced by the public is the reliance on the 2002 electoral rolls as the reference point for the SIR in Goa. With part numbers having changed, many people are struggling to locate their names and details in those rolls. BLOs, by and large, are being helpful, but individuals should be empowered to check and be satisfied independently. The official website, however, is not user-friendly.

Booth Level Agents (BLAs) are permitted to accompany BLOs to ensure that the latter are not compromised by MLAs or ruling party politicians in the area. Yet, two practical issues arise: synchronizing the timings of BLOs with BLAs, and the tight timeframes within which the exercise must be completed. Moreover, the ruling or dominant party usually has the resources to engage BLAs across all booths, while representatives of other parties often lack such capacity.

If BLOs are to resist pressure, a transparent and consistent system is required—one that demonstrates clearly that each BLO has indeed covered all households.

The seriousness of the authorities is further reflected in the indicative list of documents provided with the SIR form in Goa. At point 13, it refers to the “Electoral roll of Bihar SIR with reference to 01.07.2025.” This raises questions. Migrant workers from Bihar, who form a significant part of Goa’s labour force in garbage collection, manual work, and construction, certainly wish to register their names in the electoral rolls of their constituencies in Bihar. Yet it remains unclear whether they have been able to do so in the recent SIR, and how this is going to play out in terms of their inclusion or exclusion in the Goa SIR.

4. Madhya Pradesh:

Seasonal Migration: Families missing during enumeration

The SIR survey is being conducted during peak migration season (November to March). Thousands of Adivasi families migrate to Gujarat, Maharashtra and other states for work. Many work in conditions close to bonded labour, making communication with them nearly impossible. Because entire families are away, they are likely to be marked as “absent” or “shifted” even though they are alive and eligible. Elderly relatives who remain in the village cannot handle the complex paperwork involved in SIR.

• Women likely to be excluded due to design of the process

Women who married after 2003 do not have their own names in the 2003 voter list. Unless BLOs trace the names of their parents or grandparents, these women cannot be mapped to 2003 records and will be excluded. The problem is even more serious in southern Madhya Pradesh because many women come from Maharashtra. BLOs are unable to access Maharashtra records, especially since SIR is not being implemented there as of now. This will result in a large number of women being left out of the voter list.

• Lack of documents due to historical displacement

Adivasi families already struggle to access education, ration, social security and healthcare due to Aadhaar-linked requirements. Frequent eviction, insecure forest and land rights and displacement mean documents often get lost or are never issued. The SIR process assumes that every family has secured long-term documentation, which is not the reality in tribal areas.

• Low literacy and absence of the educated youth

Most literate youth migrate for employment, leaving elderly and women behind. Low literacy levels prevent people from verifying whether the BLO recorded their details correctly, following up on notices or checking names in the draft list. This increases the chances that incorrect deletions will go unchallenged.

• Name mismatch problems

Adivasi names often differ in different documents. Spellings vary, surnames may not exist and even fathers’ names vary within the same family. A simple search failure by the BLO results in “name not found” which leads to exclusion from the list.

• Document requirements stricter than Form-6

Form-6 allows Aadhaar, PAN, bank passbook or driving licence as identity and address proof. The SIR demands stricter rules for continuing on the voter list than for becoming a new voter. This makes it harder for existing voters to retain their names on the list than for new names to be added.

• Digital barriers

Draft rolls and forms are online. Internet connectivity and smartphones are scarce in Adivasi regions. The 2003 electoral rolls are English-language PDF scans that require exact spellings to search. People are forced to depend on cyber-cafés or political intermediaries, creating space for exploitation and bribery.

• Survey will not reach all households

In inaccessible forest belts, scattered hamlets and remote areas, BLOs are unlikely to reach 100% of the households. Anyone who is not physically located will be marked “absent”, “shifted” or “dead” regardless of whether they are entitled to vote.

• BLOs are overburdened

BLOs are Anganwadi workers, teachers and revenue staff who already have full-time duties. They do not have the time to carry out thorough house-to-house voter surveys. This leads to incomplete and rushed enumeration.

• Institutional failures worsening the situation

Enumeration forms were supplied a week late in many parts of western MP, which wasted one quarter of the total enumeration time. BLOs were not provided Form-6 or Form-8 making additions and corrections impossible. Essential public services like Anganwadi nutrition, schooling and revenue work are suffering because staff have been shifted to SIR work.

5. Rajasthan:

Rajasthan has 52,490 booths, with an average of 1000 to 1200 voters per booth. Although in the city it goes up to even 1400 voters per booth. As of October 27, 2025, the day SIR was declared for our state, the total number of electors were 5.48 crores. So this humungous exercise had to be carried out at crash course speed in 30 days, one month.

Rajasthan had begun a certain preparation a while ago and in the month of August – September, BLOs were trained on the basis of the Bihar SIR orders. Later day-long SIR refresher sessions for BLOs were organised to clarify the changes from the Bihar orders, after October 27. Some of the most important changes were listed, that no document would be required to be collected in the enumeration phase. The 2002 voter linkage was not just of one’s own, but of any parent and the term guardian was introduced. Only the entries of the 2002 linkage had to be added and that new voters could fill Form 6 along with the process of Form 4 filling. It also stated that Aadhar could be used, as a document for identity, along with 2025 Bihar SIR as the reference for the Bihari origin people who were living in Jaipur. The 13 documents were mentioned in the guidebook for BLOs.

The CEO Rajasthan also announced that they had already undertaken the mapping exercise and that 71 % voters already had legacy established. About 15 to 20 percent of the voters would have legacy in other states and that it was the duty of the BLO and BLA to help the voter access their progeny in other states. It was also emphasised that married women would have to trace their legacy to their parents and not their marital homes. And that all the state voters list of 2002 was on the ECI website and that very easily it could be accessed. Those voters who were unable to fill the form themselves could use the online option of filling Form 4. Although it was also cautioned that when there was a difference in name and spellings between the Aadhar document and the EPIC number then it was better to give a hard copy as the online form would not accept the document.

The PUCL sub-report for the state that while these outlines seemed do-able on paper when the process actually started several issues emerged that are to date, unresolved.

The first breakdown that the PUCL team experienced was of the ECI portal. It would just not open. Leave alone accessing the 2002 voters list of various states. If it did by chance open on your computer, it was very difficult to open it on the mobile. This problem continued for almost ten days to two weeks. But it is smoothened out to some extent, yet very slow, when sitting on booths and trying to open other state lists to identify the 2002 legacy.

The other set of issues were more serious. An informal network of local groups working on SIR in Rajasthan and decided to hold regular zoom meetings and resolve issues in less than 24 hours if they came. A team of 10 people was constituted who were to respond ASAP to the problems.

The PUCL volunteers also worked with the de-notified and nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes within Jaipur’s walled city, single / abandoned and runaway women/ migrant workers colony, Muslim dominated areas, we also had massive complaints from the South of Rajasthan of Adivasi women, workers of all kinds, including industrial and informal sector workers and especially with the issues of out-migrants and in-migrants who were voters in Rajasthan.

Regular representations were sent to the CEO and individual Collectors and telephonic contact maintained with other officials. Little changes were seen on the ground however.

The engagement showed how the design of this process was to exclude and not include. It was contrary to all earlier exercises. Even the booth level workers were in agreement that it was an exercise of disenfranchising the poor, the migrant, the Dalit, the transgender people, the DNT, NT & SNTs, the Adivasis, women across the board. It was not just the poor that felt disempowered but also the powerful. Conversations with several retd. IAS officers led to realising how this exercise was a criminal exercise, impossible for many of them, because of the 2002 EPIC number entry. Someone’s daughter in law was suffering, some of them were suffering as they did not remember the booth they voted from in 2002, due to different postings.

Some of the key issues that have emerged from the engagement of the last 20 days are as follows.

1. Many Women in South Rajasthan, in particular in Dungarpur and Kotra, Udaipur district, have natal homes in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, were unable to find their progeny details of 2002 as they had no idea what the booths of their parents were. They had lost contact with their natal homes and therefore were finding it difficult to establish the 2002 entries required.
2. The names of the women in these regions change after marriage and therefore it was difficult to establish that they were the same person in 2002, if they were voters in 2002 on the basis of their maiden name. This would be a case like in Bihar, where SIR ended up changing the gender ratio in the electoral roles, affecting women adversely.
3. Married women everywhere were at a losing end, leaving the booth disappointed. Despite having a voter ID of their home state, of 2002, they were not able to access it to give it to the BLO. Most BLOs made it clear that unless they get details from E-mitra of 2002, they will not waste any time.
4. Runaway women, sex workers, abandoned women, orphans were at a complete loss. How do they establish their legacy? Even if over the years they had established themselves with cards, like a voter ID, Aadhar, PAN card, it seemed meaningless as they had no clue of their 2002 data, many of them wept that not only would they lose out, but their children would also not be accepted in SIR, as their legacy would not be established. The state refused to accept that people live in rented accommodation and had moved on to newer housing, without knowing their booth or constituency.
5. SIR was not accessible to migrants and labourers. With the data of 46.26 % Households in Rajasthan, at least one member migrated for work, which rises to 56.6 % in Southern Rajasthan, in the districts of Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, Rajsamand, Sirohi, Udaipur who migrate to Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh to work. Similarly all the big cities host a lot of migrant population from outside the state. The demands were clear that migrants leave soon after Diwali and change their SIM numbers in these states and are inaccessible. They would not return within the window of SIR and would be excluded. Even if there are members left behind, they too were struggling with the 2002 progeny mapping. The lists were not machine readable and therefore mostly inaccessible, the online voter ID and Aadhar linkage due to its own attendant issues of internet and different names, seemed out of the pale. Despite urging that camps be organised, except for one district, no other district organised camps for migrants. Both the industrial workers and unorganised sector workers said that they would not care to waste their time to fill the SIR form unless their jobs were assured as employers refused to give them time off. They would require at least two days to deal with the details of form 4.
6. The DNT, NTs, SNts and Homeless faced the most peculiar issues. They had no documents to establish that they even belonged here. Most had no legacy, since their parents had no cards in 2002. If at all they did make their cards, they found it deleted. Many had Aadhar cards, and we were telling them to fill form 6, but strangely, the form had a section asking for the 2002 entries of their parents/relatives. And if you were above 40 years old, the BLOs refused to accept their form 6, claiming that it was impossible that they had no card till now. The majority of course had no card, neither election card nor an Aadhar, as getting an age declaration was the toughest. Authorities refused to accept their age affidavits, despite all formalities, secondly, many were just squatters. Despite the 2013 order for homeless people, where the BLO had to spend two nights in a Basti to assess whether the person stayed there to establish residence, the people were without any documents.
7. People living in the walled city were surprised to find that though they had never changed residence, (or even if they did, it was their parental home) they found their names deleted from the 2025 lists. And received no Form 4. They were extremely upset that they had to fill form 6 and become a new voter. We met many Hindus and Muslims who had lost their right to vote, despite having voted in 2023 state elections and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the majority were Muslims though.
8. One of the worst situations was of the BLOs. Most importantly, the people were not returning filled in forms. It was clear that they needed assistance, which is where PUCL volunteers stepped in. The entire paraphernalia of BLOs, Supervisor, AEROs would sit with our volunteers and interns and would collect the forms. The team states that they helped fill 300 to 400 forms in the camps that were organised. Through this process, the BLOs spoke of their stress. The husband of a BLO shared that she had a massive heart attack due to the stressful work and was admitted in the ICU. Although the election department had replaced her with two women teachers, they were nervous and did not know what to do. On the day of the heart attack more than 300 forms were to be still distributed. In the camp that was held in that area, the team managed to fill 200 forms. But 100 were to be distributed. They were all tense. Her total count was of 1400 forms, only 700 had returned.In another shocking instance, the SDM of Ramganjmandi tehsil, Kota District, sent the police to the residence of a BLO, who abducted him and took him to the SDM. He was questioned as to why he should not be removed. Another BLO added that the publishing of data about the number of forms that have been uploaded is causing an unnecessary competition between states and districts, and is leading to the BLOs facing additional pressure from their EROs. A Teachers’ Union representative shared that teachers have been made to suffer like never before.
9. Suicide and Deaths of 3 BLOs, did result in technical teams being set up to assist the BLOs, but the timeline of 30 days, is taking a major toll on the people’s health and also their relationships. Cases of Domestic violence, where women are not returning home till late, neglecting their children are galore.

With the 30 day pressure of finishing the enumeration and the overwhelming progeny mapping push, SIR is an exercise to delete and not include.

6. Tamil Nadu:

Firstly, the Tamil translation of the enumeration forms has left people in confusion, and many voters have left some portions blank, including ‘Details of Relative’. Secondly, it has been a massive challenge to locate the old voter lists and booth details of 2002 and 2005. People are unable to recollect the exact details of the booths from so many years ago, leading to incorrect entries, risking deletion of many voters.

Thirdly, BLOs have not received enough training. Tamil Nadu’s Federation of Associations of Revenue Employees went on a one day strike demanding the halting of SIR, because the BLOs have not been trained sufficiently. Fourthly, the uploading of Enumeration forms online is challenging for those who are not comfortable with technology. Even a technically sound person needs to spend at least half a day for the same.

Fifthly, despite almost reaching the end of the enumeration phase, forms are yet to reach all localities especially of Dalit, tribal and minority communities in rural areas. It may be estimated that at least 40% of the people are yet to receive their forms. Six, awareness campaigns and knowledge about the consequences of SIR are only being done in limited areas by some political parties and social organisations. There is insufficient advertising and awareness campaigns being run in the state, which may lead to a large number of unfair deletions.

7. Uttar Pradesh:

In UP, lakhs have not received the enrollment forms yet. This is extremely worrying as the 30-day phase for enumeration is almost coming to an end. Off the record, BLOs have shared that they do not know how to reach migrant workers. 30-40% of the people of the state migrate to other cities. In some villages, almost 70% of the people migrate outside. BLOs do not know how to reach voters who are not available in their homes. They have also shared off the record, that in a state like Uttar Pradesh, no BLO has the courage to complain and that the enumeration forms were provided much later than the start date (4th November). BLOs are therefore forced to complete the process in a haste.

Another issue is that residents who were on the 2002 list have shifted homes, and are not receiving the enumeration forms in their old place of residence or new. Many have reported that BLOs in their old addresses have marked them as ‘shifted out’, and BLOs in their new addresses do not have their names in their lists. For instance, a big settlement with Muslim residents was demolished, and had even approached the Supreme Court to fight for relief. They have not received their forms in their new place of residence.

A common issue faced by the people is that there are hundreds of mistakes in the spellings of their names and date of birth in their Aadhar Cards, leading to problems in verification for enumeration. Additionally, there are many people without Aadhar cards, especially disabled persons in rural areas. Many married women do not have EPIC Numbers or information about their parents, and are unable to establish their genealogy in the forms. In rural areas, we fear that there will be hundreds of mistakes in the family register being maintained by the Secretary, which will lead to several voters being marked as ‘doubtful voters’.

Another issue is that people are not being given acknowledgement receipts or the duplicate copies of the filled enumeration forms.

Finally, there is a rise of many middle-men, who are charging money to fill forms for marginalized and poor communities, who cannot do it themselves. Even BLOs are sending others to distribute and collect forms as they are unable to cope with the tight timelines.

While BLOs are picking up phones to guide or collect the forms, there is a lot of panic and confusion, especially among poor and Muslim communities, who are recalling the repression they faced during the CAA-NRC time.

(This is a report made public by the PUCL National Team:

Inputs by Shalini Gera, PUCL Chhattisgarh

Inputs by Pankti Jog, PUCL Gujarat

Inputs by Madhuri, PUCL

Inputs by S. Balamurugan, PUCL TN & Puducherry

Inputs by Albertina Almeida, NAJAR in Goa

Arundhati Dhuru, NAJAR

Inputs by Kavita Srivastava, PUCL National President and Mamta Jaitly, Vice President of PUCL Rajasthan

Related:

The Deadly Deadline: “I Can’t Do This Anymore”—India’s electoral revision turns into a graveyard for BLOs/teachers

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

The post ‘Designed to Exclude’: The ongoing enumeration phase of the SIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls—a mandated verification drive by the Election Commission of India (ECI)—has left a trail of devastation across the states, turning the routine bureaucratic exercise of updating voter lists into a lethal trap for civil servants.

While the Election Commission insists the drive is necessary to “purify” voter lists and ensure the integrity of the electoral process, the teachers, Anganwadi workers, and clerical staff forced to execute the order on the ground are collapsing. They are buckling under what they describe as “inhuman” pressure, squeezed between an unforgiving digital system, aggressive supervisors, and an impoverished public. From suicide notes addressed to orphaned children in Tamil Nadu to teachers collapsing in classrooms in Gujarat, the narrative is no longer about updating rolls; it is about the ultimate cost of a vote.

The tragedy is not just in the statistics, though the rising frequency of suicides is terrifying; it is in the methodology of the despair. In less than three weeks, a harrowing pattern has emerged, a deadline is set, a threat of suspension is issued, a worker begs for relief, the relief is denied, and a family is left to mourn. The “Deadly Deadline” has become a silent killer, stalking the corridors of government schools and block offices across the nation.

Gujarat

On Friday, November 21, 2025, a government teacher in Gujarat named Arvind committed suicide in Gir Somnath. He was serving as a Booth Level Officer (BLO) for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His death immediately highlighted the severe pressure faced by the teaching community. The extreme workload to meet enumeration targets had become overwhelming. Arvind did not die silently, leaving a brief suicide note that explained his final act. The note, as reported by the New Indian Express, carried the harrowing message: “I can’t do this SIR work anymore…”

Tragic incident in #Gujarat : A teacher involved in the SIR process has died by suicide in Gir Somnath. A note was reportedly found near teacher Arvind. Family members allege he had been under severe stress due to his duties as a BLO.@NewIndianXpress @jayanthjacob @santwana99 pic.twitter.com/Xcrg12F0DU

— Dilip Kshatriya (@Kshatriyadilip) November 21, 2025

This single sentence stripped away the bureaucratic jargon of “efficiency” and “targets,” exposing the human fragility underneath.

After Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, and Kerala, now Gujarat. Under the disastrous pressure of SIR, a BLO has died by suicide in Modi-Shah’s Gujarat.

Gujarat BLO Arvind Vadher wrote in his suicide note, “I can no longer carry out SIR work.”
Not just in Bengal, even in other states,… pic.twitter.com/2iGfgUqnse

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) November 22, 2025

The crisis in Vadodara further highlighted that this “deadly deadline” causes not just psychological snaps, but physical collapse. On November 22, Ushaben, an Assistant BLO and ITI employee, died while on duty at a school.

According to The Wire Hindi, Ushaben collapsed and died on the spot. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that her family had already raised red flags about her health. Her husband, Indra Singh Solanki, stated that the family had “already warned officials” about her deteriorating health, pleading for her exemption. Yet, the machine required a cog, and she was deployed for SIR duty regardless.

“Ushaben was deployed on BLO duty despite poor health,” the family had alerted the authorities

A pall of concern has descended following the suspicious death of yet another Booth Level Officer (BLO), Dinkal, a 26-year-old technical assistant with the Surat Municipal Corporation. Dinkal was discovered unconscious in her bathroom and, despite efforts to save her, was later pronounced dead at a private hospital.

#Gujarat
One More BLO Dies Under Suspicious Circumstances, A 26-year-old BLO and Surat Municipal Corporation technical assistant, Dinkal was found unconscious in her bathroom and later declared dead at a private hospital.@NewIndianXpress @santwana99 @jayanthjacob pic.twitter.com/vPGGZ2R1vp

— Dilip Kshatriya (@Kshatriyadilip) November 24, 2025

These incidents raise serious questions about the lack of medical consideration for the staff forced into these high-intensity field roles, where they must walk kilometres in the heat, face hostile voters, and then return home to perform hours of data entry.

West Bengal

The West Bengal continues to see the highest concentration of fatalities. The death toll among BLOs in the state continues to climb, with new incidents reported in the Nadia district, bringing the total in the state to five within this short window.

On November 19, a 48-year-old Anganwadi worker, Shantimoni Ekka was found hanging in the courtyard of her home. Her death revealed the systemic cruelty of the process; she was a Hindi speaker in a Bengali administrative zone, tasked with processing complex legal forms she could not understand.

Deeply shocked and saddened.

Today again, we lost a Booth Level Officer in Mal, Jalpaiguri — Smt Shanti Muni Ekka, a tribal lady, an anganwadi worker who took her own life under the unbearable pressure of the ongoing SIR work.

28 people have already lost their lives since SIR…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 19, 2025

Similarly, on November 21, Rinku Tarafdar, a para-teacher assigned to BLO duty, allegedly died by suicide due to similar work pressure. The gravity of the situation forced the Election Commission to seek a report from the District Magistrate regarding her death. In the Chapra constituency, a 52-year-old BLO was found dead, with The Hindu reporting her family’s assertion that she was “under immense mental duress regarding the filing of enumeration forms.”

The relentless accumulation of bodies has turned the SIR exercise into a political flashpoint in Bengal. The ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) has lashed out at the Election Commission, describing the deaths as a result of “inhuman workload,” echoing the sentiment of workers who feel they are “left with no choice but death.”

Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal, expressed on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) that “Profoundly shocked to know of the death of yet another BLO, a lady para- teacher, who has committed suicide at Krishnanagar today. BLO of part number 201 of AC 82 Chapra, Smt. Rinku Tarafdar, has blamed ECI in her suicide note (copy is attached herewith) before committing suicide at her residence today.

How many more lives will be lost?

How many more need to die for this SIR?

How many more dead bodies shall we see for this process? This has become truly alarming now!!”

Profoundly shocked to know of the death of yet another BLO, a lady para- teacher,who has committed suicide at Krishnanagar today . BLO of part number 201 of AC 82 Chapra, Smt Rinku Tarafdar, has blamed ECI in her suicide note ( copy is attached herewith) before committing… pic.twitter.com/xG0TyD4VNy

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 22, 2025

Uttar Pradesh

In Gonda, the deadline claimed the life of Vipin Yadav, a dedicated teacher and BLO. The timeline of his death is a testament to the inescapable nature of the pressure. On a recent Tuesday morning, at around 7:30 am—a time when most are preparing for the day—Yadav fell critically ill after reportedly consuming a poisonous substance. Local medical facilities were helpless against the toxicity, prompting a desperate rush to Lucknow’s King George’s Medical University (KGMU) Trauma Centre.

यूपी – गोंडा जिले के BLO विपिन यादव इस दुनिया में नहीं रहे। उन्होंने जहर खा लिया था। लखनऊ में मौत हो गई है।

मरने से पहले BLO ने कहा– “SDM, BDO, लेखपाल के दबाव के कारण जहर खाया” pic.twitter.com/vw3CKBBa4G

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) November 25, 2025

By 3:15 pm, as confirmed by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) of Gonda Sadar, Yadav was dead.

Similarly. In Fatehpur, where the administrative machinery showed a complete lack of humanity. Sudhir Kumar Kori, a 25-year-old revenue clerk (lekhpal), committed suicide just one day before his scheduled wedding.

Sudhir was young, employed, and about to start a new chapter of his life with Kajal, a resident of a nearby village. The Haldi and Mehendi ceremonies had already begun; relatives had gathered, and the house was filled with the sounds of celebration. However, hanging over Sudhir was the shadow of the SIR campaign. He had been assigned as a supervisor for the Jahanabad Assembly constituency.

According to his shattered family, Sudhir had been repeatedly requesting leave for his own wedding. It is a request that, in any humane system, would be granted automatically. Instead, the kanungo (revenue inspector) allegedly refused to approve it. Worse, the refusal came with a threat. He was reportedly threatened with suspension for prioritising his marriage over the election commission’s targets, and eventually, he was suspended on Monday.

यूपी के फतेहपुर में SIR सुपरवाइजर सुधीर कुमार ने अपनी शादी से एक दिन पहले फांसी लगाकर जान दे दी।

सुधीर के परिजनों ने बताया कि 26 नवंबर को सुधीर की शादी थी। इसीलिए सुधीर ने छुट्टी के लिए एप्लीकेशन दी थी, लेकिन उन्हें छुट्टी नहीं दी गई।

शादी के कार्यक्रम के चलते जब सुधीर SIR के… pic.twitter.com/RI5OTACDnm

— MP Youth Congress (@IYCMadhya) November 25, 2025

Caught between the shame of suspension and the pressure of his duties, Sudhir took his own life. The festivities turned into a funeral. While the district administration has promised a “thorough investigation,” for Sudhir’s family, the inquiry is meaningless. The timeline of the SIR drive did not just claim a worker, it destroyed two families before a marriage could even be solemnised.

In Allahabad (Prayagraj) district, Booth-Level Officers (BLOs) are actively refusing or avoiding their duties for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, despite facing penalties like salary cuts and an FIR.

The refusal stems from public anger and resistance against accepting the SIR forms, particularly in rural areas like Phaphamau, where BLOs, often local residents, feel vulnerable. Unlike voters in other regions, voters in Uttar Pradesh reportedly do not fear being delisted and believe they can bypass the exercise, with some also being listed at multiple polling booths.

The resistance is significantly impacting the SIR work, with only 1.5 lakh of the 46.92 lakh voters covered so far, making it unlikely to meet the December 9 target. Authorities have taken action against several BLOs and supervisors for non-compliance, but the officers maintain that the extra work is causing severe stress and public backlash, as the Observer Post reported

Tamil Nadu

In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the distress has permeated the Anganwadi sector, where workers—already chronically underpaid and overworked—are being drafted for SIR duties. These women, who are responsible for the health and nutrition of the state’s poorest children, are now being broken by the election machinery.

On November 18, Chitra, a 59-year-old anganwadi worker and Booth Level Officer (BLO) in Kumbakonam, Thanjavur, attempted suicide. Fellow workers stated that Chitra, a widow, had consumed pills after being subjected to “immense pressure” and allegedly threatened with suspension by superiors if she failed to digitally upload a large number of SIR entries by a stringent deadline. Her colleagues, who staged a protest demanding action against the officials responsible, claimed that age-related struggles and the stress of unreasonable targets had pushed her to the extreme step.

Chitra was rushed to a government hospital and is reported to be stable, but the incident drew immediate attention to the mental toll the rushed SIR process is taking on frontline employees.

In a similar incident, on November 20, a Booth-Level Officer (BLO) named Jahitha Begum in Kallakurichi district tragically died by suicide due to an alleged excessive workload and pressure related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

According to the Times of India, her husband, Mubarak, and colleagues stated that she was being pressurised by senior officials and political party representatives to expedite the work. Mubarak recounted that his wife, who had a target of 800 SIR forms, was struggling due to poor internet connectivity at the Tirukoilur centre, managing to digitise only 35 forms and collect 80 filled-in forms. After returning home, she reportedly committed suicide by hanging herself.

Her colleagues corroborated the stress, stating that officials were forcing them to collect the filled-in forms from electors within a single day after distribution. The Tirukoilur police have registered a case of suspicious death and are currently investigating the matter, including the husband’s statement.

Collateral damage: the citizen’s panic

The deadly deadline affects not only those holding the pen but those whose names are on the list. In West Bengal, the SIR exercise—which involves verifying old records—has inadvertently triggered deep-seated trauma related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

In North 24 Parganas, this fear nearly killed Ashok Sardar. The 63-year-old rickshaw puller threw himself onto railway tracks, resulting in the amputation of a limb. His crime? He could not find his name in the 2002 voter list.

“For days, father kept saying he had no documents,” his daughter Chaitali explained. “He feared he might be thrown out of the country.” The bureaucratic rigor demanded of the BLOs translates into terror for the poor, creating a feedback loop of anxiety that is claiming lives on both sides of the clipboard.

A systemic failure: the “Bihar Model” goes wrong

The root of this crisis seems to be the imposition of the “Bihar Model” of SIR onto other states without considering local realities. Officials claimed the model was a success in Bihar, but its replication is proving lethal across the diverse administrative landscapes of the rest of India. The exercise, which traditionally spans months, has been compressed into a tight window, ignoring the logistical nightmares of different topographies and languages.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner on November 24, noted that the process suffers from “critical gaps in training, lack of clarity on mandatory documentation and the near-impossibility of meeting voters in the midst of their livelihood schedules.”

Sharing herewith my today’s letter to the Chief Election Commissioner, articulating my serious concerns in respect of two latest and disturbing developments. pic.twitter.com/JhkFkF6RWs

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 24, 2025

The system assumes a level of digitisation and manpower that simply does not exist on the ground. It relies on the unpaid labour of Anganwadi workers and the coerced labour of teachers, assuming their resilience is infinite. The last three weeks have proven it is not. The digital infrastructure, meant to streamline the process, has instead become a bottleneck, with servers crashing and data vanishing, forcing BLOs to redo work they have already completed, often late into the night.

SIR is no reform; it’s an imposed tyranny: Rahul Gandhi

The mounting death toll has drawn sharp criticism from the highest echelons of the opposition. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, termed the SIR exercise an “imposed oppression.” In a statement, Gandhi slammed the Centre and the Election Commission, alleging that the chaotic implementation of SIR is a “conspiracy to sacrifice democracy” at the cost of civil servants’ lives.

“SIR is an ‘imposed oppression’… causing chaos in the country,” Gandhi stated.

SIR के नाम पर देश भर में अफ़रा-तफ़री मचा रखी है – नतीजा? तीन हफ्तों में 16 BLO की जान चली गई। हार्ट अटैक, तनाव, आत्महत्या – SIR कोई सुधार नहीं, थोपा गया ज़ुल्म है।

ECI ने ऐसा सिस्टम बनाया है जिसमें नागरिकों को खुद को तलाशने के लिए 22 साल पुरानी मतदाता सूची के हज़ारों स्कैन पन्ने… pic.twitter.com/oHdabs0kHe

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 23, 2025

Despite these high-profile interventions, the grinding pace of the SIR continues. The Election Commission maintains its deadline. The supervisors continue to issue threats of suspension. In addition, in the homes of Shantimoni Ekka, Mukesh Jangid, Aneesh George, Arvind, Ushaben, Vipin Yadav, and Sudhir Kumar Kori, there is only silence.

The “Deadly Deadline” remains in place, and millions of government employees remain caught between a directive from ECI and the limits of human endurance, wondering who among them will be next to fall. The SIR drive, as ECI claims intended to strengthen the foundation of Indian democracy, is currently being built on the broken backs of the very people tasked with upholding it.

Related:

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

The post The Deadly Deadline: “I Can’t Do This Anymore”—India’s electoral revision turns into a graveyard for BLOs/teachers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute   India into a      SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

RSS demanded Manu Smruti as the Constitution

The two underlined ideals merely formally added in 1977, ‘Socialist and Secular’, only strengthened the resolve of the Constitution of India would apply to a non-sectarian polity with only the people of India, all of its people, sovereign. How many Indians however know that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that has today affected a stranglehold on Indian politics and democracy, through its political appendage, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had, at the time, mourned the birth (coming into effect) of the Indian Constitution? Outraged when the Indian Constituent Assembly (CA) adopted a democratic- Secular Constitution under the supervision of Dr. BR Ambedkar, their organs protested.

We know that when the Constituent Assembly of India passed the Constitution on November 26, 1949, the RSS organ Organizer came out with an editorial on November 30, 1949 titled ‘Constitution’ declaring its firm rejection of Constitutional Values:

“The worst about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bhartiya about it…There is no trace of ancient Bhartiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclatures and phraseology in it…Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

How fundamentally, the RSS denigrates the Constitution of India can be gleaned through the following statement of the most prominent ideologue of the RSS, Golwalkar:

“Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions of the Western countries. It has absolutely nothing which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No!”

[MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 238.]

By demanding Manusmriti as “constitution of India”, RSS, in fact was following the belief of its darling Hindutva icon, VD Savarkar who had declared long back:

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law”.

[VD Savarkar, ‘Women in Manusmriti‘ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi), vol. 4, Prabhat, Delhi, p. 416.]

The faith of RSS brass in Manusmriti, naturally, leads them to believe in Casteism too which gave birth to the debased practice of Untouchability. For RSS Casteism is the essence of Hindu Nationalism. Golwalkar did not mince words in declaring that Casteism was synonymous with the Hindu Nation. According to him, the Hindu people are no one but,

“The Hindu People, they said, is the Virat Purusha, the Almighty manifesting Himself. Though they did not use the word „Hindu‟, it is clear from the following description of the Almighty in Purusha-Sukta [in the 10th book of Rig Ved] wherein it is stated that the sun & the moon are His eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi [navel] and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. [Italics as in the original text] This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is [sic] our God. This supreme vision of Godhead is the very core of our concept of „nation‟ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.”

[Golwalkar, M. S., Bunch of Thoughts, collection of writings/speeches of Golwalkar published by RSS, p.36-37.]

What kind of a Hindutva civilization the RSS wants to build by enforcing the laws of Manu, can be known by having a glimpse of the laws prescribed by Manu for the lower castes, Untouchables and women. Some of these dehumanizing and degenerated laws, which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

A selection of Laws of Manu denigrating Dalits/Untouchables

1. For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet. (I/31)
2. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes. (I/91)
3. Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of ‘low origin’. (VIII/270)
4. If he mentions the names and castes (jati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. (VIII/271)
5. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. (VIII/272)
6. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. (VIII/280)
7. A ‘low-caste’ man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. (VIII/281)

As per the Manu Code if Sudras are to be given most stringent punishments for even petty violations/actions, the same Code of Manu is very lenient towards Brahmins. Shloka 380 in Chapter VIII bestowing profound love on Brahmins decrees:

“Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he has committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.”

A selection of Laws of Manu demeaning Hindu women

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (IX/2)
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), (It is enough that) he is a man, ‟ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
4. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)
5. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)

[The above selection of Manu’s Codes is from F. Max Muller, Laws of Manu, LP Publications, Delhi, 1996; first published in 1886. The bracket after each code incorporates number of chapter/number of code according to the above edition.]

The reproduced parts of the Manu Code above need no further elaboration and commentary. They are too glaringly venomous, fascist and derogatory of marginalized sections, the Untouchables who are referred to as Sudras by Manu. Perhaps this was the reason that the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche who contributed immensely to the growth of totalitarian ideas in Europe in the 20th century, fell in love with this work.

It is to be noted here that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during the historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927. Dr Ambedkar called upon Dalits to commemorate each December 25 as the Manusmriti Dehen Diwas (Manusmriti burning day) in future. In fact, Brahmanism as basis of the RSS world-view is the original Fascism in the history of human civilization.

[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/manusmriti-dahan-divas-protest-staged-at-collectorate/article30396588.ece]

RSS’ deep hatred for democracy

It is true that when RSS faced the wrath of the Indian State when Sardar Patel was the home minister of India it criticised the detention laws without trial. In an editorial in Organizer it wrote:

“Section 21 and 22 providing for detention without trial reduce all the wordy assurances about liberty, equality and fraternity to just near meaningless verbiage.”[Organizer, November 30, 1949]

But once in power the RSS-BJP rulers led by the present leadership have returned to Hindutva’s Fascist and Nazi heritage. They have converted Indian democratic-secular polity into a totalitarian Hindutva oligarchy where any kind of dissent is treated as anti-national and anti-Hindu. It is the continuation of hatred for democracy as decreed by Golwalkar as early as 1940. Golwalkar while addressing the 1350 top level cadres of the RSS declared:

“RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology are lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.”

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd., volume 1, p. 11.]

November 26, 2025

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

Related:

Sectarian nationalism and god men: Sri Sri Ravishankar attends the 75th Birthday of the RSS chief

Emergency regime and the role of RSS

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Blast: A scene of carnage and social shock

The factual background of the case is harrowing. On April 27, 1996, a UP Roadways bus from the Roorkee depot departed from Delhi ISBT at 3:55 PM with more than fifty passengers. It halted at Mohan Nagar Check Post, where fourteen more boarded. As the bus crossed the Modinagar Police Station in Ghaziabad around 5 PM, a violent explosion tore through its front portion. The driver died on the spot, along with nine passengers. Nearly everyone on board suffered injuries ranging from severe to critical. Post-mortem reports described multiple metal fragments embedded in the victims’ bodies; doctors confirmed that death was caused by “shock and haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding.” Forensic examination established that RDX mixed with carbon had been placed beneath the driver’s seat and detonated using a remote trigger. The blast was quickly categorised as an act of terrorism, and investigative agencies rushed to construct a narrative of conspiracy. Public anger and panic were immediate. The community demanded answers, accountability, and closure. Yet, as the High Court judgment reveals, those demands were never truly met—not for the families, not for the injured, and not for the accused.

The Prosecution’s Theory: Conspiracy, foreign links and a confession

In its case before the trial court, the prosecution framed the blast as part of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by Harkat-ul-Ansar. The State alleged that Abdul Mateen @ Iqbal, a Pakistani national, served as a “District Commander” of the organisation and had collaborated with Ilyas, who, according to prosecution claims, was indoctrinated during his travels to Jammu & Kashmir. It was further alleged that the appellant facilitated travel for operatives, participated in planning meetings, and assisted in procuring or planting the explosive. However, this theory rested heavily on a single fragile pillar: a confession allegedly made by Ilyas before a Senior Police Officer of the CB-CID, recorded on an audio cassette in the presence of his father and brother. This confession became the backbone of the prosecution’s case. Without it, the surrounding circumstantial links—two railway tickets, a diary, and speculative associations—were plainly inadequate. Yet the prosecution attempted to stretch these tenuous threads into a conspiracy narrative, despite the fact that one co-accused, Tasleem, had been acquitted by the trial court itself for complete lack of evidence. The State did not appeal Tasleem’s acquittal, nor was there any record suggesting that Mateen ever filed a challenge. As such, by the time the matter reached the High Court, only Ilyas was left defending himself against the weight of the allegations—while confined in prison.

The High Court’s Evaluation of Evidence: A prosecution in disarray

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 2063 of 2013 is one of the starkest examples of the justice system confronting the collapse of a terror-investigation while simultaneously acknowledging the moral burden of acquitting an accused in a case involving mass casualties. The Bench’s analysis is structured around three pillars: (1) the complete absence of legally admissible evidence against Ilyas; (2) the statutory bar on using police-recorded confessions; and (3) the total failure of the prosecution to produce any independent incriminating material.

The Court’s reasoning is unusually candid. It acknowledges the horrific nature of the 1996 Modinagar bus blast—describing it as “diabolic”, “dastardly”, and a “terrorist act”—yet still concludes that there is no legal basis to uphold the conviction. The Bench ultimately declares: “We are recording acquittal in this case with heavy heart as the case is of such propensity that it shock the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their life in the terrorist plot”.

Below is a structured analysis of what the Court actually held, how it evaluated each category of evidence, and how it applied statutory and doctrinal principles.

I. The court’s construction of the factual matrix

The judgment begins by firmly establishing the factual horror of the blast. Relying on eyewitnesses, inquest officers, and medical professionals, the Bench holds that the explosion was undoubtedly caused by a planted high-intensity device. Post-mortem reports and FSL findings were decisive. Ten people died on the spot; more died during treatment; and 48 were injured.

The Court notes in the judgment that:

“In the postmortem report of the deceased persons, pieces of metal were found, and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding.” (Para 18)

“In report of FSL dated 30.04.1996, it is concluded that in the bus registration No. UP15A6693, mixture of RDX and carbon was kept, which resulted in explosion. It was kept in the front portion of the bus, above bonut or its left side.” (Para 7)

The device was placed before the bus left Delhi; therefore, no onboard passenger could have seen the planting. By laying this foundation, the Court underscores that the factum of the terrorist act is unquestionably proved—thus shifting the entire analytical burden to whether the prosecution proved who executed it.

II. Collapse of Witness Testimony: No Direct Evidence Linking Ilyas

Hostile witnesses and the rejection of the alleged extra-judicial confessions: The prosecution relied heavily on two witnesses—PW-6 Subrati and PW-9 Ahsan—as recipients of an alleged extra-judicial confession by Ilyas and co-accused Mateen and Tasleem.

But both turned hostile, they merely admitted they knew Ilyas socially. The Court notes:

“None of the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution to establish complicity of the appellant in the offence have supported the prosecution version. The witnesses PW 6-Subrati, PW 9-Ahsan are key witnesses of prosecution who were produced to prove alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and co-accused regarding their complicity in the offence but they have outrightly disowned their statements recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC and have given exculpatory evidence against the appellant with regard to the present offence.” (Para 77)

Regarding rejection of PW-6 statement:

“Subrati, a witness of extra-judicial confession made by the accused, has also not supported prosecution version. His evidence is also not of significance for the purpose of present case. Even if his examination-in-chief during separate trial of acquitted accused Tasleem is taken on its face value, the same cannot be read against present appellant as the appellant was not present at the time of recording of this evidence. In the Session Trial No. 1663 of 2000 the same witness i.e., Subrati has not given any statement against the appellant or any co-accused. Thus, the witness has given two statements in respect of the same offence regarding the role played by the accused persons and legally no credence can be given on his testimony in respect of present appellant.” (Para 74)

The Court stresses that even in Tasleem’s earlier trial, the same witnesses had not supported the prosecution. The Bench treats this as a fatal flaw: there is simply no living testimony pointing to Ilyas.

No eyewitness saw any accused place the bomb: The blast occurred under the driver’s seat. Passengers boarded a bus that was already primed. The Court affirms that no witness was capable of identifying the planter, making the State’s evidentiary burden even heavier.

III. The Confessional Statement: Completely Inadmissible Under Sections 24–26 Evidence Act

The prosecution’s case ultimately hinged on a single piece of evidence: a police-recorded confession of Ilyas, supposedly captured on an audio-cassette by PW-11, a Sector Officer, CB-CID.

The Court annihilates this evidence.

Absolute bar under Section 25 Evidence Act: The heart of the High Court’s judgment lies in its extensive treatment of the confession recorded by the police. Section 25 of the Evidence Act is absolute: “no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused.” This statutory prohibition is a foundational safeguard against coercion, torture, or manipulation—protections that cannot be diluted even in cases of terrorism. The prosecution attempted an extraordinary argument: that the confession should be admissible under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which permits confessions to be recorded by senior police officers. But the Bench dismissed this submission outright, noting that TADA had lapsed in 1995 and the blast occurred in April 1996. As the Court put it, “the special exception provided under Section 15 of TADA, which allowed police confessions to be used as evidence, was not applicable to this case.” More damningly, the prosecution did not even produce the tape recorder as a material exhibit. The judges emphasised this flaw repeatedly, stating that “the device by which the alleged confessional statement was recorded… was not produced before the court,” making the recording unreliable and legally worthless. Once the confession was excluded—a mandatory consequence of Section 25—the entire structure of the prosecution’s case collapsed instantly, leaving behind no evidence capable of sustaining guilt.

The Bench quotes Section 25’s mandatory language and concludes:

“Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars any confession obtained by any inducement, threat or promise. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates an absolute bar on confessions made to a police officer.” (Para 81)

Regarding the tape recorder not being produced, the Court notes:

“It is noteworthy that the device by which alleged confessional statement of appellant Muhammad Ilyas was recorded in an audio cassette i.e. tape recorder was not produced before the court as a material exhibit. Therefore, even otherwise, it may be held that the confessional statement of Muhammad Ilyas recorded by and before the police is not duly proved and could not be proved in view of legal bar created by Section 25 of Evidence Act.” (Para 78)

Even the cassette itself, though produced, is useless in the absence of the device, certification, or proof of integrity.

The Statement Was Not Reproduced in Testimony: PW-11, the very officer who allegedly recorded the confession, did not reproduce the confession in his sworn deposition.

The Court remarks:

“Inasmuch as confessional statement of the accused-appellant Muhammad Ilyas are not reproduced during sworn testimony of PW11 who is main Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of accused-appellant.” (Para 79)

Thus, even if Section 25 did not exist, the confession is legally unproved.

IV. No recovery, no discovery, no circumstantial evidence

Items recovered from Ilyas (diary + railway tickets) are dismissed as legally irrelevant:

• Travel from Muzaffarnagar to Jammu Tawi or Ludhiana “cannot form the basis that he was involved in the present offence.”
• The diary entry naming Salim Kari is “hardly sufficient to connect the appellant.”

The Court then underscores that there is no discovery under Section 27 Evidence Act:

“No discovery has been made in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on pointing information divulged by the appellant-Mohammad Ilyas. Thus, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which creates an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not applicable.” (Para 81)

Importantly, the Court stresses that nothing incriminating was recovered even when Ilyas was in police custody under remand:

“Consequently, after excluding the confessional statement of the appellant recorded by PW11-Sector Officer, CBCID who is the main investigating officer of the case due to the embargo created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no incriminating material appears against the appellant which could prove his complicity in the offence. Therefore, the trial court’s findings against the appellant for the charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B 121-A, 124-A IPC and Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act are not found to be sustainable and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond resonable doubt due to want of legally admissible evidence against him. Thus, no chain of circumstances survives.” (Para 83)

V. The court’s assessment of conspiracy doctrine

The Bench reproduces extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence on conspiracies—including Kehar Singh, Som Nath Thapa, Paramhans Yadav—acknowledging that conspiracies are usually proved through circumstantial evidence. After excluding the barred confession, the judgment observes that no incriminating material appears, therefore prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this case is distinguishable from TADA-era judgments because there is nothing left to constitute even a circumstantial chain.

“…after excluding the confessional statement of the appellant recorded by PW11-Sector Officer, CBCID who is the main investigating officer of the case due to the embargo created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no incriminating material appears against the appellant which could prove his complicity in the offence. Therefore, the trial court’s findings against the appellant for the charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B 121-A, 124-A IPC and Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act are not found to be sustainable and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to want of legally admissible evidence against him” (Para 83)

VI. The application of the “benefit of doubt” doctrine

The Court cites Gurbachan Singh, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Inder Singh, and even Viscount Simon’s classic admonition—but only to underscore that this is not a case of fanciful doubt.

The Court is explicit: it is not indulging technicalities; rather, there exists no admissible evidence at all.

The Court states unequivocally:

“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges that the appellant conspired to plant a bomb along with co-accused to create a bomb explosion in the bus which resulted in large number of loss of lives and injuries to the passengers and damage to public property i.e., this bus. The findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the sentence awarded to the appellant are accordingly liable to be set aside”. (Para 85)

VII. The Final Outcome: Acquittal WITH HEAVY HEART

The Bench ends with one of the most emotionally direct conclusions in recent criminal jurisprudence:

“We are recording acquittal in this case with heavy heart as the case is of such propensity that it shocks the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their life in the terrorist plot”. (Para 84)

It orders:

• Immediate release of Ilyas after nearly three decades in custody.
• Cancellation of the trial court’s conviction under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B, 121-A, 124-A IPC and Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act.
• Compliance reports from the trial court.

The Court is painfully aware that acquittal is the only legally permissible outcome.

28 Years in Prison: A human tragedy the court could not ignore

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment is its recognition of the human cost of prolonged incarceration. Mohammad Ilyas had been in prison continuously throughout the pendency of his appeal. Nearly thirty years passed between the blast and the High Court’s verdict—years in which the world changed technologically, socially, and politically, while Ilyas remained confined within the walls of a prison on the basis of evidence now held legally inadmissible. The judgment does not dwell sentimentally on this suffering, but it does not hide from it either. The Bench notes, almost with quiet sorrow, that “the appellant has remained in custody throughout,” an observation that resonates with the fundamental principle that justice delayed is justice denied. The tragedy is twofold: an accused lost the prime decades of his life to a prosecution that could not prove its case; and the families of the victims, who lost loved ones in the blast, were denied justice because the investigation and prosecution failed to meet the minimal standards required for a terrorism trial. Both sides—accused and victims—stand abandoned by a system that neither punished the guilty nor protected the innocent.

“The appellant is acquitted of aforesaid charges. He has been in jail custody during pendency of the appeal, therefore, a release order will be issued by the trial Court in pursuance of the present judgment immediately, to secure his release from jail custody, if he is not wanted in any other case.” (Para 87)

The Court’s Final Word: A heavy-hearted acquittal

The judgment culminates in a conclusion that is both legally inevitable and emotionally fraught. The Court states plainly that “no incriminating evidence remains on the record,” and therefore the conviction “is accordingly liable to be set aside.” At the same time, the judges acknowledge the moral weight of letting an accused walk free in a case involving eighteen deaths. With these words, the Bench affirmed the constitutional duty of courts to uphold due process, even when the consequences emotionally burden the institution itself. The Court ordered Ilyas’s immediate release, subject only to his execution of a personal bond and sureties under Section 437-A CrPC.

Conclusion: A case that demands national reflection

The acquittal of Mohammad Ilyas forces India to confront a painful truth: that in the pursuit of justice for terror victims, the criminal justice system must not commit injustices of its own. When investigations are shoddy, when evidence is not collected properly, when confessions are relied upon instead of hard proof, the guilty escape and the innocent are condemned. In this case, the victims’ families have been left without closure, and an accused man has spent nearly thirty years in prison without legally admissible evidence against him. The Modinagar–Ghaziabad blast remains one of the region’s darkest moments—but the judicial aftermath has become a second tragedy, one marked by investigative failure, prosecutorial negligence, and systemic decay. The High Court’s decision restores legality, but cannot restore time. It upholds the law, but cannot undo the suffering. It acquits with heavy heart—and it leaves behind questions India must answer.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

The Architecture of Polarisation: A structural analysis of communal hate speech as a core electoral strategy in India (2024–2025)

Court Acts on Misinformation: FIR against channels for wrongly branding teacher a terrorist

Is targeting Muslims, calling them terrorists a common norm in colleges now?

State’s use of Anti-terror Laws against Dissenters also a form of Terrorism

The post A Terror Case Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court’s ‘heavy heart’ acquittal After 28 Years appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The news of an Indian Air Force Tejas falling silent during an aerobatic display at the Dubai Air Show breaks something deeper than headlines can capture.

Aerobatics are poetry written in vapour trails at the far edge of physics—where skill becomes prayer, courage becomes offering, and precision exists in margins thinner than breath.

These are not performances for cameras; they are testimonies of human mastery, flown by souls who accept the unforgiving contract between gravity and grace in service of a flag they would die defending.

To the Indian Air Force, to the family now navigating an ocean of absence:

I offer what words can never carry—condolence wrapped in understanding that only those who’ve worn wings can truly know. A pilot has not merely fallen. A guardian of impossible altitudes has been summoned home. Somewhere tonight, a uniform hangs unworn. Somewhere, a child asks when father returns. Somewhere, the sky itself feels emptier.

But what wounds me beyond the crash, beyond the loss, is the poison of mockery seeping from voices on our side of a border that should never divide the brotherhood of those who fly.

This is not patriotism—it is the bankruptcy of the soul. One may question doctrines, challenge strategies, even condemn policies with righteous fury—but never, not in a universe governed by honour, does one mock the courage of a warrior doing his duty in the cathedral of sky.

He flew not for applause but for love of country, just as our finest do. That demands reverence, not ridicule wrapped in nationalist pride gone rancid.

I too have watched brothers vanish into silence— Sherdil Leader Flt Lt Alamdar and Sqn Ldr Hasnat—men who lived at altitudes where angels hold their breath, men who understood that the sky demands everything and promises nothing.

In the moment an aircraft goes quiet, there are no nationalities, no anthems, and no flags. There is only the terrible democracy of loss, and families left clutching photographs of men who once touched clouds.

A true professional recognises another professional across any divide.

A true warrior—one worthy of the title—salutes courage even when it wears the wrong uniform, flies the wrong colours, speaks the wrong tongue.

Anything less diminishes not them, but us. Our mockery stains our own wings, dishonours our own fallen, makes hollow our claims to valour.

Let me speak clearly: courage knows no passport. Sacrifice acknowledges no border. The pilot who pushes his machine to its screaming limits in service of national pride deserves honour—whether he flies under saffron, white and green, or under green and white alone.

May the departed aviator find eternal skies beyond all turbulence, where machines never fail and horizons stretch forever.

May his family discover strength in places language cannot reach, in the knowledge that their loss illuminates something sacred about human courage.

And may we—on both sides of lines drawn in sand and blood—find the maturity to honour what deserves honouring, to mourn what deserves mourning, and to remember that before we are citizens of nations, we are citizens of sky—all of us temporary, all of us mortal, all of us trying to touch something infinite before gravity reclaims us.

The sky grieves without borders.

Let us do the same.

Air Commodore Pervez Akhtar Khan

فضاؤں کے پار ایک سلام

دبئی ایئر شو میں بھارتی فضائیہ کے طیارے تیجس کے المناک حادثے کی خبر وہ درد ہے جو سرخیوں سے بڑا ہے۔ ایروبیاٹکس محض کرتب نہیں—یہ بخارات کی لکیروں میں لکھی گئی شاعری ہے، طبیعیات کی آخری حد پر، جہاں مہارت دعا بن جاتی ہے، جرات قربانی بن جاتی ہے، اور درستگی سانس سے باریک حاشیوں میں قید ہوتی ہے۔ یہ کیمروں کے لیے نمائش نہیں—یہ انسانی کمال کی گواہی ہے، ان روحوں کی اُڑان ہے جو کشش ثقل اور وقار کے درمیان بے رحم معاہدہ قبول کرتے ہیں، اس جھنڈے کی خاطر جس کے لیے وہ مر مٹنے کو تیار رہتے ہیں۔

بھارتی فضائیہ کو، اس خاندان کو جو اب غم کے سمندر میں ڈوبا ہے: میری تعزیت وہ ہے جو الفاظ کبھی ادا نہیں کر سکتے—صرف وہ سمجھ سکتے ہیں جنہوں نے پر باندھے ہیں۔ صرف ایک پائلٹ نہیں گرا۔ ناممکن بلندیوں کا ایک محافظ واپس بلایا گیا ہے۔ آج کہیں ایک وردی بے استعمال لٹکی ہے۔ کہیں ایک بچہ پوچھتا ہے کہ ابّا کب آئیں گے۔ کہیں آسمان خود کو خالی محسوس کرتا ہے۔

لیکن جو مجھے حادثے سے بھی زیادہ زخمی کرتا ہے، نقصان سے بھی زیادہ تکلیف دیتا ہے، وہ ہے ہماری سرحد کے اس طرف سے اٹھنے والی تمسخر کی آوازیں۔ یہ حب الوطنی نہیں—یہ روح کا دیوالیہ پن ہے۔ کوئی نظریات پر سوال اٹھا سکتا ہے، حکمت عملیوں کو چیلنج کر سکتا ہے، یہاں تک کہ پالیسیوں کی مذمت کر سکتا ہے—لیکن کبھی نہیں، عزت کے قوانین میں کبھی نہیں، کوئی اس جنگجو کی جرات کا مذاق نہیں اڑاتا جو آسمان کی عبادت گاہ میں اپنا فرض ادا کر رہا تھا۔ وہ تالیوں کے لیے نہیں بلکہ وطن کی محبت کے لیے اُڑا، بالکل جیسے ہمارے بہترین پرواز کرتے ہیں۔ یہ احترام کا مستحق ہے، نہ کہ قومی غرور میں سڑے ہوئے طعنوں کا۔

میں نے بھی بھائیوں کو خاموشی میں غائب ہوتے دیکھا ہے—شیردل لیڈر فلائٹ لیفٹیننٹ علمدار اور اسکواڈرن لیڈر حشناط—وہ مرد جو ان بلندیوں پر رہتے تھے جہاں فرشتے بھی سانس روک لیتے ہیں، جو سمجھتے تھے کہ آسمان سب کچھ مانگتا ہے اور کچھ وعدہ نہیں کرتا۔ جب طیارہ خاموش ہوتا ہے تو قومیتیں نہیں ہوتیں، ترانے نہیں ہوتے، جھنڈے نہیں ہوتے۔ صرف نقصان کی خوفناک برابری ہوتی ہے، اور خاندان جو ان مردوں کی تصویریں تھامے رہ جاتے ہیں جو کبھی بادلوں کو چھوتے تھے۔

سچا پیشہ ور کسی بھی تقسیم کے پار دوسرے پیشہ ور کو پہچانتا ہے۔ سچا جنگجو—جو اس لقب کا حقدار ہو—جرات کو سلام کرتا ہے چاہے وہ غلط وردی میں ہو، غلط رنگوں میں اُڑے، غلط زبان بولے۔ اس سے کم کچھ بھی انہیں نہیں بلکہ ہمیں چھوٹا کرتا ہے۔ ہمارا مذاق ہمارے اپنے پروں کو داغدار کرتا ہے، ہمارے اپنے شہیدوں کی بے عزتی کرتا ہے، ہمارے بہادری کے دعووں کو کھوکھلا بناتا ہے۔

میں صاف کہوں: جرات کا کوئی پاسپورٹ نہیں ہوتا۔ قربانی کوئی سرحد نہیں مانتی۔ وہ پائلٹ جو اپنی مشین کو قومی فخر کی خدمت میں اس کی چیخ کی حدوں تک لے جاتا ہے، عزت کا مستحق ہے—چاہے وہ زعفرانی، سفید اور سبز کے نیچے اُڑے، یا صرف سبز اور سفید کے نیچے۔

اللہ مرحوم ہوا باز کو ابدی آسمان عطا فرمائے جہاں ہنگامے نہیں، جہاں مشینیں کبھی ناکام نہیں ہوتیں اور افق ہمیشہ پھیلتے رہتے ہیں۔

اللہ ان کے اہلِ خانہ کو ان جگہوں پر طاقت عطا فرمائے جہاں زبان نہیں پہنچ سکتی، اس علم میں کہ ان کا نقصان انسانی جرات کے بارے میں کچھ مقدس روشن کرتا ہے۔

اور اللہ ہمیں—ریت اور خون میں کھینچی گئی لکیروں کے دونوں طرف—یہ سمجھ عطا فرمائے کہ ہم جو عزت کا مستحق ہے اس کی عزت کریں، جو ماتم کا مستحق ہے اس کا ماتم کریں، اور یاد رکھیں کہ قوموں کے شہری بننے سے پہلے، ہم آسمان کے شہری ہیں—ہم سب عارضی، ہم سب فانی، ہم سب کوشش کر رہے ہیں کہ کشش ثقل ہمیں واپس بلانے سے پہلے کچھ لامحدود کو چھو لیں۔

آسمان سرحدوں کے بغیر غم کرتا ہے۔

ہم بھی ایسا ہی کریں۔..

The post A Salute across the skies, from Air Commodore Pervez Akhtar Khan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the heart of the Reference were 14 questions touching upon the options available to Governors when presented with Bills, the limits of executive discretion, the permissibility of judicial timelines, the concept of “deemed assent,” and the extent of judicial review over the President and Governor when acting under Articles 200 and 201.

The Court insisted that the issues raised by the President “strike at the root of the continuation of our republican and democratic way, and the Constitution’s federal character.” This reference, the Court said, concerns a “functional” constitutional problem, namely: persistent deadlock between elected State governments and Governors over legislative assent.

I.  Re-Reading Article 200: No power of indefinite withholding

The Court unequivocally held that Article 200 does not permit a Governor to withhold assent simpliciter. Withholding, the Court emphasised, is inextricably linked with the obligation to return the Bill to the Legislature with comments. Treating “withhold assent” as a standalone power would allow the Governor to effectively veto legislation by inaction — a result the Court described as antithetical to federalism.

The bench foregrounded the text of the first proviso to Article 200, observing that it explicitly curtails only one of the three options available to the Governor — the option to withhold assent — once a Bill is repassed by the House:

“The text of the first proviso to Article 200 through its phrasing “shall not withhold assent therefrom” clearly indicates that what was sought to be curtailed among the three options, was only the option to ‘withhold’. We have already held that the first proviso conditions the verb ‘withhold’, to mean withhold and return to the Legislature. The first proviso cannot be read in a manner so as to condition the option of the Governor to reserve the Bill for President’s consideration as well.” (Para 99)

This reading is transformative. It anchors the proviso as a constitutional safeguard ensuring meaningful legislative–executive dialogue, not an additional, fourth option. The Court rejected the Union Government’s contention that returning the Bill is an independent option, insisting instead that withholding and returning are a composite act.

Money bills and constitutional logic

A particularly incisive part of the reasoning is the Court’s rejection of the Union’s argument on the Governor’s independent power to withhold. The Court explained that if a “simpliciter” power to withhold existed, it would extend even to Money Bills, which the Governor is constitutionally prohibited from returning. This, the bench held, would “defy constitutional logic.”

The opinion stressed that the choice must favour a “dialogic process,” which encourages institutional comity and deliberation, rather than an interpretation that enables “obstructionism” by the Governor.

II. The Governor’s Discretion: Limited but real

While affirming that the Governor normally acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Court held that Article 200 constitutes an exception. The presence of the phrase “in his opinion” in the second proviso creates a narrow zone of discretion for returning or reserving Bills.

Yet, the Court sharply differentiated this discretion from unreviewable political authority. The discretion must operate within constitutional boundaries, guided by the structure of cooperative federalism.

III.  Reservation After Re-Passage: Governor retains the option

Rejecting the contrary position taken in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, the 5-judge bench held that a Governor may reserve a Bill even after it has been re-passed by the Legislature following its initial return. This becomes critical where the Legislature modifies the Bill in ways that implicate federal or inter-State concerns.

The Court articulated this function as one of constitutional vigilance:

“Since it is the Governor who considers the Bill in its amended form, and is able to compare it to the earlier version passed by the Legislature, it is his constitutional function to decide whether the Bill ought to be assented to, or if its amended form affects such inter-state, or federal aspect of the country, requiring the attention of the President.” (Para 100)

This reasoning defends cooperative federalism against strategic legislative manoeuvres while preventing governor obstruction of ordinary legislative processes.

IV.  Judicial review, inaction, and the limits of Article 361

The Court provided a nuanced delineation of the scope of judicial review over the Governor’s actions.

The bar on merit review vs. exception for inaction

The general rule is that the discharge of the Governor’s functions under Article 200 is not justiciable; the Court cannot enter into a “merit-review” of the decision itself (e.g., why the Bill was returned).

However, the Court carved out a limited exception for cases of “glaring circumstance of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite.” In such instances, the Court can exercise judicial review to issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to discharge his functions within a reasonable time, without commenting on the outcome (assent or reservation).

Article 361 and the office of the governor

Addressing the scope of Article 361 (Protection of President and Governors), the Court clarified that while the Article provides an absolute bar against judicial proceedings concerning the Governor’s personal acts; it cannot entirely immunize the office of the Governor from constitutional oversight.

“Article 361 of the Constitution is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. It is clarified that while the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.” (Para 165.4)

Non-justiciability of bills

The Court reiterated the established principle that the decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable at a stage anterior (before) the law comes into force. The contents of a Bill cannot be adjudicated by the courts until the legislative process is complete and the Bill becomes an Act.

V.  No judicial timelines, no “deemed assent”

The Opinion delivered a firm constitutional check on the Judiciary’s power to intrude into the executive and legislative domains by rejecting the idea of prescribing time limits.

Upholding constitutional elasticity

The bench held that the absence of a time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a feature of the Constitution, not a bug. It provides a necessary “sense of elasticity” for constitutional authorities to navigate complex legislative matters in a diverse federal country.

“The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves.” (Para 115)

For this reason, the Court held that it is inappropriate to judicially prescribe a timeline for the Governor or the President, thereby protecting the operational space of the executive branch.

The unconstitutionality of ‘deemed assent’

The most potent argument against judicial overreach was the definitive rejection of the doctrine of ‘deemed assent,’ which was a major point of confusion post-the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Court explicitly stated that declaring a Bill law simply because a timeline was breached is a violation of the Separation of Powers and an abuse of Article 142.

“We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution.” (Para 128)

The Court confirmed that a State law cannot be in force without the Governor’s assent, and the Governor’s legislative role “cannot be supplanted by another Constitutional authority.”

VI.  Article 201: Presidential discretion mirrors governor discretion

Applying similar reasoning to Article 201, the Court held:

• Presidential discretion under Article 201 is non-justiciable.
• No timelines may be imposed on the President.
• The President is not required to seek judicial opinion each time a Bill is reserved.
• The President may, in cases of uncertainty, invoke Article 143 — but this is not mandatory.

The Court thus restored symmetry in the constitutional design of executive assent.

VII.  Maintainability of the reference and the Tamil Nadu judgment

The States argued that the Reference was an “appeal in disguise” against the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Court rejected this argument. It underscored:

1. Article 143 is a constitutional safety valve, allowing the President to seek clarity where judicial decisions create systemic uncertainty.
2. Some conclusions in the Tamil Nadu judgment were in “variance with earlier decisions,” creating a state of doubt about foundational constitutional processes.
3. The reference concerns day-to-day functioning of constitutional authorities, unlike previous references.

Invoking In re Special Courts Bill and the 2G Reference, the Court reiterated that responding to a reference may include clarifying, explaining, or even overruling precedent if necessary for constitutional coherence.

VIII.  Dialogic constitutionalism as a structural principle

Perhaps the most significant part of the opinion is the Court’s articulation of dialogic constitutionalism as the governing principle under Articles 200 and 201. The Court rejected a mechanical “checks-and-balances” model in favour of an iterative, conversational relationship between the Legislature, Governor, and Union.

In its opinion, the Court observed:

“A dialogic process, which has the potential to understand and reflect on conflicting or opposing perspectives, to reconcile and to move forward in a constructive manner, is an equally potent check-and-balance system that the Constitution has prescribed. Once this perspective is grasped, the persons who occupy various constitutional offices or institutions will also do well to ingrain in themselves that dialogue, reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism is the essence of constitutionalism that we practice in this Republic.” (Para 64)

This articulation transforms how we conceptualise federal dynamics. The emphasis is not on vetoes but on structured interaction, mutual accountability, and constitutional good faith.

Summary of answers to presidential queries

The 14 queries posed by the President under Article 143 were addressed as follows:

Where the opinion falls short

While the Supreme Court’s opinion undeniably brings clarity to the constitutional scheme of assent, it is not immune from critique. In fact, several aspects of the opinion raise serious concerns about practical enforceability, institutional realism, and the Court’s own conception of constitutional federalism.

1.  The court’s rejection of timelines leaves a real vacuum

The Court’s insistence that timelines cannot be judicially prescribed because Articles 200 and 201 contemplate “elasticity” may be doctrinally defensible, but it leaves a pressing institutional problem unresolved.

In recent years, several Governors have delayed Bills for 12–18 months, creating deliberate legislative paralysis. The Court recognises this reality — it even describes such conduct as capable of “frustrating the legislative process” — but then offers only a limited mandamus, a remedy whose effectiveness depends on judicial willingness to intervene case by case.

This raises the question: Is elastic constitutional design being used to justify an increasingly inflexible political obstruction?

The Court’s refusal to articulate even outer constitutional boundaries (e.g., “reasonable time” standards, structured guidelines, presumptive limits) risks normalising governor delay as a political weapon.

2. The decision overestimates the governor’s neutrality

The opinion rests heavily on the idea that the Governor engages in a “constitutional conversation” with the Legislature. This idealised model presumes constitutional good faith — an assumption that does not align with contemporary political realities.

Governors today often act:

• as agents of the Union Government,
• as political veto points,
• with partisan motivations rather than deliberative ones.

By retaining wide discretion after re-passage (including the power to reserve), the Court may have inadvertently reinforced avenues of political interference rather than constrained them.

3.  The court rejects deemed assent but offers no functional alternative

The Court is doctrinally correct that deemed assent couldn’t be judicially manufactured.
But rejecting deemed assent without creating:

• temporal guardrails,
• presumptive timelines,
• structured standards for delay, or
• constitutional consequences for non-action means the status quo of indefinite executive stalling may remain substantially unchanged.

The Court’s solution — a “limited mandamus” in cases of “prolonged and unexplained inaction” — is conceptually elegant but practically weak. Governors can simply supply some explanation for delay to forestall judicial review.

4.  The Opinion Avoids Confronting the Hard Question: What happens if the governor still does not act?

Even after a mandamus directing the Governor to “decide within a reasonable period,” the Court does not address:

• What if the Governor still does not act?
• Can the Court enforce compliance?
• Can non-compliance itself trigger constitutional consequences?

By stopping short of answering these questions, the Court leaves open the possibility that constitutional commands may remain judicially unenforceable.

5.  The court’s “dialogic federalism” is normatively attractive, but descriptively unrealistic

The opinion’s philosophical turn toward “dialogue, reconciliation and balance” is attractive and intellectually sophisticated. However, Indian federalism today is marked by:

• partisan conflict,
• aggressive centralisation,
• Governors acting as political brakes on opposition-ruled States,
• selective obstruction of specific policy agendas.

In such an environment, dialogic federalism risks becoming constitutional romanticism, a theoretical model with limited grounding in empirical governance.

6.  The decision leaves the legislature ultimately dependent on executive grace

Even after clarifying the options, the Court affirms that:

• the Governor has discretion to reserve Bills (even after repassage),
• the President’s discretion under Article 201 is non-justiciable,
• and no timelines apply at either level.

This means a State law may still be caught in executive limbo between Raj Bhavan and Rashtrapati Bhavan for months or years, with no remedy except discretionary judicial nudges.

The structure therefore remains executive-heavy and legislature-vulnerable.

Conclusion

The Court’s opinion is doctrinally coherent, textually grounded, and institutionally respectful of separation of powers. It restores structural clarity and corrects errors in the Tamil Nadu Governor decision. Its articulation of dialogic federalism is aspirational and constitutionally rich.

However, the opinion also reflects a profound judicial reluctance to discipline constitutional actors who act in bad faith. By declining to set timelines, refusing to articulate enforceable standards, and preserving a broad zone of discretion for Governors and the President, the Court leaves significant room for political misuse of constitutional offices.

In effect, the opinion clarifies the law but does not fully address the practical crisis of governor obstruction that sparked the reference itself. It upholds constitutional ideals but leaves unresolved the very dysfunction that compelled the President to invoke Article 143.

The opinion thus represents a structural clarification without structural correction — a doctrinal victory, but an incomplete solution to a deepening constitutional tension between democratic mandates and executive gatekeeping.

The complete opinion may be read below.

Related:

Tamil Nadu Governor delivers another googly, refers the ten re-adopted bills to the President, state calls it a “Hit on the Constitution”

Supreme Court questions Kerala Governor: “Why was the governor sitting on bills for 2 years?”

By holding up bills, are Governors undermining democracy? 

Governor, a bridge between centre & state, overstep is overreach: review of judicial decisions

The post Clarity Without Cure: The Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of Articles 200 and 201 and the future of federal governance appeared first on SabrangIndia.