According to DT Next, Akilan, a Class XI student, had faced taunts from classmates over his caste and eating habits. The harassment had reportedly become so distressing that he left home last month and went to stay with a relative in Alandurai. His father, Ashok Kumar, brought him back and complained to the school management. Although the taunts reportedly stopped for a few days, they later resumed.

The FIR, as reported by South First, alleges that class teacher Vijayakumar asked students which of them ate beef. Following this interaction, two classmates allegedly subjected Akilan to casteist verbal abuse and physical assault. Akilan belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. His mother, Kousalya, has named the two students, the class teacher and headmaster Arunkumar in her complaint, alleging that the school failed to address the discrimination.

The harassment allegedly continued when Akilan returned to school after the Puja holidays on Wednesday. According to DT Next, he was subjected to caste-based taunts during the morning prayer assembly before returning home. His mother found him hanging when she returned home for lunch around 1 pm. He was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was declared dead.

Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding his death and the family’s allegations. A senior police officer told NDTV that the role of the school, the headmaster, the class teacher and others was being examined. The officer confirmed that a case had been registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused have also been booked under provisions relating to abetment of suicide and voluntarily causing hurt. Akilan’s body was kept at Coimbatore’s ESI Hospital for a post-mortem examination.

The case raises serious questions about the school’s response to alleged caste-based harassment, particularly after the family had reportedly approached its management. The allegations against the staff and students remain under investigation. The incident also comes amid earlier allegations of caste discrimination in Coimbatore’s schools. Last year, the principal of a private school was suspended after allegedly making a Dalit student who was menstruating sit on the stairs outside her classroom to write her examinations.

Related:

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

Thirty years on, justice remains elusive for Dalits in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana

“Obnoxious and Caste-Coloured”: Supreme Court strikes down Odisha bail orders mandating cleaning work, declares them void

Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law

Beyond the ‘plum’ posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

The post Dalit Class XI student dies by suicide after alleged casteist harassment in Coimbatore School appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The removal, which Vadra said was enforced under the threat of cancellation, is a disturbing instance of a cultural institution restricting the documentation of public dissent. The photographs were not being presented as inflammatory propaganda or accompanied by political slogans. They recorded protests, demonstrators and police action, capturing events unfolding in the capital. Yet their proximity to the political present was enough to make them unacceptable to the venue’s management, according to the artist.

#WATCH | Delhi: On the Bikaner House Exhibition and photo removal controversy, Raihan Vadra, son of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Robert Vadra, says, “Yesterday, my show was supposed to open at 7 pm. The show was called ‘No Idea is Fine’. 24 hours before it was to open, I was first approached by the Bikaner House management and told that some of the images are against their policy. I said, ‘Let me know which ones; let’s have a discussion. I didn’t hear back from them till the next day… when the Deputy Resident Commissioner reached out and said that we have to remove all these images, which were street photography images of the youth movements in Delhi over the last year. I said, ‘I shared the layout a week earlier; why didn’t you bring it up earlier?’ They said, ‘We couldn’t see the layout.’ So I said, ‘You still had 1 week to tell me you couldn’t see the layout. I would have sent it; we could have had the discussion earlier. Now, in 4-5 hours, what am I going to do?’ I asked them to give it to me in writing as to why they are removing these photographs, individual reasons; they didn’t. Then at 3 pm, the head of Bikaner House, the principal resident commissioner, came, and he also said the same thing. I also said the same thing to him. He said, ‘Your policy says political content’. For the most part, I had removed imagery of political parties and of political leaders. Maybe there were a few photographs; I said, ‘We could discuss. If they are against your policy, I’ll replace them.’ He said, “No, none of these 70 images will be put up.’ They sent me a notice at 3.30 saying, ‘If you don’t remove it by 5 PM, the building is sealed, and the exhibition is canceled.’ Then we complied. We flipped the photographs. So you could only see the back of the frame. They had a problem with that. We took those down, piled them up on the side. They had a problem with that. We put them in storage. I left two photos of the Indian flag, and they said, ‘Take it down.’ I said, ‘This can’t be against your policy. How can it be against your policy?’ I said, ‘Give it to me in writing that you want me to take down a picture of the Indian flag.’ They didn’t. So those were there, and then I went home to change. They took one down themselves. So one is remaining, if you had seen it.”

— ANI (@ANI) October 22, 2026

VIDEO | Delhi: Artist and photographer Raihan Vadra, the son of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Robert Vadra, on Thursday said the Bikaner House administration pulled down many of his pictures of the recent Delhi protests ahead of a solo exhibition.

Speaking to PTI about the possible reasons behind his photographs being taken down, he says, “I had to tell them that an art institution should not have such a policy. I mean, most art is political, right? You cannot function as an artistic institution and then say that political content is not allowed. But that was my interpretation. Either that, or they should have reviewed the images a week earlier. I had shared a layout with them a week before, and they responded to it. I told them this, but yesterday they said that they had not been able to view the layout. I said, ‘That was on October 15. You had six days to tell me that you couldn’t view the layout and ask me to send it again. You’re telling me just four hours before my show that you couldn’t see the layout. Now, 70 photographs have to be removed. What am I supposed to do?’ And then, you have to expect a reaction, right? You cannot expect me to sit quietly in a corner and say, ‘Okay, thank you for removing my photographs’. Three years of my work is now just sitting in a corner, and the walls are empty.”

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 22, 2026

In an exclusive interview with ThePrint, Vadra said Bikaner House had objected to the “political nature” of the photographs despite having approved his exhibition proposal on June 30 last year. He said the exhibition layout had also been shared with the management in advance, without objections being raised until the final hours before the opening.

“They made us take them down. We spoke to them, but they threatened that they would cancel the show if we didn’t take them down. So, there wasn’t much of an option left,” Vadra told ThePrint.

The artist said he was informed that the photographs were inappropriate given the prevailing political climate and the timing of the exhibition. The management reportedly maintained that the images violated Bikaner House’s booking policy, which prohibits political content. But the rationale raises a fundamental question: if photographs documenting protests can be excluded because the political circumstances surrounding them are considered inconvenient, what meaningful space remains for artists to record contemporary events?

Protest photographs deemed too political

Vadra’s exhibition brought together three years of photographic work, including wildlife photography, abstract pieces, street photography and documentation of youth movements. The protest photographs formed a substantial part of the collection, capturing demonstrations against issues including alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

According to The Wire, the photographs included images of police personnel overpowering demonstrators, a man holding a copy of the Constitution and crowds participating in political demonstrations. One image reportedly featured Congress leader Rahul Gandhi amid the commotion surrounding a protest march. These were not detached images of an abstract political landscape. They documented people exercising their right to protest and the police response to demonstrations in the national capital. Their removal therefore raises concerns beyond an individual artist’s exhibition: it concerns whether public cultural spaces will permit visual records of dissent when those records intersect with politically contentious events.

Speaking to The Wire, Vadra questioned why an artist living in Delhi and witnessing the protests should be prevented from exhibiting what he had documented. “Forget the context and my background, but even as an artist who lives in Delhi and went to a lot of these protests – I can’t have a show here?” he asked.

Vadra said he had already removed photographs containing slogans and other overt political messaging because he did not want the exhibition to become a vehicle for political commentary. He maintained that the remaining photographs were visual documentation rather than an attempt to advance a political position.

A press note issued before the exhibition similarly described the photographs as documentation of protesters and armed personnel, without additional commentary, and stated that none contained derogatory or inflammatory material.

An ultimatum hours before the opening

Vadra told ThePrint that the management first contacted him on October 20, the day before the exhibition was due to open. He said the layout had already been shared with the venue a week earlier, on October 15, and that the administration had acknowledged receiving it. According to his account, the management subsequently raised objections to the photographs but did not provide a satisfactory resolution before the final hours of preparation. The principal resident commissioner of Bikaner House, Rohit Kumar, later inspected the exhibition and informed Vadra that works considered political would have to be removed.

Speaking to India Today, Vadra said the administration had objected to 75 photographs across two rooms. He recounted that he had initially asked the management to identify the specific photographs it considered objectionable and explain its concerns in writing, offering to discuss possible replacements. Instead, he said, he was warned that the exhibition would be cancelled if the works were not removed within the stipulated deadline.

Vadra and his team initially attempted to turn the photographs around, leaving the backs of the frames visible. That arrangement was reportedly rejected, and the photographs ultimately had to be taken down and placed in storage.The compressed timeline left little room for negotiation.

Vadra also told The Wire that he was informed that the Rajasthan state government had weighed in on the matter and that a consensus had been reached that photographs depicting the protests could not be displayed. Bikaner House management’s reported reliance on a prohibition against political content also raises questions about how that rule is interpreted and applied. Vadra said he had pointed to earlier exhibitions at the venue that featured political figures and questioned why his documentation of contemporary protests was being treated differently.

Even the Tricolour became a point of contention

The dispute extended beyond the protest photographs. Vadra said the management also asked him to remove two photographs featuring the Indian national flag. In a statement posted on Instagram, he wrote that the management had compelled him to remove most of the artworks and had also directed him to take down the two images of the Tricolour. He initially refused, insisting that he would not remove a photograph of the Indian flag. In his account to ThePrint, Vadra said he eventually had to comply with the venue’s demands to ensure that the exhibition could continue.

The artworks of Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s son Raihan Vadra that was asked to be removed from the art exhibition titled ‘No idea is final’ at Bikaner House.

Indian National Flag picture remains here https://t.co/MzWkeoVI71

— Anand Singh (@Anand_Journ) October 22, 2026

Congress MP Pawan Khera criticised the move, writing on X that when even the Tricolour was not safe from censorship, the problem lay not with the art but with the political establishment. He described the removal of the photographs as an example of a government seemingly threatened by the documentation of protests.

The government has become so afraid of inconvenient truths that it would rather censor reality than confront it.

Articles, photographs, artworks, books — anything that challenges its carefully manufactured narrative is silenced.

The irony is that every attempt to suppress an idea only draws more attention to what the government is so desperate to hide.

Censorship cannot make reality disappear; it only exposes a regime terrified of what people might see.

Congratulations on your fourth solo show, @raihanrvadra. The sky is the limit!

— Pawan Khera ಪವನ್ ಖೇರಾ (@Pawankhera) October 22, 2026

Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also defended her son. As reported PTI, she criticised the removal of the photographs, arguing that they contained no derogatory commentary and simply documented events. She warned that restrictions imposed on one young artist could be extended to others.

In a separate post on X, she wrote: “When someone with power becomes afraid of the expression of another, he doesn’t know it, but he has already lost the very power he is trying to protect.”

.@raihanrvadra

When someone with power becomes afraid of the expression of another, he doesn’t know it, but he has already lost the very power he is trying to protect.

You stand for what is true and everything beautiful will find its way to you.

I am proud of you, always will be.

mama

— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) October 22, 2026

VIDEO | Delhi: Artist and photographer Raihan Vadra, the son of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Robert Vadra, said the Bikaner House administration pulled down many of his pictures of the recent Delhi protests ahead of a solo exhibition.

Robert Vadra says, “There was a lot of pressure on him to remove everything, and this happened just two hours before the opening of his exhibition. It was shocking because the authorities had received the PDF file a week in advance and had been informed about the exhibition. Setting up an exhibition takes two days, and the authorities had visited the venue, seen the displays, and raised no objections. However, just a few hours before the opening, the situation changed without any explanation…Despite this, I think he was brave enough to go ahead with the exhibition using whatever remained. As I said, I am proud of him. Everyone who had been invited attended the exhibition because this is also his profession…Bikaner House comes under the Rajasthan government, and I can only say that if we believe in democracy, there is no point in mixing politics with the creative world. Everyone should be allowed to express themselves.”

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 22, 2026

बड़ा बुज़दिल हुक्मरान है – तस्वीरों से डरता है

@raihanrvadra आपकी खींची हुई तस्वीरें मौजूदा वक्त का दस्तावेज़ हैं, एक प्रदर्शनी से तस्वीरें हटाने की कोशिश करने वाले आपकी कला को कोई नुक़सान नहीं पँहुचा सकते, आज पूरा देश आपकी तस्वीरों को देखना चाहता है।

ज़िंदाबाद रहिये…..। https://t.co/FdrBtmZEm0

— Imran Pratapgarhi (@ShayarImran) October 22, 2026

Empty walls, exposed nails and a catalogue of what was censored

The physical consequences of the removal were visible throughout the exhibition. According to ThePrint, the two rooms from which the photographs were taken down were left largely bare, with exposed nails marking where the works had hung. The remaining exhibition included wildlife photographs and abstract works, while a catalogue allowed visitors to view images that the venue would not permit on its walls.

The empty spaces have become an unavoidable reminder of what the exhibition was supposed to contain. The photographs have not disappeared, but their exclusion from the gallery changes how visitors encounter the work: the public can now see a record of the images, alongside the visible evidence that they were removed.

Vadra told India Today that curtailing artistic expression was wrong and questioned the decision to remove such a large body of work simply because it might be considered objectionable. He also said he had regarded Bikaner House as a space where artists could exhibit their work freely, having held his first exhibition there in 2021 and returned in subsequent years.

“You can’t call yourself a cultural institution or a stakeholder in the arts if you’re going to curtail freedom of expression,” he told India Today.

Vadra told ThePrint that he intended to find another venue in Delhi to display the removed photographs. The exhibition is also scheduled to travel to Bengaluru in December, where he plans to show the collection. Speaking to The Wire, he acknowledged that he anticipated possible difficulties with future venues but said he remained determined to exhibit the work in the city where the protests had taken place.

“I can’t have a show here with only wildlife, just showcasing how beautiful things are. It would’ve been dishonest to myself,” he said.

Related:

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

UN experts condemn India’s crackdown on youth-led protests, flag 7,000 detentions and alleged sexual abuse

JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual

India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis

The post Bikaner House censors 75 photographs of Delhi protests from Raihan Vadra’s exhibition, leaving empty walls behind appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case began with a mobilisation against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Das and Ranka were among those who attempted to stage the protest at Jantar Mantar after the site had been de-notified as a designated protest venue. According to The Indian Express, the group entered the site by climbing over a locked iron gate, unfurled the national flag and raised slogans before being detained.

What followed was a series of preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), culminating in the leaders’ remand to judicial custody on October 14. Their detention continued even after the defence furnished sureties, with the Special Executive Magistrate finding those sureties unacceptable and directing the two leaders to produce fresh ones.

On October 21, Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj ordered their release after they furnished personal bonds and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each and submitted written undertakings promising not to call for protests at Jantar Mantar until the site is notified as a designated protest venue in accordance with law.

The sequence raises serious questions about the use of preventive powers against political mobilisation: two leaders remained in custody after their sureties were rejected, while the subsequent order found that bonds and written undertakings could adequately secure the maintenance of peace.

पूरे देश में खुशी की लहर है क्योंकि सौरभ दास और आशुतोष रंका जेल से छूट गए हैं। https://t.co/E8kJNHXdkr

— Cockroaches of India (@CJP_for_India) October 21, 2026

All smiles https://t.co/LeTLoFtf92

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 21, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi: CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are being taken from Mandir Marg Police Station after the SEM Court has ordered their release.

They were produced before the SEM Court after 2 days in judicial custody. https://t.co/eaNnewdW13

— ANI (@ANI) October 21, 2026

Delhi: Delhi Police’s Crime Branch has issued summons to CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, directing them to appear at its Rajouri Garden office to record their statements.

(Visuals from outside the Crime Branch office) https://t.co/VBdVZx9Fla

— IANS (@ians_india) October 22, 2026

Congratulations to the entire team of @Cockroachisback!

And as always, kudos to Abhik Chimni, Pranjal, Moksha & their entire team!

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 21, 2026

A big shoutout to Advocate Abhik Chimni and his entire team, including Pranjal Abrol, Moksha Sharma , and Kartik Venu, for their invaluablesupport.

Heartfelt thanks to Advocates Abhisht Hela, Pushp Sharma and Angad for handling SEM court since day one.

Advocate Shivangi Sharma for standing by me and helping me.

Last but certainly not least, my sincere gratitude to the seniors (& their teams) in the profession who guided us with their valuable legal-inputs and instructions.

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 21, 2026

Sureties rejected, custody extended by two days

The immediate circumstances of the extended detention are central to the case. On October 19, after the initial five-day period of judicial custody ended, the Delhi Police sought a further five days of custody, alleging that the two leaders had violated peace bonds executed on October 11 by mobilising people for protests at Jantar Mantar and other non-designated locations.

The Special Executive Magistrate extended their custody by two days, until October 21, while rejecting the sureties produced by the defence. The order cited an apparent mismatch between one surety’s photograph on the bond and the photograph on their Aadhaar card. In the case of the other surety, the magistrate recorded that the person could not provide satisfactory answers to basic questions, including details of Das’s parentage and address.

The magistrate concluded that the sureties had no sufficient control over the two leaders to ensure their appearance before the court. The order also stated that the leaders had allegedly breached their earlier bonds and that their assurance that they would not repeat the conduct did not inspire confidence.

As reported by The Indian Express, the magistrate relied on police submissions concerning the likelihood of a breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. The defence, however, disputed the basis for continued detention, arguing that the two leaders had made no fresh calls for protests after October 10 and had gone to Jantar Mantar individually.

Their counsel, advocate Abhik Chimni, also questioned the rejection of the sureties and the continued detention. The defence sought their release and maintained that there was no concrete basis to conclude that they posed an ongoing threat to public safety.

The rejection of the sureties meant that the two leaders remained in judicial custody until the next hearing, despite the defence’s efforts to secure their release. The two-day extension came after the police had sought a longer period of detention.

Release comes with an undertaking not to call protests

On October 21, the police again sought a three-day extension of judicial custody, arguing that apprehensions of a breach of peace persisted in light of the leaders’ statements and subsequent conduct. The prosecution also cited remarks allegedly made by an associate while the two were being taken to Tihar Jail, claiming that the comments undermined the authority of the Special Executive Magistrate’s court. Chimni tendered an unconditional verbal apology and assured the court that such conduct would not recur.

The magistrate declined to prolong their custody, holding that the preventive measures contemplated under Section 135(3) BNSS could be adequately secured through bonds for keeping the peace, supported by the written undertakings furnished that day.

The undertakings were specific. Das and Ranka promised not to commit any breach of peace and stated that they would not make calls for protests at Jantar Mantar until the site is notified as a designated protest venue in accordance with law. They also expressed faith in the judiciary and undertook that any protest they undertook would remain within the constitutional framework.

The magistrate directed the two leaders to furnish personal bonds and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each and ordered their release after being satisfied with the sureties. A release warrant was issued to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar. Both leaders were directed to appear at every hearing and comply strictly with the conditions of their bonds and undertakings.

The matter is listed for further proceedings on October 23 at 3 PM.

The complete order may be read below:

Detailed piece may be read here.

Related:

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

UN experts condemn India’s crackdown on youth-led protests, flag 7,000 detentions and alleged sexual abuse

JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual

India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis

The post CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The findings emerge from an audit reported by The Hindu that Charchagram, a civic technology initiative, conducted by Saurav Rajput, a data scientist and alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta. The audit examined JavaScript code made publicly available by the ECINET website.

The findings assume significance amid objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over the centralisation of ECINET and the electoral roll database.

The audit identifies two forms of access control that State-wise settings governing access to enumeration forms and State Nodal Officers’ accounts, and a separate restriction concerning electoral officers in West Bengal. However, it does not establish whether these controls were enforced by the platform’s backend, whether they were used in practice or which officials, if any, were affected.

State Nodal Officers’ accounts can be disabled

The Hindustan Times reported that ECINET has a dedicated management section for State Nodal Officers (SNOs), with options to create, manage, update and disable their accounts. The section includes a disable button against each officer’s entry. The confirmation message states: “On disabling this State Nodal Officer, the user will no longer be able to access the application.”

Rajput observed that this wording indicates an account-level restriction that could prevent the officer from accessing the application, rather than merely reducing the officer’s permissions.

The publicly available code also contains the message: “View enumeration form details is not enabled for selected State”.

This indicates that the option to view enumeration form details can be enabled or disabled separately for each State. Where the feature is not enabled, officials receive this message instead of being shown the forms.

The audit therefore points to a system in which access to a particular function can be controlled State by State, while an SNO’s account can also be disabled. It does not establish whether either option was exercised against any State or officer.

Separate restriction identified for West Bengal

The audit also found a separate restriction in the code that specifically identifies West Bengal.

The SIR Phase II landing page generally provides an option for officials to view enumeration form details. However, the code examined by Rajput contained a separate exclusion for West Bengal’s EROs and AEROs, potentially preventing them from accessing these forms.

The same restriction extended to the notice-and-hearing dashboard used to track, process and dispose of notices and hearing-related actions concerning voter registration and electoral roll revision.

The audit found no equivalent State-specific exclusion for EROs and AEROs in other States.

Rajput examined the publicly served code on October 2, 6, 7 and 9. The West Bengal-specific exclusion was still present in the code retrieved on October 19.

The presence of this restriction in the code does not, by itself, establish that West Bengal’s electoral officers were actually denied access. The audit did not test the application after login or examine whether the server enforced the restriction.

The information electoral officers use for scrutiny

The enumeration form page contains information relevant to the scrutiny of voters’ records. This includes the constituency, part and serial number, the elector’s voter ID and name, details of the person who submitted the form, uploaded documents and the Booth Level Officer’s (BLO) recommendation.

The page also contains documents labelled “ERO/AERO-Document” and “Hearing-Order”. Officials can use the available options to return a form to the BLO or identify an elector as belonging to a previous SIR electoral roll.

The notice-and-hearing dashboard supports the processing of cases involving notices, hearings and electoral roll revision.

If the restrictions identified in the code were enforced, they could limit the ability of the affected officers to view information required for their work. Whether any such limitation occurred remains unverified.

How the audit examined the platform

ECINET was launched in January 2026 as the ECI’s unified digital platform for officials. It brings several services under a single login, including user management, ERONET, the Right to Information module and the Enumeration Form Tracker used during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Officials access these services through the platform’s official login. However, the login page also loads a large JavaScript file that is publicly accessible. The file contains interface labels, menu names, screen routes and application programming interface (API) paths, including information relating to functions intended for officials.

Rajput said he examined files that the website made available to the public. He did not use login credentials, access an official account or make calls to the application’s backend endpoints.

He said he first located the relevant feature on September 28. The current build was introduced on October 16, but he did not have access to earlier versions and could not establish when the features were first introduced or whether they had changed.

The audit establishes that the relevant restrictions appear in the publicly served code. It does not establish whether corresponding controls operated on the server, whether the features were activated or how they affected the functioning of the platform.

The findings have not been independently verified by the reporting newspaper, and the ECI did not respond to its questionnaire.

West Bengal’s SIR and the dispute over voter records

The access restrictions identified in the code concern functions central to West Bengal’s contested SIR exercise, which began on November 4, 2025.

The draft electoral roll, published on December 16, excluded 7.8% of the electorate recorded before the revision, according to the report. The ECI subsequently flagged another 1.36 crore electors for what it described as “logical discrepancies”.

Hearings were delayed amid a dispute between the ECI and the West Bengal government over the rank of officials appointed as EROs.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution and entrusted the hearings to judicial officers. It asked the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to make serving and former judicial officers available to examine pending claims.

On February 24, the Court noted that approximately 250 judicial officers had been assigned around 50 lakh cases, a workload that could take up to 80 days. It expanded the pool of judicial officers and directed that only documents submitted on or before February 14 would be considered.

The Court also placed responsibility on EROs and AEROs to satisfy the presiding judicial officers regarding the specified documents.

The judicial officers completed their work on April 6. Of the 1.36 crore cases involving logical discrepancies, approximately 22 lakh names were removed, according to the report.

Millions of appeals remained pending

The final electoral roll was published on February 28, with approximately 10% of the pre-SIR electorate removed. Supplementary lists continued to be issued until a day before the April Assembly elections because cases involving logical discrepancies were still being processed.

According to the report, 27.1 lakh people were ultimately disenfranchised. Around 38 lakh appeals remained pending before 19 appellate tribunals as the elections approached. These included challenges by people whose names had been excluded and objections to the inclusion of other electors.

The tribunals were not yet fully established at that stage. During the preceding two months, several tribunal judges had also complained that the ECI’s portal and backend processes were obstructing their work.

The audit does not establish that the access restrictions it identified caused voter exclusions, delayed the hearings or contributed to the pending appeals. Its findings concern the presence of controls in the website’s code, rather than their actual use or impact.

Questions over EROs’ statutory responsibilities

On February 21, Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee alleged that EROs in West Bengal could no longer monitor AEROs’ progress on ECINET during the revision.

He argued that this violated Sections 13B and 13C of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which deal with the appointment and responsibilities of EROs and AEROs, including the preparation of electoral rolls and the placement of AEROs under EROs’ control.

Supreme Court advocate Harshit Anand said that, if implemented, the reported restriction could conflict with the Supreme Court’s directions.

He explained that the Court’s February orders placed primary responsibility for document verification on EROs and AEROs, with judicial officers subsequently examining their reports. If electoral officers were denied access to forms and claims, this could also obstruct the judicial scrutiny of the cases.

These concerns depend on whether the reported restrictions were actually applied and whether they affected the work of electoral officers.

What the findings establish

The audit identifies State-wise controls over enumeration form access and SNO accounts, alongside a separate restriction in the code concerning West Bengal’s EROs and AEROs. It raises questions about how access to ECINET’s functions is configured and administered during electoral roll revision.

However, the audit does not establish when the restrictions originated, whether they were activated, whether the platform’s backend enforced them, which officers may have been affected or whether they altered the processing of voter records.

Further information about the platform’s backend operations and the permissions assigned to electoral officials would be needed to establish whether the restrictions were applied in practice and what consequences, if any, followed.

The central question remains whether the access controls identified in the code were merely present as system features or were actually used during West Bengal’s SIR process.

Auto-generated Form 7s used for deletions without written ECI guidelines

Moreover, thousands of names have been deleted from electoral rolls during Phases II and III of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) using Form 7s automatically generated by the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ERONet software and digitally signed by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). However, no written communication or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) explaining this process has been shared with State election authorities, according to officials cited by The Hindu. 

The practice has been reported in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal, including cases involving voters flagged for unresolved “logical discrepancies” or “no mapping”. More than 87,000 names in Uttar Pradesh and over 95,000 in Uttarakhand were reportedly deleted through this method. Under the ECI’s Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2024, there is no provision for an ERO to file Form 7. The form is intended for an eligible elector to object to an entry or seek deletion of a name. In cases of death, it may also be submitted by a family member, a local elector or a Booth Level Officer (BLO). The rules prescribe procedures for receiving, checking and displaying Form 7 applications, as well as cross-verification in specified cases. Although the ERO has the authority to delete a name found ineligible after the prescribed process, the manual does not provide a general procedure for auto-generating Form 7s in this manner. 

The manual mentions auto-generated Form 7s only in the context of verifying Photo Similar Entries, where field verification by the BLO and the required signature are necessary before the forms can be processed. The ECI had not responded to the query on the absence of written instructions, raising questions about the procedure followed for these deletions and the guidelines under which State election authorities were operating.

The TCS connection and VFD’s questions

The relationship between ECINet and Tata Consultancy Services is raised in Vote for Democracy’s statement on the “ECINet-TCS nexus”. The statement says TCS has operated ERONet 2.0 since 2023 and describes its role in the electoral software and database framework. It also raises allegations concerning changes to Form 6 and electoral officers’ access rights. These remain claims requiring responses from the ECI and TCS. 

VFD says questions sent to TCS in October–November 2025 received no reply. Its present statement asks who proposes, reviews and approves access changes; whether TCS administers permissions; what access Bengal’s judicial officers received; when independent audits occurred; and what oversight the Election Commissioners exercise. It also seeks information about external database connections and their monitoring. 

The VFD’s statement titled “Vote for Democracy Statement on the ECINET-TCS Nexus: Asking Some Questions” can be accessed from here

The unanswered question of authority

However, reports of repeated objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the ECI ordered a review of ECINet by a committee headed by the senior deputy election commissioner, with an independent IIT/IIIT expert, to check compliance with electoral laws and rules. The commissioners had also objected to a work-allocation change affecting oversight of the electoral IT system. The ECI said that change was never implemented and maintained that field officers’ access to ECINet matched their statutory powers.

The questions placed the findings alongside objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to the centralisation of ECINet and the electoral roll database.

In September 26, 2026 statement, Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh said that the ECI’s response did not directly deny the reported findings. He questioned ECINet’s centralisation, changes to Form 6 and voter deletions, and said a technical review would not address these concerns. He demanded suspension of SIR and the CEC’s resignation or prosecution.

STATEMENT OF SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH, MP, GENERAL SECRETARY (COMMUNICATIONS), ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

September 8, 2026 https://t.co/aABG0evy0o

— INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) September 8, 2026

The immediate questions are concrete. Who authorised the Bengal exception? Was it used during verification or appeals? Who can disable State-level access? Are such decisions recorded, reviewed and communicated to the officers concerned?

The continuing presence of these controls after public objections makes a documented explanation necessary. Electoral officers’ responsibilities depend on access to the records they must examine. The ECI must explain how ECINet’s permissions support those responsibilities, who controls changes and whether any restriction prevented officers from carrying out their work.

Related:

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Karnataka Form 7 Row: 91,278 deletion requests and bulk filing complaints—where was the ECI’s check?

September 26 ECI Press Note: Does it not render SIR redundant?

The post Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a judgment dated October 5, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya set aside an intimation issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, directing Meta Platforms Inc. to block the Facebook page of Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited. The Court found that the officer was below the minimum rank prescribed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and that the company had not been furnished a copy of the notice or informed of the grounds for the blocking.

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta to restore the Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. It further directed that any future intimation issued by an authorised officer seeking to block content on the page must be shared with the company immediately after being sent to the intermediary.

Blocking notice issued by an officer below prescribed rank

The petition was filed by Haryana 24 News Network Private Limited after its verified Facebook page was blocked in India on August 21, 2026, pursuant to an intimation issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The company argued that it had received neither prior notice nor a copy of the intimation sent to Meta, leaving it unaware of the reasons and material underlying the blocking action. Its directors learnt of the restriction through a notification on Facebook stating that access to the page had been restricted in India pursuant to a notice from the government or law enforcement authorities.

The State submitted that one of the company’s directors, Mohit Verma, was an accused in a criminal case registered under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the State, he had allegedly been posting videos and sending messages through the Facebook page to intimidate the victim and witnesses in the case. The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, had consequently issued the intimation directing Meta to disable access to the page.

The State maintained that the notice complied with the 2021 Rules because the Superintendent of Police had been authorised by the state government as a delegatee. It also argued that the company could seek restoration of its page through Meta’s grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the Rules.

The High Court rejected the State’s defence on the question of the officer’s authority. Examining Rule 3(1)(d), Justice Dahiya noted that a reasoned written intimation seeking the removal or disabling of unlawful content must be issued by an officer authorised by the appropriate government. In cases involving the police administration, the Rules specifically require the authorised officer to be of a rank not below Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), with specific authorisation from the government.

The Court found that the intimation in the present case had been issued by the Superintendent of Police, who was concededly below the prescribed rank. It held that where statutory rules specify the minimum rank of the officer empowered to exercise a particular authority, that power cannot be delegated to an officer of a lower rank.

The State had failed to identify any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation or refer to an order authorising the Superintendent of Police to issue the intimation. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the officer had validly exercised delegated authority. Describing the action as an arbitrary exercise of power, the Court held that the intimation dated August 21 was without jurisdiction and was not required to have been acted upon by Meta.

“In the instant case, the intimation to the intermediary/sixth respondent for blocking access to the petitioner’s Facebook page, dated 21.08.2026, has been sent by the Superintendent of Police, who is concededly below the rank of DIGP. Accordingly, it is in violation of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules requiring that the authorised officer shall not be below the rank of DIGP. Also, once an officer not below a particular rank has been prescribed as the empowered officer under the statutory rules to issue the intimation, there cannot be delegation of such power to any other officer of a lower rank. Therefore, the contention by learned State counsel that the Superintendent of Police has been delegated the power to issue the intimation, cannot be accepted being unsustainable in law. He has not been able to show any provision in the Rules permitting such delegation, nor has any reference been made in the intimation to the order delegating the power. Thus, it is evident that the Superintendent of Police usurped the power not vested in him in issuing the said intimation in flagrant violation of statutory provisions; this is sheer highhandedness and arbitrary exercise of power.” (Para 6.3)

The Court also noted that the Rules require such intimations to undergo monthly review by an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned government to ensure that they remain necessary, proportionate and consistent with the law. The State had not demonstrated that the intimation in this case had undergone the prescribed review.

“It further needs a mention that in terms of clause (d) to sub-rule (1) to Rule 3, the Government is required to review every month all intimations issued to intermediaries to ensure that the same are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the provisions of Section 79(3)(b) of the 2000 Act. It has also not been shown that any such review was carried out with respect to the intimation issued in the instant case as more than a month has lapsed since it was issued. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the intimation, dated 21.08.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction, and was not required to be acted upon by the sixth respondent.” (Para 6.3)

Withholding blocking notice undermines natural justice

The judgment also addressed a critical procedural question: whether an affected user can be expected to challenge a blocking decision without being given the notice that led to it. The Court examined the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) of the 2021 Rules, which requires intermediaries to publish the contact details of their Grievance Officers and provide a mechanism through which users can raise complaints. The Rules prescribe timelines for acknowledging and resolving grievances.

Justice Dahiya observed that although the Rules do not expressly provide for a hearing before the government sends a blocking intimation to an intermediary, the absence of such an express requirement does not dispense with the obligation to disclose the intimation to the affected user.

The Court clarified that whether a pre-decisional hearing was necessary was not an issue before it, since the petitioner had not challenged that aspect of the Rules. Its consideration was instead focused on the right to a meaningful post-decisional hearing through the intermediary’s grievance redressal mechanism. Such a hearing, the Court reasoned, would be ineffective unless the affected user knew that an intimation had been issued, what it contained and what material had been relied upon to justify the action. Without this information, a user would be unable to defend itself or effectively contest the restriction.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), the High Court reiterated that the core requirements of natural justice include the right to a fair hearing and the right against bias. The Court observed that procedures established by law must be fair and reasonable and cannot disregard these fundamental requirements. It held that the obligation to furnish the intimation must be read into Rule 3(2), even though the provision does not expressly require the government or its agency to notify the affected user before sending the notice to the intermediary.

“Although sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 does not explicitly lay down the requirement for the Government or its agency to notify the user/person responsible for uploading the data or information on the social media page before sending the intimation, it is an essential obligation ingrained in the principles of natural justice and has to be read into the Rule. Accordingly, a copy of the intimation must be furnished to the user when it is sent to the intermediary. This will make the procedure of sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 compliant of the primary tenets of natural justice and constitutionally valid. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been furnished a copy of the intimation dated 21.08.2026, either by the Superintendent of Police or the intermediary and has been kept completely in dark about the whole exercise. In such a situation, approaching the grievance redressal mechanism by it will be a futile exercise and seriously impair its right to defend. Therefore, this Court finds no justifiable ground to relegate the petitioner to the Grievance Officer for resolution of grievance against blocking of its Facebook page.” (Para 6.4)

In the present case, neither the police nor Meta had furnished the company with a copy of the intimation. The Court found that the petitioner had been kept completely in the dark about the blocking exercise, making it unreasonable to direct it to approach Meta’s Grievance Officer as the sole avenue of redress. Without access to the notice and the grounds underlying the action, the grievance redressal process would be futile and would seriously impair the company’s ability to defend itself, the Court held.

Facebook page ordered to be restored

Setting aside the August 21 intimation, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police to instruct Meta to restore the company’s Facebook page to its original status within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court further directed that if the government identifies information, data or communication links on the page that are prohibited by law and being used for illegal activities, any intimation issued by the authorised officer to the intermediary must be furnished to the petitioner immediately after it is sent.

The ruling underscores that the power to restrict access to online content must be exercised by officers authorised under the statutory framework and in accordance with the safeguards prescribed by law. It also makes clear that the right to challenge a blocking action cannot be meaningful if the affected user is denied access to the very notice on which that action is based. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

The complete judgement may be read below:

Related:

The State Wants the Delete Button: India’s new architecture of digital censorship

Synthetic Content, Three-Hour Compliance and the Risk of Over-Removal: Analysing the IT rules amendments

How big tech is profiting from Hindutva hate music

Meta’s policy shift: Fuelling hate in an era of LGBTQIA+ inclusion

From fact-checking to chaos: How meta’s new moderation model risks eroding trust and democracy

The post Punjab & Haryana HC: Users must be given blocking notices immediately; sets aside Facebook page takedown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a statement issued on October 23, the experts urged the Indian government to “respect, protect and fulfil the right to peacefully protest” and ensure justice for violations reported during recent demonstrations and previous protests. Their intervention comes amid reports of police action against demonstrators in New Delhi and other parts of the country, including protests against voter-roll deletions under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and government decisions concerning education.

The experts warned that the crackdown reflects a broader pattern of restrictions on dissent, including excessive force, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and the targeting of student activists.

“We have repeatedly alerted the Indian authorities to undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and the targeting of student activists, amongst others,” they said.

Over 7,000 reportedly detained; concerns over gender-based violence

The UN experts referred to reports that more than 7,000 young people, journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and political party members were recently detained in New Delhi and transferred to detention centres far from the sites of protest. Their phones were allegedly seized and protest-related material deleted. Most were reportedly released after around 24 hours, including protest leaders.

Despite the reportedly peaceful nature of the demonstrations, police allegedly used force against unarmed students, including lathi charges, while preventing thousands of others from joining the protests.

The experts also expressed particular concern over reports of injuries, ill-treatment and sexual violence against women protesters, as well as other forms of gender-based abuse during demonstrations and related detentions. They called for authorities to address the gender-specific consequences of restrictions on peaceful assembly and the reprisals faced by protesters.

The statement links the demonstrations to widespread concerns over government decisions affecting education and the SIR exercise, which has reportedly resulted in voter-roll deletions affecting approximately 130 million people, including members of Muslim, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. The experts called on the government to uphold the democratic right of students and other citizens to assemble peacefully and express their grievances without fear of violence or retaliation.

Section 163 of BNSS flagged over restrictions on assembly

The experts also raised concerns over the reported use of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to impose broad restrictions on public gatherings, suspend public transportation and enforce internet shutdowns. Section 163 empowers executive magistrates to issue orders to prevent or address specified threats, including dangers to human life, safety and public tranquillity. Its use to impose sweeping restrictions on assemblies raises questions about whether such measures meet the legal requirements governing limitations on peaceful protest.

The UN experts stressed that restrictions on peaceful assembly must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. They warned that the reported actions implicate India’s international obligations concerning freedom of peaceful assembly and expression, personal liberty and security, and the right to defend human rights.

“We call on the authorities to immediately cease the use of excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans, and refrain from the misuse of digital surveillance, including through biometrics, and internet disruptions,” they said.

The intervention highlights concern not only over physical force and detention but also over the use of surveillance and communication restrictions to impede mobilisation and the dissemination of information during protests.

Experts recall March detentions and alleged enforced disappearances

The statement also recalled the reported detention of 10 student and labour-rights activists in New Delhi in March. According to the information cited by the experts, plain-clothes police officers detained the activists, held them incommunicado for more than 24 hours and allegedly subjected them to ill-treatment, threats, coercion and forced declarations.

They were reportedly released after habeas corpus proceedings were initiated. Such proceedings allow courts to examine the legality of a person’s detention and provide a judicial remedy against unlawful deprivation of liberty. By invoking these earlier incidents alongside the recent protests, the experts situated the reported abuses within a wider pattern of concerns over police conduct and the treatment of activists.

They called for an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the conduct of law enforcement personnel and affiliated forces, demanding accountability, justice and reparations for victims.

“The Government must guarantee non-recurrence and uphold the democratic right of students and others to assemble and express grievances,” the experts said.

Experts across 16 human rights mandates issue warning

The signatories include independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, among them special rapporteurs on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of expression, the independence of judges and lawyers, education, minority rights, privacy, torture, violence against women and human rights defenders. The statement also carries the support of members of two working groups: the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

Among those signing the statement are Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; and Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls.

Their statement places the reported treatment of protesters under international human rights scrutiny and calls on the Indian government to respond through investigation, accountability and guarantees against recurrence. Their central demand is that peaceful protest must not be met with disproportionate force, indiscriminate detention or measures that effectively prevent citizens from exercising their democratic rights.

The complete statement may be read here.

Related:

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post UN experts condemn India’s crackdown on youth-led protests, flag 7,000 detentions and alleged sexual abuse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The timing makes the decision particularly alarming. The country is already witnessing opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, amid concerns over the exclusion of eligible voters. The Census questionnaire, meanwhile, seeks information extending beyond conventional demographic particulars, including Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile phone details, bank-account information, and the dates and places of birth of parents.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here, here, here and here.

The government has offered administrative convenience as a justification for widening the workforce. But a shortage of government personnel cannot explain away the dangers of unchecked discretion over who gets to collect citizens’ private information. Nor can assurances of data security substitute for transparent rules that prevent the exercise from being weaponised. The Census is a nationwide exercise through which the State collects sensitive information from millions of households. Expanding access to that information through an opaque and discretionary recruitment process, without publicly establishing robust safeguards against political interference and data misuse, raises serious questions about who the government intends to empower and for what purpose.

A backdoor for the Sangh Parivar?

The amended rules permit teachers from government, local authority, aided and unaided private educational institutions, as well as teachers associated with societies and trusts, to be appointed as enumerators. Clerks and officials from government departments, public sector undertakings, banks, companies and other institutions are also eligible. The third category allows the appointment of “any person” considered suitable by the State government or Union Territory administration.

The last provision is especially troubling. It leaves considerable discretion with the appointing authorities without specifying, in the notification, sufficiently clear criteria for eligibility, political neutrality or independent scrutiny.

On October 17, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of turning Census recruitment into an employment scheme for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers. In a post on X, Ramesh drew attention to an RSS training camp held in Belgaum from July 10 to 12, 2026, which he said had focused on Census 2027.

He also questioned the composition of the Union Home Ministry’s High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes, constituted on May 26, and its October 14 call for public inputs from Indian and foreign organisations. Linking these developments to the October 16 notification, Ramesh alleged that the government was preparing to recruit thousands of RSS-BJP workers under what he described as a “Rozgar Guarantee Yojana”. His warning was unequivocal: “. Just like with the SIR, dangerous manipulations will be carried out in the Census data as well.”

मोदी सरकार ने अब जनगणना 2027 के लिए गणनाकर्मियों के रूप में नियुक्त किए जा सकने वाले लोगों का दायरा बढ़ा दिया है। इसके पीछे काफी गड़बड़झाला है।

10 से 12 जुलाई 2026 के दौरान RSS ने बेलगाम में अपने कार्यकर्ताओं के लिए एक बड़ा प्रशिक्षण शिविर आयोजित किया था, जिसका एकमात्र एजेंडा जनगणना 2027 था।

केंद्रीय गृह मंत्रालय द्वारा 26 मई 2026 को गठित डेमोग्राफिक बदलावों पर उच्चस्तरीय समिति ने अब देश की डेमोग्राफी में हो रहे बदलावों को लेकर आम जनता के साथ-साथ भारतीय और विदेशी संगठनों से भी सुझाव मांगे हैं। इस समिति में उच्चस्तरीय केवल एक ही बात है-इसके सदस्यों का RSS से जुड़े संगठनों और लोगों से संबंध। इसलिए हम जानते हैं कि ये सुझाव कहां से आएंगे।

16 अक्टूबर 2026 को जारी जनगणना के नोटिफिकेशन को 10 से 12 जुलाई 2026 के RSS के प्रशिक्षण शिविर और 14अक्टूबर 2026 को डेमोग्राफी में बदलावों पर बनी समिति द्वारा सुझाव मांगने के संदर्भ में देखा जाना चाहिए।

यह साफ है कि यह हजारों RSS/BJP कार्यकर्ताओं के लिए एक रोजगार गारंटी योजना है। इससे पहले ही बिगाड़ी जा चुकी जनगणना की प्रक्रिया और भी दूषित होगी। एक और संस्था को बर्बाद किया जा रहा है। SIR की तरह जनगणना के आंकड़ों में भी खतरनाक तरीके से हेरफेर किया जाएगा।

PM-HM की जोड़ी के षड्यंत्रकारी मंसूबों की कोई सीमा नहीं है।

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) October 17, 2026

The CPI(M) has raised similar concerns. In a statement posted on X, party leader M.A. Baby warned that the amended rules could facilitate the entry of Sangh Parivar-linked individuals into the Census workforce, exposing citizens’ personal information to potential political misuse. He demanded that the amendments be withdrawn and an all-party consultation on Census methodology be convened immediately.

The Union Home Ministry’s amendments to the Census Rules are not as innocuous as they might seem at first glance.

The newly notified amendments open up enumerator roles to private school teachers, members of “institutions, societies and trusts,” and any person deemed “suitable” by the concerned State Government or Union territory administration. This is a means of ensuring backdoor entry to the Sangh Parivar to access the private data of Indian citizens.

On 24 August, I had submitted a memo on behalf of CPI(M) to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner demanding that personal details sought in the notified questionnaire for the second phase, such as Aadhaar, voter ID, passport, mobile number, details of bank accounts, and religion and birth place of parents, not be collected. The memo also called for strict safeguards against linking Census data with other databases.

Deploying Sangh Parivar agents to collect individual details that do not serve the Census purpose will weaponise the Census exercise for citizenship determination and electoral exclusion. The fact that the Modi government is going ahead with this in the midst of a nationwide upheaval against the SIR process shows its blatant disregard for public sentiment and constitutional norms.

This cannot be allowed. The notified amendments must be withdrawn, and an all-party consultation on Census methodology must be held immediately. The Census must not become the next SIR in the hands of Modi – Amit Shah – Mohan Bhagwat.

— M A Baby (@MABABYCPIM) October 19, 2026

These allegations expose a fundamental problem with the government’s approach. When a ruling establishment has repeatedly been accused of using state institutions to advance its political agenda, widening access to sensitive household information through loosely defined recruitment criteria cannot be treated as an innocent bureaucratic exercise. The issue is not merely who gets a temporary job; it is about who is entrusted with collecting intimate details about people’s identities, families, documents and circumstances, and what prevents that access from being exploited.

Why does the Census need so much personal information?

The expanded recruitment rules are only one part of a larger problem: the growing volume of sensitive information being sought from households. As previously discussed, the 40-question Population Enumeration questionnaire includes several data fields not included in the 2011 Census. These include nationality, the spouse’s name, parents’ particulars, permanent residential address, digital literacy and the place of COVID-19 vaccination. Respondents are also asked about bank accounts and whether they possess Aadhaar, voter ID, a passport, a driving licence and a mobile phone.

The CPI(M) had already raised objections to this questionnaire. In a memorandum submitted to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner on August 24, M.A. Baby demanded that details such as Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers, bank-account information, religion and parents’ places of birth not be collected. The memorandum also sought strict safeguards against linking Census data with other databases.

These are questions the government cannot evade. What is the precise statistical necessity of collecting each additional data field? Who will have access to it? How long will it be retained? What prevents it from being linked to databases maintained for entirely different purposes?

A Census official told The Hindu that data collected through enumerators’ mobile applications would be centralised and deleted from the enumerators’ devices after their work was completed. The official also claimed that adequate checks were in place to protect privacy. That assurance does not answer the central questions. Deleting data from an enumerator’s phone does not establish who can access the central database, what safeguards prevent unauthorised sharing, or whether the information can be linked to other government records. Centralisation is not, by itself, a guarantee of security.

From SIR to Census: the danger of turning data into a tool of exclusion

The controversy cannot be separated from the political context in which it is unfolding. There are also reasons to question the political neutrality of the data-collection process itself. The Hindu reported in June 2026 that enumerators in Rajasthan had allegedly been instructed not to select certain government scheme-related responses that could reflect poorly on the government. The reported examples included open defecation, the use of wood or dung cakes as household fuel, and access to tap water. If government personnel are being instructed to avoid recording responses that might embarrass the ruling establishment, the integrity of the Census is already at stake. A national statistical exercise cannot be permitted to become a public-relations exercise for the government.

The shortage-of-staff argument is no excuse

The government has defended the expansion on practical grounds. According to The Hindu, around 34 lakh enumerators will be needed for the Population Enumeration phase. The exercise is scheduled for February 2027 across much of the country, while enumeration in poll-bound Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Goa is scheduled from December 1, 2026, to January 4, 2027. School examinations, Assembly elections and the deployment of government teachers for electoral duties have added to the administrative pressure.

Former Deputy Registrar General of India K. Narayanan Unni told The Hindu that the move appeared to reflect a shortage of government schoolteachers and personnel from government-aided schools. But administrative pressure cannot justify an unrestricted expansion of the workforce without adequate accountability. The previous practice of relying largely on government schoolteachers, revenue officials and other public personnel was not without its own shortcomings. Yet the move to widen recruitment demands a clear explanation of how standards of impartiality, confidentiality and accountability will be maintained.

The legal challenges surrounding the deployment of private schoolteachers further complicate the picture. The Hindu reported that the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed two Haryana government communications seeking details of teachers for Census duties on October 16. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had granted interim protection to associations representing more than 500 private unaided and minority schools in Maharashtra against notices, appointment orders and coercive action relating to Census deployment.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post Who will collect India’s data? Modi-led government opens census to private individuals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report, dated September 27, 2026, was prepared by Sabir Ahamed, Souptik Halder and Ashin Chakraborty. It analyses the Absent, Shifted and Dead (ASD) lists published by the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, examining removals by constituency, district, polling booth, gender, age and recorded reason.

Its main finding is the difference between the hills and the Imphal Valley. The hill constituencies recorded an average of 79 removals per booth, compared with 31.2 in the valley. Churachandpur district alone accounted for 38,264 names, nearly one-fourth of the state total.

The authors do not conclude that any community was deliberately targeted. They identify places and categories requiring closer verification, particularly because the records do not distinguish people displaced since May 2023 from those who moved voluntarily.

What the report examined

The study covers all 60 constituencies and analyses records from 3,014 polling booths across Manipur’s 16 districts. The statewide average was 52.6 removals per booth, rounded to 53 in the report’s summary.

The authors checked the constituency files against the combined state file. They report that the records matched name for name and that each constituency’s total agreed with the sum of its available booth records.

However, 27 booth records in seven constituencies could not be downloaded from the election website. These included 15 records in Tamei, four each in Chingai and Tadubi, and one each in Phungyar, Ukhrul, Karong and Kangpokpi.

The figures for these seven constituencies are therefore lower bounds: they count the available records and may understate the full number. All seven constituencies are in the hill group.

The report also states that the authors did not have the complete electoral rolls, including voter totals by constituency, booth, gender or community. It consequently provides counts and averages per booth, rather than the percentage of registered voters removed. It makes no comparison with winning margins or turnout because the necessary electoral rolls and 2022 result sheets were unavailable to the study.

Hill constituencies account for 1.05 lakh names

The report divides Manipur into three geographical groups: 39 valley constituencies, 20 hill constituencies and Jiribam, which it treats separately.

The valley group covers Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur, Thoubal and Kakching. The hill group covers Chandel, Churachandpur, Kamjong, Kangpokpi, Noney, Pherzawl, Senapati, Tamenglong, Tengnoupal and Ukhrul.

Nineteen of the 20 hill constituencies are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Kangpokpi is a general constituency situated in a hill district. Together, the hill constituencies accounted for 1,05,294 removals across 1,332 booths—66.4% of the state total. The 39 valley constituencies accounted for 51,106 removals across 1,640 booths, or 32.2%. Jiribam recorded 2,277 removals across 42 booths, accounting for the remaining 1.4%. The average number removed per hill booth was about two-and-a-half times the valley average. Jiribam’s average was 54.2.

These figures describe the distribution of recorded removals. Without the total electorate in each group, they do not establish the comparative probability of an individual hill or valley voter being removed.

Churachandpur accounts for nearly one-fourth of removals

Churachandpur district recorded 38,264 removals across its four constituencies: Saikot, Churachandpur, Henglep and Singhat. Its average of 132.4 removals per booth was the highest among the 16 districts. The district’s total exceeded the combined 33,896 removals recorded in Imphal East and Imphal West, which together contain 23 constituencies.

Among the other hill districts, Tamenglong recorded 10,973 removals, Kangpokpi 10,425, Ukhrul 10,050 and Senapati 7,689. Pherzawl recorded 6,732, Chandel 6,672, Tengnoupal 5,228, Noney 4,759 and Kamjong 4,502. In the valley, Imphal West recorded 17,187 removals and Imphal East 16,709. Thoubal recorded 6,957, Bishnupur 6,279 and Kakching 3,974.

The district comparison shows variation within the hills as well. Noney averaged 91.5 removals per booth, followed by Pherzawl at 86.3 and Chandel at 83.4. Senapati’s average was substantially lower, at 34.2. Kakching had the lowest district average, at 26 removals per booth. Bishnupur and Thoubal followed at 26.3 and 26.6 respectively.

Saikot records the highest constituency total

Saikot had the largest number of removals among all 60 constituencies: 14,152 across 84 booths. It also had the highest average, at 168.5 removals per booth.

Churachandpur constituency followed with 9,381 removals, Henglep with 8,130, Tamenglong with 7,000, Chandel with 6,672 and Singhat with 6,601. Ukhrul recorded 6,382, Tengnoupal 5,228, Nungba 4,759 and Thanlon 4,696. The ten constituencies with the highest removal totals were all in the hill group.

The ranking changes when measured per booth. After Saikot, Henglep averaged 135.5 removals, Singhat 117.9, Thanlon 114.5, Churachandpur 105.4 and Tamenglong 104.5.

Wangkhei stood out in the valley. It recorded 3,756 removals across 50 booths, averaging 75.1 per booth—more than twice the valley average and the eleventh-highest constituency average statewide. At the other end, Singjamei recorded the smallest total, at 671 names. Hiyanglam recorded 692 and Sugnoo 848. Thongju had the lowest average per booth, at 19, followed by Hiyanglam at 19.2 and Moirang at 19.6.

“Permanently shifted” is the most common recorded reason

The ASD records classify removals under four reasons. “Permanently Shifted” accounted for 72,473 names, or 45.7% of the total. Death accounted for 43,000 names, or 27.1%. Another 35,810 names, or 22.6%, were classified as “Untraceable/Absent”. The remaining 7,394, or approximately 4.7%, were recorded as already enrolled elsewhere.

These are the reasons entered in the records. The study does not independently establish the circumstances of every person listed under them. The geographical differences were substantial. In the valley, death accounted for 43.2% of removals, permanent shifting for 35.8%, absence or inability to trace the voter for 16.6%, and enrolment elsewhere for 4.4%.

In the hills, permanent shifting accounted for 50.4%, absence or inability to trace the voter for 25.7%, death for 19.1%, and enrolment elsewhere for 4.9%. Taken together, shifting and absence accounted for about 76% of hill removals, compared with approximately 52% in the valley.

The authors also found that constituencies recording more removals per booth generally had a larger share attributed to shifting and a smaller share attributed to death. They explicitly state that this relationship does not explain why the removals occurred.

Recorded reasons differ between constituencies

Nungba had the highest proportion of removals attributed to permanent shifting: 3,359 of its 4,759 names, or 70.6%. Tamenglong followed at 69.5%, Thanlon at 67.9%, Ukhrul at 67.1% and Tamei at 63.7%.

Death accounted for the highest share in Lamsang, at 62.9%, followed by Konthoujam at 62.4%, Patsoi at 62.1% and Thongju at 61.8%. Thanga had the highest proportion recorded as untraceable or absent: 675 of 1,087 names, or 62.1%. The corresponding shares were 48.6% in Uripok, 47.7% in Wangkhei and 44.6% in Tengnoupal.

Saikot recorded 5,611 names under this category, representing 39.6% of its removals. Its other entries comprised 5,242 permanently shifted voters, 2,839 deaths and 460 cases of enrolment elsewhere. Moirang had the highest proportion recorded as already enrolled elsewhere, at 21.1%, involving 199 names. Heirok followed at 12.7%, Mao at 11.2% and Uripok at 10.1%.

The report cautions that a high percentage within a constituency’s removals does not necessarily mean a large number of people. Both the count and its share need to be read together.

Women form the majority in every constituency

The records contain 88,799 women, 69,871 men and seven persons recorded under the “Other” gender category. Women constituted 55.96% of all names counted, while men constituted 44.03%. Women formed the majority in every constituency. Their share ranged from 51.1% in Patsoi to 68.8% in Wabgai. Other constituencies with high female shares included Bishenpur at 68%, Khangabok at 66.7%, Lilong at 65.6% and Wangjing Tentha at 64.3%. Thoubal and Keirao each recorded 64.2%.

At district level, women accounted for 64.1% of removals in Kakching, 63.5% in Thoubal and 62.9% in Noney. The female share was 58.4% in the valley, 54.8% in the hills and 54.6% in Jiribam.

The authors make a specific qualification: because the study lacks the gender composition of the full electorate, it cannot establish whether women faced a higher removal rate than men. It establishes that more women than men appear in the removal records.

Women’s removals are more often linked to shifting

The recorded reasons also differ by gender. Permanent shifting accounted for 52.4% of women’s removals, compared with 37.1% of men’s removals. Viewed across the entire permanent-shifting category, women accounted for 64.2% of those listed.

Death showed the opposite pattern. It accounted for 35.3% of men’s removals and 20.6% of women’s removals. Absence or inability to trace the voter accounted for 22.3% of women’s removals and 22.9% of men’s. Enrolment elsewhere accounted for approximately 4.7% in both groups. The report further records that 46,786 of the 88,799 women—about 53%—were listed against a husband’s name rather than a father’s.

The authors identify marriage-related changes of residence as an issue requiring attention when a woman’s enrolment moves between two places. However, the records do not establish how many women were removed specifically because of marriage or how many subsequently failed to secure enrolment at their new address.

The report does not claim that these figures demonstrate different treatment of women by election officers.

People aged 30–44 form the largest age group

People aged 30–44 accounted for the largest number of removals, at 57,103. They were followed by those aged 45–59, at 38,408. The records also included 25,086 people aged 60–74, 19,600 aged 75 or above, and 18,480 aged 18–29.

The statewide median age was 46. In the valley it was 48, compared with 45 in the hills and 44 in Jiribam. People aged 60 or above accounted for approximately 34% of valley removals, compared with 26% in the hills. The report connects this difference with the higher proportion of death-related removals in the valley.

Its age charts show that removals among older people were more often attributed to death, while those among younger people were more often attributed to shifting.

One-tenth of booths account for 36% of removals

The removals were concentrated in a relatively small number of booths. The most affected tenth—roughly 300 booths—accounted for 36% of all names counted. The most affected quarter accounted for 62%. The median booth recorded 32 removals, below the statewide average of 52.6. A total of 97 booths recorded at least 200 removals each.

Under the new 2026 booth numbering, Leijangphai in Thanlon recorded the highest count, at 426 names. Permanent shifting accounted for 96% of its removals. Hamleikhong Hundung in Ukhrul followed with 412, of which 84% were attributed to shifting. In Saikot, Tuibong (S.W.-II) recorded 396 removals and Khopuibung 386; untraceable or absent voters accounted for 84% and 75% respectively.

Wangkhei’s booth 12, listed as Kabo Leikai Nongpok in the report, recorded 369 removals, with 81% classified as untraceable or absent. Sadim in Karong also recorded 369, with 86% under that category. Kaimai in Tamei recorded 366 removals, 92% classified as untraceable or absent. Ukhrul (E-2) recorded 335 and Azuram in Tamei 324, with every removal at both attributed to permanent shifting.

Changed booth numbers affect comparisons

The report warns that booth numbers changed in 29 constituencies. Researchers cannot assume that a booth carrying a particular number before revision corresponds to the booth with the same number afterwards.

Across the records, approximately 62% retained their old booth number. The report therefore presents separate tables using the old and new numbering.

This distinction changes the highest booth total. Under the old numbering, Saikot’s part 49 recorded 446 removals—the largest count in that table. Its records are associated with new parts 53 and 54, and 78% were classified as untraceable.

Similarly, old part 78 in Churachandpur recorded 373 removals distributed across new parts 86 and 87.

The authors include both systems so that verification can identify the original polling area and avoid misleading comparisons caused by renumbering or the division of records.

Displacement cannot be separated from ordinary migration

The report places particular emphasis on displacement since May 2023. A person staying in a relief camp or another district may be recorded as shifted or untraceable at the original address, even when the departure was involuntary.

The source data does not identify displacement as a separate category. The study therefore cannot determine how many entries marked permanently shifted or untraceable concern displaced people.

This limitation is central to its findings. The concentration of removals in hill constituencies, together with their high proportion of shifting and absence entries, identifies where verification should begin. It does not, by itself, prove that those entries were incorrect or that a community was deliberately excluded.

The authors recommend checking these cases booth by booth, with particular attention to families unable to return to their recorded addresses.

Names cannot establish community identity

The report also examines the final word in people’s names, while expressly warning against treating it as a reliable community identifier.

Manipur’s electoral records contain different naming practices. A final word may be a clan name, village name, father’s name or title, rather than a surname.

Across 1,58,671 records used for this analysis, the authors counted 50,647 distinct final words. The ten most common accounted for 16.8% of those records.

The difference between the valley and hills was substantial. The ten most common final words accounted for 37.5% of the valley records examined, compared with 9.3% in the hills. The study counted 9,771 distinct final words in the valley and 42,871 in the hills.

Statewide, the most frequent were Devi, appearing 10,303 times, Singh, appearing 6,406 times, and Haokip, appearing 3,725 times.

The authors draw no conclusion about community-wise removals from these counts. They instead raise a practical concern automated methods that match or classify people by names may perform differently across Manipur’s naming systems and require careful examination.

Concerns extend beyond voting

The report discusses how uncertainty over electoral status can create difficulties in administrative processes where electoral documents are used to establish identity or residence.

It refers to cases examined by Sabar Institute involving passport renewal, Public Distribution System access, domicile and residence certificates, education and other services. These observations form part of its broader discussion of SIR; they are not findings established by the Manipur ASD dataset.

It nevertheless argues that demands for documents, repeated visits to offices and unresolved appeals can place additional burdens on affected people. It identifies displaced families, migrant workers, women changing residence after marriage, students, older people, persons with disabilities, third-gender electors and people with incomplete documentary records as groups requiring particular attention.

Verification, accessible appeals and publication of voter totals

The report recommends beginning verification with booths recording the largest concentrations of removals, especially cases classified as permanently shifted or untraceable.

It calls for publication of constituency-level voter totals so that researchers can calculate removal rates, rather than relying only on counts and averages per booth.

It also recommends simple objection procedures, accessible appeals and free legal assistance for people unable to manage the paperwork or afford repeated visits to administrative offices. Displaced families and women changing residence after marriage require particular attention, the authors state.

Its wider recommendations include transparency and human review where automated tools or discrepancy filters are used, documentation of individual cases by researchers and civil society groups, parliamentary scrutiny, and an independent nationwide study covering deletions, restorations, appeals and adjudication delays.

For Manipur, the report identifies a specific task that verify the concentrated removals in the hill constituencies and establish whether people recorded as shifted or absent remain eligible for enrolment, including those living away from home because of displacement.

The report may be read here.

Related:

Bringing together fact-finding reports on Manipur, a commitment to conflict-ridden Manipur

Just days before polling, two killed in fresh violence in Manipur

Back & Forth, Manipur govt’s decision to declare Easter Sunday a working day sparks outrage, govt backs down

Moreh, Manipur: CCTV footage supports claims of locals, show men in uniform indulging in arson, Assam Rifles personnel standing as mute spectators

The post Manipur SIR: Sabar Institute’s report records 1.59 lakh removals, two-thirds in hill constituencies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision follows discussions between student representatives and a university-appointed committee, which also yielded assurances on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, a review of contentious provisions of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual and the withdrawal of proctorial enquiries initiated during earlier campus protests. Hindustan Times reported that the university has also agreed to constitute committees with JNUSU representation to review the disciplinary provisions, examine the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) and address hostel reservation issues. The developments mark a breakthrough in the prolonged standoff, with further discussions also covering hostel infrastructure, library timings and the opening of a canteen at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG).

At the heart of the confrontation is the suspension and rustication of elected representatives of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), alongside the administration’s continued enforcement of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual, which students argue imposes punitive restrictions on protests and collective gatherings. The dispute also raises questions about the university’s response to students exercising their right to protest, particularly when disciplinary action has excluded elected representatives from the institution they are mandated to represent.

The Hindu reported that CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas had sought intervention from President Droupadi Murmu and Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi as the hunger strike has reached a critical point amid concerns about the deteriorating health of participants. Brittas, a former JNU student, has called for the revocation of the rustication orders and an expedited resolution of the students’ grievances.

Rustication of elected representatives lies at the centre of the dispute

JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president Gopika Babau and other students have participated in the indefinite hunger strike. As reported by Outlook, JNUSU joint secretary Danish Ali said the union, along with former president Nitish Kumar, was rusticated in February 2026 following protests against the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Central Library. Ali said the union and Nitish were rusticated for a year and fined ₹20,000 each, while eight other students were fined ₹19,000 each for their alleged presence at the protest.

The university had earlier suspended five students and declared them “out of bounds” in connection with the alleged vandalism of the facial recognition technology gates in November 2025. The administration has maintained that public property worth ₹20 lakh was damaged.

However, the continuing exclusion of elected student representatives has become a central concern in the present agitation. In his letter to President Murmu, Brittas argued that keeping elected representatives off campus directly affects the functioning of the students’ union and weakens the mechanism through which students collectively articulate their grievances.

The issue goes beyond the individual penalties imposed on the students. When elected representatives are barred from the university, their ability to represent constituents, participate in campus discussions and negotiate with the administration is significantly curtailed. Disciplinary action against individual students can therefore have consequences for the wider student body, particularly when it affects the functioning of an elected representative institution. JNUSU has maintained that its office-bearers represent a student constituency of approximately 9,000. Its demand for the revocation of the rustication orders is therefore tied to the question of whether students can meaningfully exercise their collective voice through an elected union.

CPO Manual and the shrinking space for campus dissent

The students’ have called for the withdrawal of objectionable provisions of the CPO Manual, alleging that its disciplinary framework enables the administration to impose substantial penalties and restrict assemblies and protests. The agitation follows a university general body meeting (UGBM) on October 3, which reportedly passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the manual. The students have argued that its provisions undermine legitimate democratic expression by exposing those who protest to punitive action.

Brittas raised similar concerns in his letters to the President and the Union Education Minister. As reported by The Hindu, he warned that disproportionate disciplinary measures could deter students from raising legitimate grievances for fear of punishment. He also invoked JNU’s foundational commitments to social justice, secularism and a democratic way of life, as reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.

President Droupadi Murmu, as Visitor of the university, has been asked to intervene under Section 8 of the Act. Brittas has urged her to facilitate the withdrawal of the rustication orders, address the disputed provisions of the CPO Manual and ensure that the outstanding grievances are resolved.

Students dispute the administration’s account of medical care

The disagreement has also extended to the provision of medical assistance to students participating in the hunger strike. In a statement reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit said that a committee headed by Professor Vivek Kumar, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, had held discussions with protesters on October 9 and October 14. The first meeting reportedly lasted more than four hours. According to the administration, two groups subsequently ended their hunger strikes after receiving assurances, while discussions with other protesters continued.

The administration has also maintained that the university’s Chief Medical Officer has monitored the health of hunger strikers and that medical check-ups have been conducted twice daily. It said medical assistance was extended to rusticated students on humanitarian grounds.

JNUSU, however, has disputed this account. In its statement, the union alleged that its rusticated office-bearers were denied medical check-ups during the first six days of the protest and that their vital signs were monitored through a private laboratory instead. The allegations directly contradict the administration’s claim that medical care was provided to rusticated students from the beginning of the agitation.

The union has also questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s visit to the hunger strike site at approximately 9 am on October 16. It alleged that the visit, which took place without prior intimation, risked creating the impression that only a small number of students were participating. The administration, meanwhile, stated that a representative had visited the site at approximately 8.50 am but found no students sleeping there.

A wider charter of demands remains unresolved

The agitation encompasses a broader set of concerns about the university’s academic environment, infrastructure and institutional accountability. Students have demanded the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), which was replaced by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As reported by Outlook, a student identified as Dhananjay argued that GSCASH offered a more inclusive platform, while students were in the minority under the ICC structure.

The demand places the question of gender justice alongside the wider dispute over student participation in university governance. The charter also includes a demand for an Equal Opportunity Cell under the proposed Rohith Vemula Act, an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, improvements to deteriorating campus infrastructure and the reinstatement of the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) in place of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Students have also opposed the introduction of recorded video lectures through the Siddhanta Foundation, alleging that the arrangement undermines the quality of teaching and the possibility of holistic academic development.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 10, the United Nations Human Rights Office expressed concern over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, civil-society members, lawyers and journalists in India. It called for the release of those arbitrarily detained and urged respect for peaceful assembly. The government rejected the criticism. Similarly, over 100 Harvard University alumni issued a statement condemning police brutality, unlawful detention and constitutional rights violations.

That response was predictable. The events that produced the criticism were not.

Delhi witnessed an extraordinary mobilisation of state power against demonstrations demanding accountability from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. Protesters were prevented from assembling at Jantar Mantar. Police detained leaders, including MPs and former Chief Ministers. Police removed students from trains before they could reach the capital. Lawyers were detained. Journalists covering demonstrations were taken into custody. Police used force and violence against protesters, especially students: private parts of women were kicked and phones taken away. The internet was suspended in parts of central Delhi, Metro stations were closed, and railway services were severely disrupted.

The scale was extraordinary. On October 10, 45 Delhi Metro stations remained shut, while more than 250 railway services were cancelled or disrupted.

Eventually, Jantar Mantar itself got denotified by the Home Ministry as a protest site, even as right-wing groups were reportedly free to proclaim that they would “destroy all anti-Modi forces” and “slay protesters,” while the Delhi Police remained mute spectators.

Even a week later, the police continue to assault peaceful protesters carrying national flags, refusing to register an FIR over the police brutality. Leaders like Neha of AISA and Dipke are still being detained for prolonged periods, including at night, at undisclosed locations. Even delegations of lawyers and concerned citizens who march to police stations seeking answers are long-denied information about their whereabouts.

This was not proportionate policing of an unruly mob. Much of it was preventive action against citizens who had not committed violence. The distinction matters enormously.

Article 19 does not confer an unlimited right to occupy every road or disregard reasonable lawful restrictions. But travelling to a demonstration is not a crime. Reporting a protest is not participation in disorder. Representing protesters is not obstruction of justice. Peacefully demanding the resignation of a constitutional functionary is not an attack on the Republic.

When a government begins to erase these distinctions, law enforcement ceases to look neutral and begins to resemble political management.

The Supreme Court recognised the danger. In an exceptional Sunday sitting on October 11, it directed that peaceful and unarmed persons must not be illegally detained. It said Metro and railway services should function normally subject to genuine public-order necessities, free movement should be permitted, lawyers should not be obstructed in their professional duties, and internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with law.

A constitutional democracy should find it sobering that its Supreme Court had to remind, after strong attention-seeking, the executive of propositions so elementary.

The government cannot hide behind the legality of SIR

Electoral rolls require revision. Dead voters cannot remain indefinitely registered. Duplicate entries must be removed. People who have permanently shifted must be correctly recorded. Persons legally ineligible to vote cannot acquire electoral rights merely because an administrative error went unnoticed. Indeed, on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR, recognising the Election Commission’s authority under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act to undertake intensive revision. The Court also permitted a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes.

But the judgment contained an equally important restraint. The Election Commission does not become the final authority for terminating a person’s citizenship. Formal adjudication belongs to the competent authority under citizenship law.

The government’s defence therefore answers only one question: Can electoral rolls be revised? Of course they can. It does not answer the far more important question: How has that enormous power been exercised? Has the motive of conducting the exercise been to “clean” up the roles or to exclude pre-determined sections of voters?

More than 13 crore names were omitted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the nationwide revision. When exclusion occurs on such a scale, transparency is not optional. Nor can the government dismiss every criticism as partisan agitation, because some of the most serious objections have come from inside the Election Commission itself.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least fourteen occasions within ten months concerning voter enrolment, deletion, restoration and control over electoral-roll systems. Among the descriptions reportedly used were “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

One dispute involved Form 6, used for registering new voters. Changes introduced through the Commission’s digital system required applicants to answer questions linked to previous SIR records and their parents or grandparents. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly objected that the alteration had not been lawfully authorised and risked harassing first-time voters. The Commission subsequently removed the disputed addition from its ECINET portal in states where SIR had concluded.

That is not an insignificant administrative disagreement. It goes to the heart of who enters the electorate and under what conditions.

An institution weakened by the way its guardians are chosen

These developments cannot be separated from the altered architecture governing Election Commission appointments.

In Anoop Baranwal, the Supreme Court created an interim selection arrangement comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted legislation. The Modi government subsequently did enact legislation—but removed the Chief Justice from the committee and substituted a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The result is straightforward: the executive now holds two of the three positions on the selection committee. The Supreme Court itself has recorded that this replacement lies at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the 2023 law.

This does not establish the allegation that Indian elections have been “rigged”. But institutional independence is not sustained merely by the absence of proven misconduct. Constitutional bodies survive because citizens can reasonably believe that they are insulated from the government whose political fortunes their decisions may affect.

The Modi government weakened that perception even when it constructed an appointment system in which the executive enjoys a built-in majority.

Now, when questions arise inside the Commission itself, the government’s instinct appears not to be radical transparency but political defence.

That is precisely the wrong response.

This is how democratic erosion occurs

India is not formally under an Emergency. There has been no proclamation under Article 352.

Democracies rarely collapse in a single constitutional explosion. They are hollowed out institution by institution. The judiciary may continue to deliver important interventions, yet public confidence in its ability to consistently confront executive power has been strained. Large sections of the mainstream media, meanwhile, operate in an environment of concentrated ownership, political alignment and governmental pressure; India now ranks 157th of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 Press Freedom Index. Overall trust in news among respondents to the Reuters Institute’s 2026 India survey fell to 39 per cent.

Then comes the machinery of everyday coercion: a journalist detained, a lawyer obstructed, a student pulled from a train, an internet connection suspended, a Metro station closed, a peaceful assembly prohibited, a constitutional institution stripped of visible independence, a voter suddenly required to prove an entitlement once presumed secure.

Each abuse can be rationalised in isolation. Together they reveal the steady normalisation of a state in which institutions meant to restrain power are themselves losing credibility, independent scrutiny is treated as hostility, and coercion substitutes a democratic response.

An Emergency need not always be proclaimed and democratic freedoms can also be extinguished by accumulation.

If the Election Commission’s SIR is legitimate, accurate and procedurally fair, they should not fear scrutiny. If Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions can withstand examination, barricades cannot strengthen his credibility. If the allegations are false, the appropriate answer is evidence.

Instead, the spectacle presented to the country has been one of police buses, blocked stations, disrupted trains, internet restrictions and preventive detention.

The state has used coercive power to contain a crisis of institutional trust. In doing so, instead of an uncomplicated right approach, it has enlarged that crisis.

Publish the records. Explain the major categories of voter deletion. Make restoration simple and accessible. Answer Sandhu and Joshi’s objections point by point. Establish transparent audit trails for electoral databases. Investigate allegations of misconduct by police against journalists, lawyers and other demonstrators. Permit peaceful protest.

And above all, stop treating scrutiny of the institutions as hostility towards India.

The Chief Election Commissioner derives authority not merely from statutory tenure but from public confidence that the referee is independent of every player—including the one occupying the government benches. His resignation is thus non-negotiable.

The Modi government should understand a fundamental truth that every democratic government eventually learns: institutions cannot be protected from criticism by protecting them against criticism.

A confident democracy answers questions. An insecure state arrests those who ask them.

When the question is who remains entitled to vote, there can be no bigger test of the Republic.

(Amal Chandra is an Indian author, policy analyst, and columnist, currently serving as The Statement Fellow and Coordinator, South Asia at Students for Liberty; Shabnam K. is an alumnus of the University of Delhi and a former SBI Youth for India Fellow)

Related:

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

The post India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.