Her remarks were a response to the The Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had red-flagged multiple issues, including deletion of names, in various states during the pan-India Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters’ list, triggering a massive political storm.

“It has now been proven that the BJP and the EC looted the West Bengal assembly polls,” Banerjee said in a Facebook live, thereafter reported by PTI and New Indian Express.

“There will be pan-India protests till Gyanesh Kumar remains CEC. He must be immediately arrested and put behind bars. The chair of the CEC is not for a person like him. It’s another fight for freedom, this time from the compromised CEC, and the BJP that has destroyed India,” she added.

The IE report claimed that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders concerning SIR, including some allegedly taken without their knowledge. The Election Commission has, however, said that decisions relating to SIR were taken unanimously with the approval of all three commissioners.

“Re-election must be held in West Bengal with the old voter list,” she said, adding that INDIA bloc partners have spoken about the matter and will meet soon.

The remarks come days after the Election Commission froze the use of the ‘All India Trinamool Congress’ name and its reserved ‘twin flowers-and-grass’ symbol amid an escalating factional feud over control of the party.

The poll panel subsequently allotted separate interim identities to the two groups for the October 6 bypolls, with the Mamata faction getting ‘Mamata All India Trinamool Congress’ and the ‘football player’ symbol, while the rival faction led by Arup Roy was allotted ‘Democratic Trinamool Congress’ and the ‘envelope’ symbol.

The post ‘BJP, EC looted the West Bengal polls’: Mamata seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh elections with pre-SIR voter list appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The IE investigation, on the front pages of all editions of the paper stated that two Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected formally at least 14 times on various decisions taken and orders issued without their knowledge in the last 10 months. On the face of it, the Election Commission appears to have evaded the most important concerns – not least of which is what happens to the 13 crore names deleted as part of the ECI’s special intensive revision of voter rolls.

As the Indian Express report notes, the controversial national rollout of the SIR has been under the supervision of all three Commissioners. Now, with the reported disagreement of Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to some of the decisions made in the course of the SIR, there are renewed and serious concerns over the legitimacy of an extremely contested and controversial exercise.

In its press note, the ECI has repeated that it a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. Noting that the Commission operates as a “multi-member constitutional body,” the ECI states that “written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour.”

Avoiding any response into the particulars of the formal objections reported by the newspaper, the ECI claims then, “All actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission.”

The press note may be viewed here:

Official Press Note pic.twitter.com/xIQvXHqMSt

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

The ECI also announced:

“All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures under The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.”

However, this stand of the ECI that its actions were legally sanctioned evades the seriousness in the report– that two out of three Election Commissioners in a three-member body complained about being kept in the dark when it came to the adding new voters and the deleting of names.

The two have also expressed formal concerns over integrity of voter software and raised the issue of a centralised voter database that bypasses state officials.

The ECI’s response makes light of this concern and puts them under the umbrella of ‘operational queries or inputs,’ saying:

“Any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights. The suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes.”

The ECI also adds:

“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken. Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorized to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system.”

Contradicting this, the IE reports make it amply clear that the Election Commissioners’ objections were not “suggestions,” but full-fledged formal complaints. In one, Sandhu notes that the EC acted against the written advice of two commissioners and claim its action was “unauthorised and illegal.” Sandhu and Joshi also, the report says, wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary complaining about changes in work allocation that did away with crucial oversight despite their advice against it.

In what appears as a weak defense, ECI further claimed

“Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture. In recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of Electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country. All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past one year.”

Notwithstanding the fact that some communication transcended the meaning of “internal” – like the complaint to the Cabinet Secretary as illustrated above – it is unclear why the gravity of 14 objections in 10 months should reduce under the weight of the allegedly much larger body of approvals.

“The Commission has recently successfully conducted major elections of Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal and election-related exercises during this period. This work involved wide-ranging administrative and operational machinery and many Commission approvals and instructions.”

Even today, the contentious deletions in some of these states, especially West Bengal, is being heard by the courts and the impact they have had on people’s ability to access public welfare is well reported. The Election Commission’s description of these SIRs as “successful” raises questions on its awareness of the issues and lives at stake.

In what reads as a response to the report that notes the Election Commissioners’ reservations against a central database, the ECI says:

The Commission’s digital platforms, such as ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorized tampering, manipulation, etc. IT security checks and audit controls are standard cybersecurity measures implemented across national databases. Statutory authorities, including Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and District Election Officers (DEOs), function as per statutory powers for registration and deletion under law.

The press note, signed by P. Pawan, a deputy director in the Media Division of the ECI, finishes with the line:

“Election Commission of India remains fully committed to executing its constitutional duties with complete integrity, recognizing its vital role in advancing our democracy.”

The post EC evades, shrugs off serious questions on fissures & divisions within the ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The disclosures in The Indian Express, September 23 have only strengthened suspicions and concerns that the CPI (M), other opposition parties and civil society organisations have all along raised since the SIR process was initiated. 

Reports indicate that two out of the three Election Commissioners have recorded objections to several decisions relating to electoral-roll revision and the SIR process. According to the law all the three election commissioners are equal and any difference should be settled by a majority or unanimity. The CEC didn’t follow this rule, but went on imposing his views without caring for the objections raised his other EC colleagues. Significantly, these differences concern fundamental questions about how voters are being added or removed from the electoral rolls and how the SIR is being implemented. 

“What is being revealed now is that the CEC has all along falsely claimed that the entire process is transparent and decentralised. It is now clear that over the past few months the entire system has been centralised to the extent that it obscures who is actually taking decisions. The Supreme Court has also flagged the over reliance on technology and the “mechanical” issuance of notices.

“The issues raised by the two Election Commissioners go beyond the SIR process. It concerns the institutional integrity and democratic functioning of the Election Commission, transparency in the electoral process, over centralisation and the protection of the right to universal adult franchise. The credibility of the Election Commission as an unbiased institution is at stake. People have lost confidence in a compromised Election Commission, for which CEC Gyanesh Kumar should be held accountable. He cannot continue in office any longer.

Hence, the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) also demands an immediate halt to the SIR process. The integrity and democratic functioning of the ECI must be restored. Transparency in the appointment of the Election Commissioner’s has to be ensured by scrapping the concerned legislation and enacting a new one by accepting the Supreme Court guidelines for a selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Gyanesh Kumar has no right to continue in office, reform the ECI: CPI-M appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a series of posts on social media platform ‘X’, both the party handle and Leader of the Opposition (LOP) Rahul Gandhi’s handle both highlighted the investigation and also credited Gandhi for his campaign on #VoteChori (Vote Theft). Gandhi had also called these shenanigans by the ruling party and ECI as treason.

BIG BREAKING : PANIC in BJP camp

Congress has launched a protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar .

Wait for when Rahul Gandhi arrives.

Gyanesh Kumar Bad Day Began pic.twitter.com/2bYJ1NTJFB

— The Rebel (@TheRebel_IN) September 23, 2026

Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our constitution.

The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason.

Justice will be served. pic.twitter.com/30kX06CBiH

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) September 23, 2026

‘वोट चोरी’ देशद्रोह है pic.twitter.com/05VvkkwBzb

— Congress (@INCIndia) September 23, 2026

ECI had conducted free & fair elections: LoP Rahul Gandhi ji would be India’s PM today. Congress would have formed govt in Haryana. Congress would have formed govt in MP. MVA would have formed govt in Maharashtra. Modi would have lost his own seat. ECI robbed the people’s mandate to please their masters.

The post INC protests outside ECI, demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The explosive findings published by The Indian Express today, backed by evidence, have now cast serious doubts over the results of every Assembly election held after the SIR exercise. The investigation reveals that Chief Election Commissioner Thiru. #GyaneshKumar had been acting unilaterally and in secrecy, without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. Even more alarming is the revelation that Thiru. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Thiru. Vivek Joshi were kept in the dark about crucial decisions being taken within the very institution they jointly oversee. Their objections to decisions being taken without their knowledge were brushed aside on as many as 14 occasions in just ten months. These revelations have severely eroded the credibility of the Election Commission.”

He elaborated further, “The Election Commission is a three-member body whose business must, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. Where the Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, the decision must be based on the majority view. If two of its three members were themselves kept unaware of what was being done in the Commission’s name, this cannot be dismissed as a mere internal or procedural matter. It constitutes a grave assault on Indian democracy. The credibility of an apex institution that is expected to function independently, transparently and without political interference has been seriously compromised.”

“The revelations concerning the electoral rolls are equally disturbing. Appeals were filed against the inclusion of voters even after courts had ordered that their names be added to the electoral rolls. Who authorised these appeals? Who filed them? The two Election Commissioners themselves say they were kept in the dark.

“The law empowers Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to scrutinise and revise electoral rolls. Yet, they were unable to add even those who had been duly found eligible to vote. ERONet, the digital platform through which these changes had to be made, was entirely under the control of one person. When such concerns are being raised by two serving Election Commissioners, the extent of political interference that may have taken place within the Election Commission is plain to see.

“As early as March this year, the DMK, along with other Opposition parties, moved an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. He has no right to continue in office any longer. Thiru. #GyaneshKumarMustGo immediately. The SIR exercise must be halted. The DMK demands a fair and thorough investigation into everything that has transpired within the Election Commission and that those responsible be held accountable.”

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Former TN CM, M. K. Stalin demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Teesta Setalvad speaks with Saurav Das about youth activism, intergenerational solidarity, “School Thik Karo”, social audits of government schools, police accountability and the right to protest.

They discuss the Supreme Court’s intervention on protest-related FIRs, the violence faced by protesters, and why citizens must keep questioning institutions meant to serve them.

And then, humour: why satire, irreverence and a refusal to be solemn became part of the movement itself.

A conversation about young citizens, public institutions and the courage to ask questions.

The post This Regime Is Anti-Fun; Humour Can Strip Its Legitimacy | Saurav Das | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, this citizens’ convention that was attended by over 300 eminent personalities from various fields has demanded immediate completion and publication of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) prepared on the basis of the 2014 electoral roll, and expressed complete oppose to the highly controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Assam.

The convention was held on September 20 at the L. Baruah Sadan, Guwahati, at the call of eminent citizens, writers, poets, social workers and the leader of various social organization under the initiative of the Forum for Social Harmony. It was presided over by Dr. Ghanashyam Nath, Senior journalist Munin Bayan, Farmer Organizer Jayanta Gogoi and Professor Taiz Uddin Ahmed, and the days agenda was conducted by Harkumar Goswami, Debajit Choudhury and Arup Baishya. Harkumar Goswami explained the objectives of the convention on behalf of the Forum.

The programme began with the lighting of lamps before the portraits of Zubeen Garg and Dr. Bhupen Hazarika by retired Gauhati University professor Dr. Abdul Mannan. A minute’s silence was observed in memory of Zubeen Garg and in memory and honour of the working-class people in Assam who have recently died untimely deaths or by suicide due to state neglect. The convention condemned the government for not declaring September 19 a special day and a public holiday this year and demanded that September 19 be declared ‘Zubeen Divas’ every year. The Zubeen Sankalpa was recited by eminent Assamese young artist Shanku Niranjan Nath.

The discussions were divided into thematic sessions. Speaking on the recent floods in Upper Assam, the withdrawal of environmental protection in Kaziranga, and what was seen by many participants as ‘corporate loot’, Dr. Padmalochan Nath, social worker Manoram Gogoi and former Mayor of Jorhat Prashanta Bora said the recent floods are the result of indiscriminate plunder of natural resources with government patronage. They also strongly criticised the government for failing to take adequate measures for the rehabilitation of the affected people. Manoram Gogoi added that even small markets dependent on Assam’s own produce are coming under the control of large pan-Indian business houses, which is devastating Assam’s agrarian economy and threatening its distinct regional existence.

Eminent writer and advocate Arup Borbora elaborated on how civil rights are being curtailed one after another and how the threat of authoritarian rule is intensifying.

Several speakers highlighted the citizenship issue. They apprehended that by keeping the NRC pending and effectively ‘throwing it into the dustbin’, the Government of India intends to impose another mode of bureaucratic harassment, the SIR in Assam! Activist associated for close to a decade with the Citizens for Justice and Peace, Nanda Ghosh spoke on Citizenship, cited examples of case histories that revealed the inhuman plight of marginalised and working peoples, especially women during the NRC process (2009-2019). He also presented a realistic, ground-level picture of human rights violations taking place through the D-Voter, Foreigners Tribunal, and pushback mechanisms. He said the NRC in Assam was not carried out to end political debate over the foreigner issue; rather, it was used to create a reign of fear and to establish a relationship where citizens are treated as slaves to the state and mere subjects of the rulers. Nanda Ghosh demanded the immediate issuance of Rejection Slips to the 19 lakh excluded people and completion of Tribunal proceedings within a fixed time frame. Since there are no specific rules governing Tribunal proceedings, they can drag on for decades. Therefore, the process should be concluded quickly based on the revised 2014 voter list, which was revised using 1971 as the base year.

Significantly, the convention firmly rejected the government’s anti-people move to impose SIR in Assam. Ghosh also suggested building a body of all-India public opinion against SIR jointly with organisations like ‘Vote for Democracy’. The original charter of demands for the convention had clearly stated that SIR must not be allowed in Assam. He also explains the day-to-day ground reality on citizenship gleaned by e team members of the Citizenship for Justice and Peace (CJP)’s with heir experience in 19 districts of the state.

Advocate Shantanu Borthakur spoke out against the indiscriminate and unlawful evictions being carried out by government authorities, without following any law or the Constitution, using force to hand over Assam’s water, land, forests and cheap labour to corporates. The government’s promise of land rights and pattas is nothing but a form of deception.

Advocate Kishor Kalita observed that land rights, eviction and citizenship are interlinked, and that all people’s rights are in crisis due to the aggressive role of the state.

Prabhat Das Panika, a leading organiser of tea workers’ and state-wide Adivasi struggles, Nilim Dutta, and Dhrubajyoti Asom, leader of gig workers, spoke on the plight of tea workers and gig, platform-based and app-based workers. They said the government is indifferent to their income and social security because it is more interested in serving corporate owners.

Prominent Political Analyst and activist Arup Baishya offered an excellent political analysis of the events and drew an outline of an action plan on how to confront fascism.

The convention analysed how the relationship between citizen and worker on the one hand, and between state and citizen on the other, is being restructured. To uphold citizens’ rights, workers’ rights and democracy, greater unity between intellectual and manual workers is essential to build an effective and successful resistance. The condition of lakhs of new workers in the service sector — transport, gig economy, construction, projects and women workers — is extremely miserable, as evidenced by the untimely deaths of many migrant workers.

Almost all speakers emphasised that the nexus between politics and corporate capital and the resulting centralisation of power in Delhi has undermined the constitutional structure and devastated Assam’s federal regional identity. The only way to establish civil rights, mass rights and democracy is to rise above all narrow divisions and build united resistance.

A powerful five-minutes long protest dance-drama was performed by the “Oikatan Sanskritick Gosthi” which added a distinct dimension to the programme.  During the break, poems were recited and protest songs were performed by Laynu Das Kalita, Prahallad Mili and Nilab Saurav.

The meeting conveners subsequently decided to undertake outreach programmes around the demands raised at this day-long convention. The convention concluded with a brief address by the presidium.

Related:

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

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

Assam FT deems Assam NRC to be final NRC

The post Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC!  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The circumstances immediately preceding his death have become a central part of the investigation. Doolla was reportedly the invigilator during Wakode’s examination and, according to the institute’s initial account (later regretfully denied by IIT Mumbai), Wakode had been found using a mobile phone and had uploaded the examination question paper to ChatGPT to obtain answers. IIT Bombay initially stated that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him and that he had been counselled by the concerned faculty members.

But that account quickly became contested. Students and Wakode’s family alleged that the incident involved threats of disciplinary action and suspension and that Wakode had been humiliated. The Indian Express has since reported that Crime Branch investigators are examining CCTV footage from the examination hall showing Doolla approaching Wakode and asking him to leave the hall. The footage is now part of an investigation that is attempting to reconstruct what happened between the examination and Wakode’s death.

What remains equally important is what happened before September 18. Wakode’s family has alleged that the examination incident was not an isolated interaction but occurred against the backdrop of months of caste-based and mental harassment. Those allegations have not been established, and the Crime Branch investigation must determine whether they are supported by witness statements, communications, institutional records and other evidence. But the absence of a prior formal complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that discrimination did not occur.

Breaking: IITB accepts that cheating allegation against Sahil Wakode are not proven, backtracks earlier letter

This is what we have been saying

Cheating allegation are not proven. IIT already backtracking

Prof Dulla should be arrested and investigated properly… https://t.co/BHjmciyQNv

— Ravi Ratan (@scribe_it) September 21, 2026

IIT Bombay has now suspended Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and also apologized over the matter.

The professor had falsely accused Sahil Wakode of using ChatGPT to cheat, an allegation that seriously damaged his academic career. pic.twitter.com/oQUlAb8WrM

— The Dalit Voice (@ambedkariteIND) September 21, 2026

Four suicides in one year at IIT Bombay. This is not a tragedy. This is institutional failure. This is institutional murder.

SFI stands with the students of IIT Bombay demanding action, accountability and transparency. pic.twitter.com/wSz7CastFD

— SFI (@SFI_CEC) September 20, 2026

It was never about cheating.

People justifying cheating leading to student ending his life in another pathetic view I came across.

I wish none of this happens to their kids. https://t.co/TaP02RiYKP

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) September 21, 2026

अब तो IIT Bombay ने भी बिना किसी जांच के साहिल पर चीटिंग के आरोप लगाने पर माफीनामा जारी कर दिया है।

पहले साहिल को आत्महत्या पर मजबूर किया गया और अब उसके सांस्थानिक हत्या को जायज भी ठहराया जा रहा है! शर्मनाक है! https://t.co/e5cg5jPdNB pic.twitter.com/pjkLlCT16B

— Priyanka Bharti (@priyanka2bharti) September 21, 2026

The apology came only after the institution had already framed the story

The most troubling aspect of IIT Bombay’s handling of the matter may be the speed with which the institution initially presented a particular account of Wakode’s final hours. Its first public communication foregrounded the alleged use of a phone during the examination and the uploading of the question paper on ChatGPT. That communication effectively placed an allegation of academic misconduct at the centre of the public narrative before the circumstances surrounding the death had been independently established.

On September 21, however, IIT Bombay apologised and acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to set out or characterise details relating to the events preceding Wakode’s death before they had been established through the appropriate investigative process. The Times of India reported that the institute apologised for its earlier communication concerning the examination incident, while The Indian Express reported that students had specifically demanded an apology over what they described as the “defamation” of Wakode.

That reversal matters as the question was not whether academic misconduct should be taken seriously. It should. The question is whether, when a student dies hours after an interaction with institutional authority, the first responsibility of the institution should be to establish facts carefully rather than to publicly foreground an allegation that potentially shifts attention towards the student’s conduct.

The institute itself has now acknowledged that the circumstances had not yet been duly established. That acknowledgment should also invite scrutiny of how institutions speak about students after their deaths, particularly when those students belong to communities that have historically experienced discrimination within educational institutions.

Doolla has been removed as Dean. But only as Dean

IIT Bombay has temporarily relieved Professor Suryanarayana Doolla of his duties as Dean of Administrative Affairs pending an investigation. But, as The New Indian Express reported, Doolla continues to remain a professor in the Energy Science and Engineering department. The Times of India similarly reported that the action was limited to his administrative responsibilities and that he would continue as a professor.

This distinction is important because students had demanded that Doolla be removed from his academic duties as well. Their concern was not necessarily a demand that the professor be treated as guilty before investigation, but that a person named in an FIR concerning the death of a student should not continue exercising academic authority over students while the circumstances are being investigated.

The institute has justified his removal from the administrative post as a step intended to ensure an independent and unbiased investigation. That is understandable as an institutional measure. But it also leaves an obvious question: if independence from administrative authority is necessary for the inquiry, what safeguards are in place to ensure that students who may have information relevant to the investigation do not feel vulnerable when the professor continues to teach and exercise academic authority?

The FIR is not the investigation. But neither is institutional denial

The FIR records allegations made by Wakode’s family. The Crime Branch investigation must determine what happened, whether there was sustained harassment, whether caste-based discrimination occurred, whether any conduct contributed to Wakode’s distress, and whether any institutional response failed him. At the same time, IIT Bombay’s statement that no complaint had previously been made to its SC/ST cell or administration cannot settle the question either. The Indian Express reported that the institute relied on the absence of any such formal complaint when responding to the family’s allegations.

Caste discrimination does not necessarily announce itself through a formal written complaint. Students may hesitate to complain against professors who control grades, academic progression, recommendations or other aspects of university life. The possibility of retaliation, stigma or simply the belief that an institution will not act can itself become a barrier to reporting. That is precisely why an investigation into allegations of discrimination cannot be reduced to a search for whether a complaint was filed in the correct institutional forum.

What exactly is IIT Bombay defending?

The response from sections of the IIT Bombay faculty has introduced another dimension to the controversy. The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay publicly expressed solidarity with Doolla, saying that he had been discharging his duties according to institute-approved academic procedures and that the faculty was distressed by what it described as the tarnishing of his reputation. The Indian Express reported that faculty members gathered in support of Doolla after he was removed as Dean, while faculty bodies at other IITs also expressed support for him.

There is nothing inherently improper about insisting upon due process or resisting a presumption of guilt. But due process cannot mean that institutional solidarity with a faculty member becomes a substitute for investigating allegations made by a student’s family. The two principles can coexist. Doolla is entitled to a fair investigation and should not be declared guilty merely because he has been named in an FIR. At the same time, Wakode’s family is entitled to have allegations of caste-based harassment and institutional failure investigated seriously, independently and without the investigation being overshadowed by a defence of the professor’s professional reputation.

The concern becomes particularly acute when the institution itself had initially issued a public account that it later apologised for.

This is not the first IIT Bombay student death to raise questions about caste

The most difficult part of the present controversy is that IIT Bombay cannot claim to be encountering these questions for the first time. In February 2023, Dalit student Darshan Solanki died by suicide at IIT Bombay. His death generated allegations of caste discrimination and intense campus debate over whether students from marginalised communities were adequately protected within the institution.

Three years later, Solanki’s father, Ramesh Solanki, has returned to the IIT Bombay campus in connection with protests following Wakode’s death. The Indian Express reported that parents of previous IIT Bombay suicide victims joined the protests and raised concerns about transparency, accountability, discrimination and the treatment of students from reserved communities. Ramesh Solanki reportedly continues to question aspects of the investigation into his son’s death.

The significance of Darshan Solanki therefore cannot simply be historical. His death forms part of the institutional memory against which the present case is unfolding. The question now is not only what happened to Sahil Wakode. It is also what IIT Bombay learnt from Darshan Solanki’s death, what institutional mechanisms were changed afterwards, and whether those mechanisms could identify and address the forms of exclusion that students may experience without ever making a formal complaint.

And then there are the other deaths

Wakode’s death has also occurred amid wider concerns over student suicides at IIT Bombay. Reports have referred to other student deaths this year, adding to the sense among students and parents that the problem cannot be treated as a single tragic incident. Moneycontrol, reporting on the aftermath of Wakode’s death, noted that the episode had once again brought student suicides at premier engineering institutions into focus. The protests at IIT Bombay have consequently expanded beyond the circumstances of one student’s death to include demands relating to mental-health support, institutional accountability and student welfare.

This is important because individualising every death can prevent institutions from examining common structural conditions. If students repeatedly experience academic pressure, fear of disciplinary action, inadequate grievance mechanisms, social isolation or discrimination, then treating each death as an entirely separate personal tragedy leaves the institutional environment itself largely unexamined.

The 18 demands show how much larger the crisis has become

The student protests have made clear that the controversy is no longer limited to the question of what happened inside one examination hall. According to The Indian Express, students placed an 18-point charter before the IIT Bombay administration. Their demands included an independent inquiry, changes to student welfare mechanisms, student representation on committees, a formal mechanism for complaints against professors, greater accountability of institutional authorities and stronger mental-health support, including access to psychiatric care.

These demands matter because they reveal what students themselves see as the larger problem. They are not asking only for an answer about September 18. They are questioning how decisions affecting students are made, who exercises authority over them, what happens when a student has a complaint against a professor, and whether students have any meaningful role in institutions that make decisions about their academic and personal lives.

An institution can have rules on paper and still leave students without meaningful protection if those rules are difficult to invoke against powerful members of the faculty.

The protests have also brought the role of IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare under scrutiny. Students demanded his resignation as part of their broader charter. Reports also emerged suggesting that he had agreed to resign, although IIT Bombay subsequently denied that he had stepped down.

A campus divided between solidarity and accountability

The response to the protests has also raised questions about how dissent is being handled around the campus. The Indian Express reported that police detained activists from different organisations who were protesting outside the IIT Bombay campus. Ramesh Solanki, whose son Darshan died in 2023, was among those participating in the protest and seeking accountability over the earlier case.

The present situation has produced an uncomfortable divide. Faculty groups have rallied around Doolla and emphasised academic integrity and due process. Students have demanded accountability and institutional reform. Wakode’s family has alleged caste-based harassment. The police are investigating. IIT Bombay has apologised for its initial public account while simultaneously maintaining that the circumstances remain under investigation.

The question IIT Bombay must now answer

The academic misconduct allegation has also become central to the public discussion. But academic integrity and caste discrimination are not mutually exclusive questions. Even if the investigation establishes that Wakode violated examination rules, that would not automatically disprove allegations that he may have experienced caste-based discrimination or harassment. Conversely, allegations of caste discrimination cannot be used to establish that an examination rule was not violated.

The two questions require separate examination. The tragedy is that IIT Bombay’s initial public statement blurred those questions by placing the examination incident at the centre of its account of Wakode’s death. Its subsequent apology acknowledged that the circumstances preceding his death should not have been characterised before they were established through investigation.

The most important question is not whether IIT Bombay can defend its procedures. It is whether those procedures are capable of protecting students when the person they may need protection from is someone who exercises institutional authority over them.

Detailed reports on Darshan Solanki suicide case may be read here, here, here, here and here.

Related:

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

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

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

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

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

IIT Kanpur: Third incident of suicide in five weeks, a 29-year-old PhD scholar found dead in her dorm room

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

Crucial evidence overlooked by IIT Committee, internal survey by SC/ST Cell contradicts report findings

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

The statement has been Initiated jointly by Javed Anand and Feroze Mithiborwala (Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy-IMSD), Zakia Soman and Noorjahan Safia Niaz (Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan-BMMA), Shamsuddin Tamboli (Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal) and Bader Saeed (Roshni).

The signatories to the statement include Naseeruddin Shah, Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Sultan Shaheen, Teesta Setalvad, Ram Puniyani, Tushar Gandhi, Amol Palekar, Mallika Sarabhai, Ratna Pathak.

Read the full statement below: 

Progressive Muslim activists, intellectuals and women’s rights advocates strongly oppose the ill-conceived nationwide ‘Save India, Save Shariat’ campaign launched by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).

• A Political Gift to Polarisation: 

Following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections where civil society and opposition parties rallied under ‘Save the Constitution’, the AIMPLB’s campaign inadvertently gives the BJP and the sangh parivar a platform to posture as defenders of constitutional norms. Ahead of crucial state assembly elections, this campaign reinforces false narratives and fuels propaganda that Indian Muslims reject the law of the land.

• Defending Patriarchy in the Name of Faith: 

The so-called “God-given Shariat Law’ in India is nothing but man-made personal laws, male interpreted patriarchal interpretations defended by the AIMPLB. In its September 2016 Supreme Court affidavit in the Triple Talaq case (Sayara Bano v. Union of India), the AIMPLB through its affidavit claimed divorce rights belong primarily to husbands because men allegedly possess “greater power of decision-making” and “control emotions.” It even argued that without quick separation option, a husband “may resort to illegal, criminal ways of murdering or burning her alive”—a disturbing rationalization of domestic violence. While claiming these laws are divine, the Board admitted in Paragraph 46 that “India is a patriarchal society, and therefore personal laws of all communities are aligned with the patriarchal notion…”

• Selective Use of the Constitution:

The AIMPLB selectively invokes Articles 25–30 (Religious Freedom), ignoring that these rights are explicitly subject to public order, morality, and health. They conveniently bypass Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit sex or religion-based discrimination.

• Global Precedents of Reform:

Muslim-majority nations worldwide—including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia, and Morocco—have codified and reformed personal laws to protect women’s rights. Millions of Muslims live in secular democratic nations with uniform family codes without putting “Islam in danger.” The Muslim community’s current legal predicament in India is the direct result of the AIMPLB and conservative leaders failing to proactively reform and codify Muslim Personal Law.

• Exposing Political Exploitation:

While mainstream parties often ignore Muslim women’s civil rights, the Hindu Right exploits the UCC debate for political polarization. Genuine family law reform must guarantee Muslim women equal rights regarding minimum marriage age, abolition of polygamy, mutual divorce, equal inheritance, child custody, adoption, and a ban on female genital mutilation and halala.

• BJP, Sangh Parivar’s Hate Campaign:

While secular parties rarely support the rights of Muslim women, the BJP and the Hindu Right do so with an obvious motive: communal polarization. The sangh parivar sheds crocodile tears for Muslim women while ignoring relentless hate speech (love jihad, land jihad…) and hate crimes—mob lynching, bulldozing homes, demolishing masjids, and economic boycotts, with chants of Jai Shri Ram to strike fear and intimidation. This accompanies state actions targeting Muslims: Waqf Amendment Act, draconian anti-conversion laws, and a weaponised SIR (Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls) to disenfranchise vast sections of the electorate.

• Ignoring Everyday Survival Concerns:

While ‘Saving Shariah’ tops the AIMPLB’s agenda, real life everyday challenges facing Indian Muslims—socio-economic marginalization, security, education, and employment—are ignored. The ulema must address survival issues rather than furthering retrogressive norms.

• Our Call:

We call upon all progressive forces, civil society organizations, and secular political parties to intervene actively to ensure that the demand for a gender-just, religion-neutral Uniform Civil Code is rooted in equality and human rights, rather than weaponized for communal division.

Signatories:

1. Javed Anand, Convenor, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD), Mumbai
2. Zakia Soman, Co-convenor, Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), Ahmedabad
3. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, Co-convenor, BMMA, Mumbai
4. Feroze Mithiborwala, Co-Convenor, IMSD, Mumbai
5. Shamsuddin Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
6. Bader Sayeed, Former MLA, lawyer, President, Roshni, Chennai
7. A. J. Jawad, Lawyer, Arbitrator, IMSD, Chennai
8. Afroz Javed Inamdar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Bengaluru
9. Ajij Sayyed Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Pune
10. Akbar Shaikh, Social Activist, IMSD, Farmer, Solapur
11. Altaphusen Ramjan Nabab, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
12. Amar Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Satara
13. Amol Palekar – Actor, director, film producer – Pune
14. Anand Patwardhan, Documentary Filmmaker, Mumbai
15. Ani Zonneveld, President, Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), USA, and Founder Member, Alliance of Inclusive Muslims (International)
16. Anita Cheria, Indian Christian Women’s Movement, Bangalore
17. Anjum Rajabali, Film Script writer, IMSD, Mumbai
18. Anwar Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
19. Arshad Alam, Columnist, editor, IMSD, Delhi
20. Ashok Dhiware IPS, Rtd. Additional DIG of Maharashtra State, Pune
21. (Dr) Ashwini KP, UN independent Expert, Bangalore
22. Asim Sayyed, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
23. Askari Zaidi, Veteran journalist, IMSD, Delhi
24. (Prof) Azharuddin Patel, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
25. Azim Pathan, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
26. Benazeer Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
27. Benazir Kazi, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Solapur
28. Bismilla Sayyed, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Jalana
29. Dilawar Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
30. Gulab Attar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
31. Hasan Ibrahim Pasha, Writer, IMSD, Allahabad
32. Hasina Khan, Bebaak Collective, Mumbai
33. Hilal Ahmed, Scholar and Author, Asst Professor, CSDS, Delhi
34. Iqbal Ahmad, BBC, Delhi
35. Irshad Wadgavkar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
36. Jamir Momin, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
37. Jamir Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
38. Jeibunnisa R, BMMA, Tamil Nadu
39. Jyothi Yedulla, Vice-President, Casteless Society of India, Hyderabad
40. Khadijah Faruqui, Feminist and human rights consultant, Delhi
41. Dr. Lata Pratibha Madhukar, Bahujan Feminist Writer and Critique, Founder of Manomitr
42. Madan Lal Hind, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Delhi
43. Madhu Bhaduri, Retd. Ambassador, Indian Foreign Service, Delhi
44. Madhu Bhushan, feminist, social activist, Bangalore
45. Mallika Sarabhai, Classical dancer, activist and actress, Ahmedabad
46. Mariya Salim, feminist development professional, Delhi
47. Mohammad Waheed, President, Casteless Society of India, Hyderabad
48. (Dr) Mohd Farooque Khan, Associate Professor, Marathwada University, Sambhajinagar
49. Mufid Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak, Mandal, Pune
50. Munir  Shikalgar Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Sangli
51. Muniza Khan, IMSD, CJP, Varanasi
52. (Adv) Nazrana Ahemad, Social activist, academician, Dibrugarh (Assam)
53. Naseeruddin Shah, Actor, Mumbai
54. Nasreen Contractor, Co-convenor, IMSD, Mumbai
55. Nasreen M, BMMA, Karnataka
56. Naureen Sophie Musvee. EC member, Roshni, Chennai
57. Parvin Altaphusen Nabab, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
58. Peehu Pardeshi, PEHEL Foundation, Mumbai
59. Preeti Oza, Development Professional, Gandhinagar
60. Qaisar Pasha, Homemaker, Allahabad
61. (Prof.) Radha Kumar, renowned academic, former GOI Interlocutor for J&K, Kodaikanal
62. Rajesh Singhi, Social Sector Consultant, Alwar, Rajasthan
63. (Prof) Ram Puniyani, Author, Activist, President, CSSS, Mumbai
64. Ratna Pathak, Actor, Director, Mumbai
65. SR Darapuri, IPS(Retd), National President, All India Peoples Front, Lucknow
66. Sabah Khan, Parcham, Mumbai/Mumbra
67. Sachendra Pratap Yadav, Activist, Lucknow
68. Salim Momin Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Sangli
69. Samina Pathan Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
70. Samreen Khan, Socio-political Blogger, Kolkata
71. Sandeep Pandey, General Secretary, Socialist Party of India, Lucknow
72. Sandhya Gokhale – Author and activist, Pune
73. Sayara Mulani Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
74. Shabana Dean, IMSD, Pune
75. Shagufta Musvee, President Soroptimist International, EC member, Roshni
76. Shahed Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
77. Shaikh Yusuf Baba, Convenor, Duniyadari Social Reform Movement, Hyderabad
78. Shahjahan Patel, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Mumbai
79. Shakun Mohini, feminist, social activist, Bangalore
80. Shama Zaidi, filmmaker, script writer, Mumbai
81. (Dr) Shaniya Zarina Khan, Dentist, Delhi
82. Shriya Maini, Advocate, Supreme Court, Delhi
83. (Dr) Shujaat Ali Quadri, Convener, Muslim Youth organization of India
84. Sultan Shahin, Editor-in-chief, New Age Islam (online portal), Delhi
85. (Dr) Suresh Khairnar, Social Activist, Nagpur
86. Suresh Nautiyal, India   Green Party (IGP), Garhwal, Uttarakhand
87. Teesta Setalvad, Journalist, activist, educationist, Secretary Citizens for Justice & Peace, IMSD, Mumbai
88. Tushar Gandhi, President, Hum Bharat ke Log, Mumbai
89. Ummid Shaikh Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
90. Yash Paranjpe, Writer, Navi Mumbai
91. (Dr) Zaheer A Sayeed, Neurologist, Chennai
92. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Islamic Scholar, Director-General, Wisdom Foundation, Mumbai

The post Shariat Campaign: Ulema’s Boon to Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Open letter may be read below:

To

The Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal Lok Bhavan, Kolkata

Your Excellency,

We are senior academics from various institutions in West Bengal and elsewhere in India. We are writing to express our deep concern about the West Bengal Universities and Colleges (Administration and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The bill was passed in the Assembly on 10 September 2026. It would allow transfer of academic and non-academic staff between various state universities.

The reasons for our concern are both academic and procedural. The crucial academic issues are as follows:

1. Each university is a distinct organic entity with its own rationale, structure and programmes of It appoints its faculty in accord with these factors. To move staff from one institution to another would impair the structural balance of both institutions and hamper their teaching and research programmes. Such programmes cannot be readily revised or interchanged.
2. Taught courses and research orientation programmes are planned by and for particular teachers and would be impeded if they were transferred. Research work would be no less affected. A university has specialized faculty who attract fresh researchers in that field. Laboratory and library facilities are developed to provide for those special If those faculty members are transferred, young research students would be left without resort. The material resources would lie unused or underused, while the human resources – i.e., the relevant faculty – would be underemployed at a new institution.
3. Major research funding is invariably linked to the assurance of expert faculty members as Principal Investigators. No funder would agree to fund a project without this assurance. Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional projects would be especially On the other hand, the presence of core senior faculty in the field ensures a succession of projects, creating a node of research excellence. This is the case with many of our older universities. Transfer of faculty would impair the working of these research nodes.
4. At this point of time, even those older universities are impoverished of resources, material and human. Hundreds of posts are lying This is a particularly bad moment to deplete them of their remaining faculty.
5. We are anxious that the new universities should be developed productively, but this cannot be done by sporadic transfer of faculty from elsewhere. At present, all or most of the new universities are grossly lacking in staff, infrastructure and facilities. Some of them have no full-time teachers at all. These needs must be met with due planning and sufficient funding, with extensive recruitment of permanent staff at all Unless this is done, a handful of teachers brought in on transfer would be left to operate in a vacuum.
6. A more fundamental issue must also be Any such move would spell the end of academic autonomy. All the universities would be brought under centralized administrative control. They could no longer develop freely, each according to its bent. Academic productivity would suffer seriously if university faculty felt they could no longer control their own affairs. This is an intangible factor, but its importance cannot be overstated. We would particularly request you to consider this earnest appeal, made based on our lifetime’s experience.

Needless to say, there would also be endless procedural problems in coordinating the different terms of employment at various universities. Above all, there is the fundamental issue of whether faculty originally appointed to non-transferable posts could be subjected to this radical change in their terms of employment. We are not expanding on these legal and administrative issues as we wish to stress the dire academic consequences of the change.

In short, it is our strong opinion that this change, if implemented, would severely affect the functioning of the older and more established universities without material benefit to the new ones. We earnestly appeal to you to consider our arguments and refrain from giving your consent to the bill.

Yours faithfully

(Names in alphabetical order)

Amita Chatterjee, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University, and former Vice-Chancellor, Presidency University

Amitava Raychaudhuri, former Palit Professor of Physics, University of Calcutta and former Director, Harish-Chandra Research Institute (DAE), Prayagraj

Anup Sinha, former Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta

Anupam Basu, Raja Ramanna Professor, Jadavpur University; former Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur; former Director, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur

Ashok Ranjan Thakur, former Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal State University and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology

Partha Chatterjee, former Director, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

Partha P. Majumdar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Statistical Institute, and former National Science Chair

Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, former Vice-Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University

Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Professor Emeritus, former Director and Distinguished Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Samaresh Bhattacharya, Former Professor, Department of Chemistry, Jadavpur University and recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar prize

Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, former S.N. Banerjee Professor of Political Science, University of Calcutta

Siddhartha Datta, former Professor of Chemical Engineering and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Jadavpur University

Sukanta Chaudhuri, Professor Emeritus, Jadavpur University Supriya Chaudhuri, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University

Related:

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

I AM MALALA! Afghanistan or Ahmedabad why are fundamentalists wary of the right to education?

Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture

The post Refrain consent to WB University & Colleges Amendment Bill, 2026, will affect autonomy & functioning: Academic to Governor appeared first on SabrangIndia.