Teesta Setalvad speaks with Ebin Basil and Mohammad Athnan about the struggle to regain their university and an elected students’ union after two decades.

The conversation also confronts the stigma and demonisation Jamia and its students have faced, part of a right wing agenda to obliterate the institution’s emergence from India’s struggle for freedom.

The post 20 Years Without a Union, 18 Days of Hunger Strike: Jamia Students Script a Win | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, November 6, the ECI has issued communication addressed to CEOs of Delhi, Maharashtra, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Telangana and Nagaland on facilitating inclusion of left out voters. 

The communication states:

– Voters who are on ASDD list as they had shifted residence, can fill enumeration form along with a statement with details of their new address. In case of homeless persons, field verification by BLO will suffice. 

– Voters who could not submit their enumeration form within the deadline and are on ASDD list can submit their enumeration form now along with a statement on why they were unable to do so earlier. 

– All those on ASDD list who will now fill enumeration form along with the applicable statement will be re-assigned their old EPIC number. All such cases will be parked for inclusion in final voter list following due verification. 

– Wide publicity must be given to all these initiatives, including through media, social media, and announcements, reaching out through WhatsApp etc. and facilitation and assistance to be provided to voters. 

Link to ECI communication of Nov. 6, 2026- https://ceodelhi.gov.in/PDFFolders/2026/Left_Out_Electors_6_11_2026.pdf 

Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, petitioners in the Writ Petition (Civil) 1188/2026 & IA No. 317050/2026 in Anjali Bhardwaj & ANR. Vs Election Commission of India & ANR have in a public communication today stated that they welcome this development:

“We welcome this communication issued by the ECI. We believe this is an important step in addressing large scale exclusions caused during SIR. The provision to re-assign the old EPIC numbers is important as it will ensure preservation of voter’s historical record of being an existing voter. Just in Delhi, out of 47.56 lakh deleted in the first phase and put on ASDD, 31.59 lakh were marked as permanently shifted and 11.73 as absent/untraceable. The SC had observed that asking such people to fill Form 6 with its declaration of being a first time voter was an error. 

We urge the CEO of Delhi and all other states to take immediate steps to operationalise these critical directions. “

Meanwhile, yesterday, November 5, they had in a formal letter the ECI requested for an immediate investigation and legal action based on media report of forgery, identity fraud, and misuse of Form 7 in Mustafabad Constituency of Delhi

In a letter addressed to the ECI, Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri had relied on a news report published in The Hindu yesterday.

The letter states that,  

“We are writing to draw your urgent attention to a news report published by The Hindu on November 5, 2026, titled “Delhi SIR: several BJP BLAs named as ‘objectors’ deny filing Form 7s in Mustafabad area” (pasted below).

“The investigative report highlights alarming irregularities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in the Mustafabad constituency of Delhi. Out of 1,021 deletion applications filed, at least 787 Form 7—accounting for 94% of third-party deletion requests—were submitted in the names of 20 BJP-appointed Booth-Level Agents (BLAs). All the applications were against Muslim electors. Upon verification, The Hindu has reported that 16 of these 20 individuals denied filling, signing, or having any knowledge of these forms, indicating that their identities appear to have been forged and used fraudulently without their consent.

“The report raises serious concerns about possible systematic and fraudulent attempt to disenfranchise legitimate electors through the deliberate misuse of statutory procedures and warrants investigation.

“In light of these findings, we urge the ECI and the CEO, Delhi, to take immediate cognizance and initiate the following actions:

1. Register police complaints: Direct the registration of FIRs under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including for forgery, criminal impersonation, identity fraud, and submission of false declarations etc.
2. Comprehensive audit of all Form 7 submissions: Conduct a comprehensive audit of every Form 7 submitted across all constituencies in Delhi during the SIR to verify whether the listed objectors actually authorized and signed the forms.
3. Statutory penalties under the RP Act: After investigation, enforce strict statutory action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against all persons who knowingly submitted false or fabricated declarations in Form 7.
   
4. No deletions without independent verification: Immediately stay all deletion proceedings originating from third-party Form 7 applications until independent verification with the affected electors and listed objectors is completed.
5. Publish verification reports: Release a public report disclosing the total number of Form 7 applications received, verified as genuine, or found to be fraudulent to maintain public trust in the electoral process.
6. Publish all Form 7 submissions on the CEO Delhi website: Publish all Form 7 deletion applications received during the SIR on the website of the CEO, Delhi to enable people to check and verify whether such forms have been fraudulently submitted in their names.

The letter dated November 5 had been addressed to Gyanesh Kumar, The Chief Election Commissioner, ECI, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Election Commissioner, ECI, Dr. Vivek Joshi, Election Commissioner, ECI and Ashok Kumar, The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Delhi

The Hindu, November 5, 2026 (page 4)

The post Does the ECI’s Nov 6 communication signal a step-back on re-enrolment in the ASSD list? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A copy of the judgement is not yet available.

Doley was arrested on July 12, days after he took part in a protest against a hotel project at Ingle Pathar, a village adjoining the Kaziranga National Park in Assam. Predictably, the police had alleged that he “unlawfully trespassed into the site of the Tea Tribes Museum and thereafter trespassed into the nearby ATDC [Assam Tourism Development Corporation] Hyatt project at Ingle Pathar with deadly weapons” during the protest. Doley, is the convenor of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Protection Committee (GKLHRPC) and a leading face of the agitation against a proposed luxury hotel project near Kaziranga National Park.

On July 29, a sessions court in Golaghat granted bail to Doley, stating that the investigating officer had already recorded the statements of key witnesses and that there was no possibility of the accused concealing or tampering with the evidence.

However, the very next day, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state detained Doley under the National Security Act, alleging that he had carried out “suspicious foreign transactions from doubtful sources” in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. Shockingly, this means that he was not released from jail, despite the bail order.

In August, the Congress had alleged that the Assam government invoking the Act against Doley was part of a “growing pattern” of the BJP “weaponising extraordinary laws to silence dissent”. Party leader Jairam Ramesh had described the state government’s allegations against Doley as “vague and speculative”.

Citing detentions of at least two other persons under the Act in Uttar Pradesh in April, the Opposition MP claimed that this was a familiar script followed by the Narendra Modi government.

At the time of the arrest itself, three organisations have issued strongly worded statements condemning the arrest of prominent Assam land rights activist Pranab Doley, describing the police action as an attempt to suppress democratic dissent and intimidate communities resisting corporate-backed projects in and around Kaziranga. In separate statements released on July 12, the Forum for Social Harmony, the Asom Mojuri Shramik Union (AMSU) and All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS), and the Bhumi Adhikar Andolan (BAA) alleged that Doley’s arrest is part of an intensifying pattern of criminalising indigenous rights defenders, farmers and people’s movements challenging land acquisition, displacement and the expansion of corporate interests in ecologically sensitive areas. While each statement approaches the issue from a distinct perspective, all three organisations unequivocally demand Doley’s immediate and unconditional release, withdrawal of what they describe as false and politically motivated criminal cases, and an end to the alleged use of police powers to stifle democratic protest.

The statements were issued hours after the Assam Police detained Doley in Guwahati on July 12 in connection with a criminal case registered at Bokakhat Police Station.

Forum for Social Harmony calls arrest an attack on democratic rights

The Forum for Social Harmony characterised Doley’s arrest as “an attack on democratic rights”, alleging that the Assam government had deployed the police machinery to suppress a legitimate people’s movement centred on land rights, livelihood protection and environmental justice. The organisation said the arrest was deeply alarming because it followed a prolonged and peaceful campaign by local farmers, indigenous communities and several people’s organisations opposing the proposed luxury hotel project at Engle (Inglay) Pathar in Kaziranga.

According to the Forum, the government’s response has not been to engage with the concerns raised by affected communities but to repeatedly invoke criminal law against movement leaders. It alleged that the filing of one criminal case after another reflects a “dangerous trend” of shrinking democratic space, where constitutionally protected rights to dissent and freedom of expression are increasingly curtailed through criminal prosecution and police action.

Related:

‘Attack on democratic rights’: Rights groups denounce Pranab Doley’s arrest

The post Assam: Gauhati HC quashes NSA detention of activist Pranab Doley appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dozens of protesters from the Christian community marched to Kolkata’s Esplanade on Thursday (November 5, 2026) in protest against the rising cases of mob attacks on churches across West Bengal.  Thereafter, a mega-prayer rally was called by the Bangiya Chirstiya Parishad at Rani Rashmoni Road in Esplanade on Sunday (November 1, 2026). A sea of people from Kolkata and surrounding districts walked from Sealdah, Birla Planetarium, and Howrah to gather there and express their dissent over the rapid attacks.

“An unprecedented crisis has brought us together today at this prayer gathering in Kolkata. Over the past five months, coordinated attacks, vandalism, and atrocities targeting prayer meetings, worship centres, and churches have been taking place relentlessly across various districts,” said Herod Mullick, state secretary of BCP.

SabrangIndia had reported on the terror generated by local outfits of the Bajrang Dal against the Christian community in October 2026. This report may be read here.

Media has reported that at least 48 such incidents have been reported since May across the state since the far right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) “swept to power”. The elections have been contentitious however as allegations of mass voter exclusion under the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) have been before, during and after the 2026 elections, been proven.

Despite 48 incidents being documented, however, the first information reports could be lodged in only 15 cases. Out of the 48 targeted churches, 7 belong to mainline denominations—6 Catholic and 1 Church of North India (CNI). Mr. Mullick has told the media that the central allegation levelled against the community is ‘forced conversion’. He said it is a ‘false narrative’ deliberately used only to frame peaceful Christian prayer gatherings as illegal conversion events.

“Our repeated appeals to the Chief Minister to uncover the truth remain unheeded, while miscreants who take the law into their own hands operate with complete impunity. While the victims have chosen forgiveness and you have continued to pray in silent endurance, the reality on the ground remains grim,” he added.

He also addressed the deep anxiety among the Christian community in Bengal over the upcoming Christmas festival in December. He said that the people are scared to celebrate any event or even to step out due to these recent incidents. However, Mr. Mullick assured them that the organisation is speaking to the administration and the dialogue seems positive.

Seeking a “constructive way forward”, a five-member delegation of the BCP also met the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) State Head, Dr. Jishnu Basu, on Wednesday. “Dr. Basu firmly assured us that attacks or vandalism on places of worship are entirely unacceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. He committed to personally taking up this matter with the CM,” he said.

The development comes only four days after a newly erected church at Basanti in South 24 Parganas was vandalised by a violent mob belonging to some Hindu outfits. Several priests and also the Bishop of the church have been injured during the incident.

A similar incident also took place at a prayer meeting in Malda’s Harishchandrapur on the same day. However, nobody was injured in this incident. Another under-construction church was also vandalised by a mob on July 5 at Subhashgram in South 24 Parganas.

Archbishop Joseph D’Souza, the President of the All India Christian Council and National Federation of Churches, Bishop Shyamal Bose, Bishop Nirmal Gomes, Bishop Subodh Mondal, Rev. Samaresh Naik from the National Council of Baptist Churches, Odisha, and representatives of Churches and Organisations from Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland were also present at Thursday’s (November 4, 2026) mega prayer rally.

“Attacks on the Christians are not new. We have been victims of such religious oppression historically. We must stand together against such barbarism unleashed on the Christian community. We are all the children of God, and he shall protect us. Our fight will continue,” said Mr. D’Souza, addressing the rally, according to media reports.

Meanwhile, a separate rally was also held at Basanti, where a newly constructed protestant church was attacked by a group of people on its inaugural day. The local Christian people marched to the local BDO office and submitted a memorandum demanding swift action against the culprits.

Related:

Christian families assaulted, humiliated and forced into Durga Puja rituals in West Bengal village

The post West Bengal: Outpour of anguish from the Christian community over recent attacks on churches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian Express had reported yesterday, November 5, that the IT Ministry has begun discussions on a sweeping overhaul of India’s social media regulatory framework, including a proposal to withdraw the legal immunity available to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and X for content posted by their users.

The move, which could significantly impact how social media companies operate in India, is likely to raise public future, concern and condemnation as also set the stage for a major confrontation between the government and the technology industry, given that the protection has been central to the business models of some of the world’s largest internet companies. Reported The Indian Express.

Key to these deliberations is a rethink around the concept of “safe harbour”, a legal protection that shields internet intermediaries from liability for third-party content. According to two senior government officials, the government is exploring whether this protection should be restricted to services that merely transmit or carry information, such as internet service providers (ISPs), telecom service providers (TSPs) and peer-to-peer messaging platforms, rather than social media companies that actively determine what content users see.

What discussions centre around is the debate around whether or not social media platforms can continue to be considered “passive carriers of information”, given that they actively use sophisticated algorithms to rank, recommend and amplify content, besides also their ability to moderate posts based on their own community guidelines, which may not always align with Indian laws. According to the orientation of these discussions, such practices, amount to exercising editorial control over content, raising questions about whether these companies should continue to enjoy the same legal protections as traditional intermediaries.

“Intermediaries were supposed to be simply carriers of content, and safe harbour in that sense made sense. When you receive a message from someone, the platform’s only responsibility is to carry that message and deliver it to you without making any changes to it. But with social media platforms deploying complex algorithms to boost engagement and virality, the boundaries have been blurred. They definitely determine what gets shown to users, and are no longer simple carriers of content,” a senior government official told Indian Express.

Responding to these developments today, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has expressed alarm by the Indian Express that the Ministry of Electronics and IT has begun discussions on stripping social media platforms of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. IFF states that, “Nobody should mistake this for a move against Big Tech for it is a move against the people who use these platforms. Safe harbour is not a gift to Meta, Google or X. It is the legal foundation that lets ordinary Indians speak online without a platform’s lawyers deciding in advance whether their post is worth the risk and taking it down. If it is taken away, and every platform becomes liable for every post, comment and video. The rational response for any company is to remove anything that might draw a complaint, a notice or a summons. Criticism of the government, reporting on protests, satire, and the speech of people without lawyers will be the first casualties which are already being censored by automated filters implemented pursuant to the IT Rules, 2021.”

The statement issued by IFF goes on further to state that it was this very distinction that the Supreme Court recognised exactly this in Shreya Singhal (2015), which is why it read down Section 79 (3) (b) to require a court order or a lawful government direction before platforms must act. Besides, says IFF, the e timing tells its own story as the report says that MEITY’s rethink was shaped by a view within government that platform algorithms have favoured Opposition and anti-establishment narratives over official messaging, and by the role of Instagram during the student protests in July. In other words, the complaint is not that platforms host too much illegal content but it is that they host too much content the government dislikes.

“This is also the latest step in an escalation that has been building for years. The 2023 Fact Check Unit amendment tried to make the government the arbiter of truth about itself, until the Bombay High Court struck it down. The Sahyog portal has turned Section 79(3)(b) into a parallel, opaque takedown channel that sidesteps the safeguards of Section 69A, a practice X is now challenging in court. In August, a Parliamentary Standing Committee gave Mark Zuckerberg three days to apologise personally for the brief removal of the Prime Minister’s video or face the loss of safe harbour. Subsequently advisories were issued on October 8, 2026 and October 10, 2026 pressuring digital platforms to implement pro-active censorship through, “enhanced due diligence”.

The role of Instagram during the students’ protests in July, when the platform emerged as a key vehicle for mobilising online support, is understood to have played a part in these deliberations. The government has been examining how social media platforms determine the reach and visibility of different kinds of content, and whether their recommendation systems can influence public discourse while remaining insulated from legal responsibility for the material they amplify.

The friction between the government and social media companies has intensified in recent months. In July, the IT Ministry summoned Meta’s global policy executives, including its global affairs president Joel Kaplan, after a video uploaded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was briefly withheld by Facebook in India during the students’ protests. The government had also raised concerns about the prevalence of deep fakes and the company’s compliance with Indian laws.

The tensions are not limited to Meta. Elon Musk-owned X has challenged the Centre’s online content blocking and takedown framework, including the use of the government’s Sahyog portal to issue removal notices. In September 2025, the Karnataka High Court dismissed X’s challenge to the mechanism, following which the company filed an appeal. The dispute has become emblematic of the widening disagreements between the government and technology platforms over the boundaries of online speech and the state’s authority to regulate it.

The government’s thinking has also received impetus from recent observations by the Supreme Court in the Just Rights for Children Alliance vs S Harish case, where the court raised concerns about social media companies’ failure to adequately prevent the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

In its October 15 order, the court observed that Section 79 was inadequate to address persistent regulatory failures, describing the loss of safe harbour as a consequence that was too drastic for routine non-compliance but insufficient to deter violations. It called for a separate framework of proportionate penalties, including monetary fines, while retaining the loss of safe harbour as a last resort for serious violations.

Separately, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, chaired by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, has also pushed for stronger action against social media companies. In August, Dubey warned that Meta could lose its safe harbour protection following the temporary removal of Modi’s video, and said the committee had recommended withdrawing such protections from platforms failing to comply with Indian laws.

Child Sexual Abuse, Deep fakes, Non-consensual Intimate Imagery real problems: IFF

Safe harbour was never meant to be a bargaining chip that MEITY waves at a company to extract compliance, states IFF. While there are real problems on these platforms such as child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate imagery and deep fakes, the Supreme Court’s observations in Just Rights for Children Alliance on October 15 deserve a serious answer. The answer is not blanket censorship argues IFF

“But the answer is targeted, rights-respecting obligations with independent oversight, transparency about takedowns, and a grievance process that works for users. It is not a liability regime that pushes platforms to delete first and never ask. Nor is it a rule that platforms must clear product changes with the government before shipping them, which would hand the state a license raj over the design of the services Indians use every day. Any change of this scale must go through Parliament, with a published draft, a genuine consultation and a full debate. It cannot be settled in closed-door meetings between the Ministry and a handful of companies. What IFF will do IFF will send a detailed representation to the Ministry of Electronics and IT setting out why the proposed changes to Section 79 are unconstitutional and unworkable, and what a rights-respecting approach to platform accountability should look like. We will also write to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology. We are filing RTI applications with MeitY seeking the minutes, agendas, attendance lists and file notings of every meeting held on the review of safe harbour, including the meetings with Meta and other platforms in July and August, and the basis for the Ministry’s assessment of how platform algorithms treat government and Opposition content. The public has a right to know who is in the room when the rules of their speech are being rewritten. We will publish what we receive, and we invite other civil society groups, journalists and platform users to join us in asking the Ministry to put any proposal to open consultation before it goes anywhere near Parliament.”

Government

Meanwhile it appears that the discussions are still at an exploratory stage, and no final decision has been taken on the contours of the proposed changes. To be sure, stripping social media companies of safe harbour would likely require making amendments to the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, which would have to be approved by Parliament.

Queries sent by IE to the IT Ministry, Meta, and Google did not elicit any response until publication.

Related:

State Censorship: Pushback by Filmmakers, Juries and Audiences Enable Screenings

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

From Punjab ’95 to Satluj: When cinema becomes a battlefield over history, memory and censorship

The post Censorship: Government keen on stripping legal immunity for social media platforms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by The Indian Express, the agreement was finalised at a meeting at the Kolhapur district collector’s office, attended by Maharashtra Minister Hasan Mushrif, representatives of sugar mill owners and members of the farmers’ organisation. Shetti, who had been demanding an initial payment of Rs 4,500 per tonne, agreed to the revised arrangement.

Under the formula, farmers will receive an initial payment of Rs 3,900 per tonne. An additional Rs 100 will be paid at the end of the crushing season, while the remaining Rs 200 will be disbursed before the next crushing season, subject to sugar prices remaining stable at Rs 45 per kg.

The agreement also includes a provision to ensure that farmers benefit if sugar prices rise. If prices exceed Rs 45 per kg, 70 per cent of the additional revenue will be passed on to sugarcane growers, with the remaining 30 per cent going to factory owners, Shetti said.

Following the agreement, Shetti announced the withdrawal of the agitation at the Kini toll plaza in Kolhapur and Nagthane in Satara at around 1 am on Friday, November 6. A strike scheduled for Friday was also called off. Traffic along the Pune-Satara-Kolhapur stretch of NH-48 subsequently began returning to normal.

Months of demands culminate in highway blockade

The agreement follows nearly two months of sustained protests by sugarcane growers, who had been demanding an initial payment of Rs 4,500 per tonne, arguing that the amount was necessary to secure a fair return for their produce.

The agitation escalated on November 3, when the Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana launched road blockades at Nagthane in Satara district and the Kini toll plaza in Kolhapur district. As reported by The Indian Express on November 4, the protests disrupted traffic at several points along the highway, including Satara, Nagthane, Atit, Umbraj and Kini-Wathar. With both Mumbai-bound and Kolhapur-bound traffic affected, police were compelled to divert vehicles through interior village roads.

The blockade was not the organisation’s first attempt to press its demands. On October 13, farmers had blocked the highway at the Kognoli toll plaza on the Maharashtra-Karnataka border for more than 34 hours over the same issue.

The farmers’ demands extended beyond the immediate price of sugarcane. Shetti had also called for an increase in the minimum support price of sugar from Rs 31 per kg to Rs 50 per kg, arguing that the existing price structure did not adequately address growers’ concerns.

Speaking to the media during the November agitation, Shetti had criticised the state government and sugar mill owners for their failure to engage with the protesters despite the prolonged blockade. He pointed out that farmers had remained on the roads for over 24 hours without any official visiting them to hear their demands.

The protest had also received political support. Former Maharashtra Chief Minister and Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan, who represents Karad in Satara district, backed the agitation, accusing the state government and sugar factory owners of repeatedly ignoring farmers’ demands despite two months of protests.

Related:

“It Is Not Just Numbers”: Prakash Raj on the Exclusion of 13.6 Crore Indians | SIR | Teesta Setalvad

Diwali travel rush exposes unchecked profiteering by private bus operators as fares soar to Rs 7,000

From Arunachal to Delhi, anti-dam protesters face state crackdown; detained allege sexual assault

Arunachal’s anti-dam protests intensify as arrests, militarisation and threats to press freedom fail to silence resistance

The post 61-hour highway blockade forces Maharashtra sugar mills to agree to Rs 4,200 per tonne for farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A brief background on the facts and legal proceedings:

Two days ago, on November 3, 2026, a Division Bench (DB) comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v Archana P.S. & Ors (W.A. 2276/2026), set aside a single judge’s interim order. The interim order had directed the university to accept the fees of 16 suspended students of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (Kalady, Ernakulam, Kerala) and let them appear for their exams. The appeal before the Division Bench (DB) was decided on grounds of pleadings and interim relief. In doing so, the DB quoted, and gave fresh life to, the 2017 observations in Dr Antony Thomas v V.M. Muhammed Rafique, to say that students engaging in such protest in an educational institution are liable to be expelled or rusticated.

The university has alleged that both obstruction and assault took place on August 13, 2026. Students on their part have disputed this, and an investigation is ongoing. NAJAR has stated that it takes no position on disputed facts and does not condone violence, if it has happened. But the issue of whether violence took place and whether peaceful protests have a place in a campus are entirely different questions, and the two must not be inter-twined. NAJAR believes that presenting non-violent campus protest as inherently ‘anti-democratic’ confuses peaceful agitation (for better facilities) or student rights with unlawful disruption and the same cannot be accepted.

Peaceful Protest in Academic Spaces is a Constitutional Right:

Article 19 (1) (a) and (b) under the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Nothing in the Constitution excludes dharna or satyagraha as forms of peaceful protest, and nothing suspends these rights when a citizen is a student or when the place is a university campus or academic institution. The Supreme Court has recognised peaceful protest as part of these freedoms, including in in the famed Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020).

Invoking Dr. Ambedkar to restrain peaceful protest is unfair:

On November 3, 2026; the Division Bench repeated the following observations of the Court in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique and others:

“Political activities like dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education.”

These observations apparently stem from Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s “Grammar of Anarchy”, wherein he had stressed that, where there are constitutional remedies available, there is no justification in adopting unconstitutional methods. However, says NAJAR, to misquote Dr. Ambedkar in such a skewed fashion, particularly in the context of student politics is nothing more than a futile attempt at stretching the clock of constitutionalism over institutional suppression. The whole ideation is problematic in manifold ways.

First, the above quoted passage is conditional. It says unconstitutional methods lack justification where constitutional methods are open. The relevant question is whether constitutional channels were actually open to these students, and the Court actually has not examined it on merit. When university authorities act arbitrarily, constitutional avenues inside the campus stand effectively shut. In such situations, peaceful protest is not a breakdown of law; it is the only remaining constitutional recourse to invoke administrative accountability.

Second, Dr. Ambedkar’s call to rely on constitutional remedies alone has to be read with the shift in his personal and political ideology pre and post adoption of the Constitution. The fact that in the pre-independence era, the people had to rely on both violent and non-violent means of protest against the colonial oppressors doesn’t vitiate the political reality of today, which many a times demand lawful means of protests including Satyagraha and dharna. In fact, more often it is the constitutional institutions that compel the citizens to adopt such means. Quoting Babasaheb, who himself led the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927, to justify a blanket ban on satyagrahas is selective. Equating non-violent protest with criminality distorts the original intention and warning.

Satyagraha and the role of student movements in India today:

Satyagraha was one of the methods of mass resistance during India’s freedom movement. It is difficult to call it ‘alien’ to constitutional democracy when this method, popularised by Gandhi himself, helped create one. Student movements, likewise, have shaped campuses in Kerala and the country, from the freedom struggle to later movements for rights and institutional reform. Back then, students boycotted colonial institutions and joined the Non-Cooperation and Quit India movements. In recent years, students have challenged sexist hostel curfews and caste discrimination on campus. After the NTA cancelled the NEET-UG exam amid paper leak allegations, students across the country peacefully took to the streets, following which Mr. Dharmendra Pradhan, former Union Education Minister, had to resign.

These movements are not ‘distractions’ from or ‘disruptions’ in education. They are how students and youth demand answers and accountability from educational institutions. To say that educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics is either political illiteracy or a much despicable attempt to isolate students from critical thinking and democratic expression.

NAJAR Re-affirms Right to Peaceful Organising and Protest:

NAJAR has emphasised that it believes that all students across campuses and learning spaces must have lawful channels to raise grievances, and institutions should answer reasonable grievances, rather than discipline or crack down on those who raise them. De-politicizing campuses strips students of their ability to question injustice and understand, reform social structures.

Belonging to a particular political ideology or refusing to tender an apology, or relying on matters yet to be evidentially ascertained, cannot be the reasons to shun protesting students from placing their reasonable grievances for institutional reforms, in a constitutionally democratic manner. Protesting peacefully does not make the students ‘less civilized’ or ‘unruly’.

Rather restricting the right to peaceful protest is a highly dubious attempt of subverting the progressive, democratic civic spaces in a state like Kerala, which is what it is today, thanks to democratic resistance, protests and the constitutional fights spearheaded by student and citizen movements!

Hence, the collective has also called upon the Sree Sankaracharya University to complete the enquiry promptly and fairly, in accordance with natural justice and proportionality. NAJAR has also urged that the 2017 observations of the High Court not be relied upon currently by the Kerala High Court to punish peaceful protests. Campus dissent must not be criminalised or treated as a threat to education.

Related:

Jamia’s Answer to Student Protest: Online exams, hostel closures and police detentions

Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

The post Kerala High Court’s Observations on Protest in Educational Institutions Unacceptable & Restrictive: NAJAR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar allowed the petitions challenging the deletion of their names and the rejection of their Form 8 applications, which are used by existing voters to update their residential addresses.

The court directed the Booth Level Officer (BLO) of the Santacruz Assembly constituency in Goa to include the petitioners’ names within 10 days, after verifying their residence.

As reported by LiveLaw, the bench said, “We allow the petition… We have rejected the contention of the ECI that the hearing in the present plea be deferred as the issue of SIR is pending before the Supreme Court…. This is not pertaining to SIR… We therefore ordered the BLO of Santacruz Constituency (in Goa) to add the names of the petitioners within a period of 10 days from today.”

The court also refused the ECI’s request to stay the operation of its order for two weeks.

Court questions requirement to submit enumeration forms

The dispute arose after the petitioners, members of the Salgaonkar family, approached the court stating that their names had been omitted from the electoral roll despite submitting Form 8 applications seeking changes to their residential addresses.

The ECI argued that under the SIR guidelines, voters were required to submit a pre-filled enumeration form along with Form 8. Since the petitioners had not submitted the enumeration forms, they were asked to file Form 6, which is meant for fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.

The bench questioned this requirement, pointing out that the pre-filled enumeration form contained a declaration that the elector continued to reside at the address recorded in the existing electoral roll.

Questioning how voters who had shifted residence could be compelled to make such a declaration, Justice Menezes observed:

“If a voter comes to you with Form 8, saying he has changed his address you just cannot tell that person that look your name isn’t included in the draft roll now you will have to fill in Form 6 (inclusion of new voter). Your enumeration form, basically has a declaration that a person continues to live at the address as mentioned in the existing voters list. But consider, if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration? Why can’t that person simply give a Form 8 because anyway, his name is there in the existing list he just wants to get his address changed.. Why compel enumeration form?”

The bench had also questioned why an existing elector seeking an address correction should be required to apply as a new voter.

Court flags risk of excluding eligible voters

During the hearings, the bench questioned the ECI’s approach of rejecting Form 8 applications instead of keeping them pending for verification. It also raised concerns about the consequences of compelling relocated voters to submit declarations that no longer reflected their actual residential status.

As reported by Bar and Bench, the court flagged a “catch-22 situation” in which voters who had shifted residence faced rejection of their Form 8 applications and were instead directed to submit Form 6, potentially creating further difficulties in establishing their electoral registration.

The ECI, represented by Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, argued that the draft SIR roll was prepared afresh (de novo) on the basis of newly collected enumeration forms. According to the ECI, voters whose names did not appear in the draft roll could not use Form 8 to modify an existing entry and were required to apply afresh through Form 6 during the claims and objections period.

The court, however, allowed the petitions and directed restoration of the six names. It also rejected the ECI’s request to defer the proceedings until the Supreme Court decides the broader challenges to the SIR process.

The detailed written order is awaited.

Related

ECI affidavit says SIR decisions were unanimous, but questions over two commissioners’ objections remain

UP voter lists: Software manipulates Voter’s names, Pilibhit investigation finds 10,470 irregular entries

Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions

The post Goa SIR: Bombay High Court orders ECI to restore names of six voters deleted from final electoral roll appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“My wife was feeling weak and dizzy, so we were just trying to sit for a moment, when the police began to drag us away. One lady constable said that my wife was acting,” said Virendra Bhandari, Ankita’s father as reported by the media, The Times of India and The Print.

A senior police officer told ThePrint that Ankita’s parents were removed as Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been imposed on Rajghat and its surroundings areas.  Ankita’s father, however, alleges police is tracking their location.

The Bhandari parents, along with social activist Yogita Bhayana and Congress leader Mumtaz Patel, had gone to Raj Ghat to offer prayers. “We have come here to pray for Ankita and get some strength. The Delhi Police has been tracking our phone location so as soon as reporters began speaking to us while we were catching our breath, they detained us,” Virendra Bhandari said. The expression of public protest was silent and peaceful.

आप ख़ुद ही पूरा वीडियो देखिए… अंकिता की माँ बेहोश पड़ी थी पास में एलएनजेपी हॉस्पिटल था लेकिन पूरे डेढ़ घंटे के बाद उनको बुरारी के सरकारी हॉस्पिटल ले जाया गया…. एक पीड़ित परिवार के साथ ऐसी सवेंदनशीलता ??? https://t.co/uGRhUVLjiT

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) November 5, 2026

Instead of allowing their anguish expression, the Delhi police appeared insensate and brutal. Reports state that the couple was allegedly kept in a police van for close to two hours. “They made us sit in the van for close to two hours without any water. My wife was feeling weak and they provided no emergency assistance, but kept on making rounds around markets and roads in that area,” he added.

Later, the police eventually dropped the duo at Burari Hospital, where Virendra claimed that his wife was not given proper treatment. “My wife was not happy with how she was being treated at the hospital so we just left. We don’t want this government’s treatment or help; we have seen enough mistreatment.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) M. Harsha Vardhan told ThePrint, “Parents of Ankita Bhandari were intending on putting up an indefinite dharna so they were removed. We have no issues with them sitting there for a few minutes, but when the police posted there learnt that they intended on doing an indefinite strike, we had to detain them.”

The officer added that the parents were not being tracked, but when they reached the spot, Central Industrial Security Force personnel present alerted the Delhi Police. “We had no intentions of detaining them for two hours but when the Central District police detains people, we take them to Burari or Chhatrasal area, so when Ankita’s parents complained of being unwell we took them to Burari hospital,” he said. He added that the time spent inside the vehicle could be due to the traffic congestion.

The development comes weeks after the Bhandari couple protested in the Capital against the appointment of Bharatiya Janata Party leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as the governor of Sikkim. The family has alleged that Gautam was involved in Ankita’s death.

Previously, in October 2026, the parents had also faced similar police brutality at India Gate. At the time, Leader of the Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi had also visited the site of the protest.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Will the Ankita Bhandari murder case, arrest of journalist, Negi affect the April 19 poll?

Ankita Bhandari Case: Protests for justice enters 7th day, victim’s parents leading the protestors, condemning the arrest of the journalist seeking action in Ankita’s case

The women India continues to ignore

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

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

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

The post Delhi Police: Ankita Bhandari’s parents detained, ‘Dragged, driven around, no help to unwell wife,’ says father appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The website of the organization has published a portrait of Gautam Adani, garlanded and looking upwards wearing a half-smile, who now joins an array of 33 global figures and companies lined up by Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) in its “2026 Press Freedom Predators List”. Donald Trump, US President, makes it on the list for the first time this year. OpIndia, which features pro-establishment critiques of independent media, is on the list again.

The list is RSF’s rather unique way to mark the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on November 2. It profiles 33 “press freedom predators” who targeted journalists and media outlets in 2026. “What do they have in common? A hatred of press freedom,” says RSF.

“This tongue-in-cheek awards list highlights the diversity and brutality of the tactics used to stifle journalism,” RSF says.

India has two entries – corporate giant Adani features as a representative of his Adani Group, which RSF says is a “predator” of the media for its “use of gag suits”. A journalist the group has been pursuing with a criminal defamation case due to articles published recently spent time in a prison in Gujarat. RSF notes that the conglomerate has “11 ongoing civil and criminal proceedings against journalists in India over their reporting on the Adani Group and its subsidiaries”.

The RSF report notes that the Adani Group seeks “to criminalise journalism via abusive legal proceedings against media outlets and journalists”, joining other noteworthy personalities with the same goal: Kazakhstan’s president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, making his debut, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

RSF cites from a lawsuit filed by Adani Enterprises on September 6, 2025, to illustrate its point:

“[T]he Plaintiff is aggrieved by the actions of certain reporters, activists and organisations, who, with malicious intent, have damaged the Adani Group’s reputation and also cost its stakeholders billions of dollars and also caused massive loss to the image, brand equity and credibility of India’s brand as a country… [T]he Defendants, by aligning with anti-India interests and continuously targeting the Plaintiff’s Infrastructure and energy projects, which are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security, have disrupted these projects with ulterior motives.” Adani Group is among several others who use lawfare to target journalists critical of them or their regimes as per the RSF’s 2026 report.

Ironically, the second Indian entry is media outlet OpIndia, which features this year for “fuelling public hatred through digital attacks on independent journalism, orchestrated or supported by those in power”. In its study of how OpIndia operates, RSF has previously noted that between January and September, 2025, it published 91 articles targeting journalists and media outlets, including 43 aimed exclusively at five journalists. “The RSF analysis found that of these 43 articles, 32 were followed by immediate waves of online harassment,” its study found.

OpIndia continues to find support from Google AdSense and other sources despite funding withdrawals as a result of the ‘Stop Funding Hate’ campaign, the RSF notes. Anne Bocandé, RSF editorial director, said:

OpIndia is a central cog in the systematic harassment of journalists in India, which puts them in very real danger. RSF calls on the Indian justice system to investigate the cyber harassment campaigns linked to these publications. Online platforms, particularly X, must act to remove the hateful content fuelling these attacks. What’s more, it seems that Google AdSense’s continued funding of this site is incompatible with its misconduct. The fight against online harassment is key in protecting journalists and press freedom in India.

The profile of OpIndia on the RSF site says, “Between 2023 and 2025, more than 300 publications targeting journalists were published on its website, often fuelling large-scale online harassment campaigns.”

OpIndia takes on independent sites, opposition-ruled state governments for their perceived wrongs. Screenshot taken on November 3, 2026. As per the RSF report, the journalists most frequently targeted on OpIndia were: Rajdeep Sardesai, consultant editor and anchor of India Today (36 articles); Arfa Khanum Sherwani, journalist of The Wire (18); Mohammed Zubair, Co-founder of the fact-checking website Alt News (15); Mahesh Langa, journalist at The Hindu (13), Ravish Kumar, independent journalist (11); and Prabir Purkayastha, chief editor of NewsClick (10).

Independent media outlets, The Wire, NewsClick and Newslaundry, were also among the main targets, RSF found, with 32, 17 and 16 disparaging articles documented, respectively, over this period. Together, such entities (among many others) have contributed to bring India’s media ranking in 2026 to 157th/180 – down six places from last year. As per the RSF rankings, India is part of a sea of red for lack of media freedoms in a vast part of the world:

The RSF recently provided a retrospective of the last 25 years in terms of media freedoms, in which it noted:

For the first time in the history of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low.

Donald Trump makes it to RSF’s top worst list

After narrowly missing the cut last year, US President Donald Trump earned his spot on the 2026 Press Freedom Predators List as a result of his appalling record of attacks on the press after less than two years of his second term.

“Since returning to the White House in January 2025,” writes RSF, US President Donald Trump has been “waging an assault on press freedom that is unprecedented in recent US history.”

The report lists verbal attacks, legal intimidation and administrative reprisals against media outlets he considers hostile. It says the Trump administration has restricted journalists’ access to government and military institutions, undermined the independence of public broadcasters and weaponised the broadcasting regulator against the press.

Besides it also cites the President responding to questions regarding the restriction of journalists’ access to the White House, September 2026:

“Oh, the ban on the – on the free press. Right? A very simple ban. I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can.”

Still, the US ranks 64th/180 on the rankings in 2026 though it has dropped 7 places from last year.

‘Familiar faces’

Adani Group, OpIndia and Trump feature on different lists within the RSF rankings. While Adani features in the “legal” category, OpIndia features on the “social” category and Trump sits among the political. But these are just three among the 33 RSF features.

RSF describes Russian President Vladimir Putin as “ever-present” on its rankings, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega as another “repeat offender” in the “security” category. It also refers to the “dismayingly unassailable” Israeli armed forces, Mexican cartels and Chinese Communist Party.

“Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, alongside the Israeli armed forces, has pursued its repressive policy against journalists in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon,” it says.

The only woman featured among the 33 is Margarita Simonian, the editor of Russia Today and other Russian outlets.

“She has called for the dissolution of RSF and congratulated Alexander Lukashenko after a plane was diverted to arrest the Belarusian blogger Raman Pratasevich,” RSF notes.

Earlier, while releasing the World Press Freedom Index, RSF noted that over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. “In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low,” it says.

Related:

Jahangirpuri: Navika Kumar, Anjana Om Kashyap demolish media credibility further

‘Godi media’ on a rampage: Mowing down of farmers labeled ‘clashes’, victims ‘khalistanis’

From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media

The post RSF classifies ‘Press Freedom Predators,’ Adani, OpIndia make it to the 2026 List appeared first on SabrangIndia.