Twelve years ago it was the challenger to the post of Prime Minister who hysterically raised this bogey in the imminent general elections (2014) and now, in the past two years or so it is him again and his grizzly lieutenant, the country’s home minister who warningly raised the bogey even as their regime drove the country’s Election Commission (a hitherto independent and constitutional body) to conduct a hastily constructed, even unlawful and unconstitutional Special Intensive Revision of India’s Electoral Rolls. Beginning with Bihar in June 2025 and thereafter now completed in 20 states while 16 others reel under its process, the exercise has cost the country dear. Not only do we know what the democratic basis for conducting this process has been (transparency activists have revealed no due process in the decisions taken) but cost estimates are a staggering Rs. 1500-3,000 crores of the Indian tax payer’s money. Worse school functioning, teaching in classrooms and even examinations have been de-railed as teachers have been drawn into an exercise they are ill-trained for.

There is worse. Latest news reveals, and we need to thank the local newspapers in Karnataka (Prajawani among others) as also the Hindustan Times for revealing that the “bogey” used by the two most powerful Indians to justify this exercise has been busted.

Sabrangindia reported on October 28, yesterday, how this baseless propaganda has been exposed as a rank falsehood post SIR in Karnataka and elsewhere. BJP and the Sangh Parivar leaders in Karnataka had claimed that the state, particularly Bengaluru, had 10-25 lakh Bangladeshi infiltrators[1] and that SIR was necessary to identify them; on October 27, the day the final SIR list was released, the CEO, Karnataka (CEO) Anbu Kumar, responding orally to a question, categorically stated that the number of foreign nationals detected was fewer than one thousand. According to the front-page report in Prajavani, a total of 771 foreign nationals were identified in Karnataka, of whom 685 were Nepalis! In Bengaluru North district alone, 580 foreign nationals were identified, of whom 542 were Nepalis. Apart from Nepalis, the other foreign nationals detected were primarily citizens of the United States, Canada, Australia and other Western countries. The argument meant to foster hysteria and hatred stands busted. Read the final categorisation here.[2]

Besides, according to documents obtained from informed sources, only one Bangladeshi national and one Pakistani national were detected, both in Uttara Kannada district. This makes two things abundantly clear. First, the malicious propaganda of the Sangh Parivar was false. Second the motive behind the SIR was not “national security” and identification of “illegal immigrants” but disenfranchising millions of Indians!

Significantly, there are two more important reasons for arriving at this conclusion. In its judgment on SIR delivered on May 27, the Supreme Court directed states where the SIR process had been completed to submit lists of suspected foreign nationals identified during the exercise to the “Competent Authority” under the Ministry of Home Affairs within four weeks. Not merely four weeks, but five months have now passed since that judgment. Even before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, SIR had already been completed in 13 states. The same transparency activists (Venkatesh Nayak and Anjali Bharadwaj), in August 2026, used the Right to Information Act (RTI) to understand both from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Election Commission, how many such foreign nationals had been identified. Significantly, in the MHA reply in October, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that it had neither information about the “Competent Authority” nor any list of suspected foreign nationals. The Election Commission, on its part, replied that it had no report showing how many suspected foreign nationals had been identified through SIR in different states.[3]

Then comes today, October 29, 2026, the icing on the cake.

The Hindustan Times reports that a relevantly insignificant 1,600 foreigners had been identified on the voter’s list of six states. Not lakhs or millions, one thousand six hundred!  The size of the electorate in the six states, reports Himanshi Dahiya of the newspaper is 98.6 million. This ration shows how miniscule is the number as compared to the electorate here. In all, HT spoke to the CEOs of 26states and Union territories where SIR was completed or draft rolls published. Officials from 11 states responded. Six gave a count of suspected foreigners. Four said they didn’t maintain the data. Odisha said it found such cases but did not record a figure. While Karnataka as the CEO states had an overwhelming number of Nepalis, Jharkand had three persons on the rolls from Afghanistan. Two men of Nepalese origin were identified in Meghalaya, both married to Indian women! In Goa, authorities detected 419 suspected foreign passport holders, said it’s CEO Sanjay Goel while Punjab, Delhi, Uttarakhand and Telengana did not record data.

So what does this mean? A staggering 13.60 crores Indians (at least!) are disenfranchised today, though Vote for Democracy’s independent calculation suggests that the number may be above 16 crores! In December 2025, India’s Home Minister[4]  defended the SIR as a means to “detect, delete, deport” alleged “infiltrators”,[5] a claim unfounded.

Among the large number of genuine voters from Bihar and West Bengal disenfranchised through this ad hic and arbitrary process (SIR), several thousand have –even while adjudication is under way– been deprived of other citizenship related benefits like access to government. schemes, even passports and the omnipresent Aadhaar car. While the apex court has underlined that the SIR cannot be an exercise in citizenship, the “deletion” from the electoral roll has had a ripple effect of such denials. Even scarier is the witch-hunt launched in the states of West Bengal and Assam –both states ruled by the majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—to launch coercive deportation and expulsion drives (May 2025 in Assam and post May 2026 in West Bengal. This has resulted in, as reported by the Reporters Collective, The Wire, Human Rights Watch and Citizens for Justice and Peace, expulsions of ethnic Bengali Muslims, forcibly, without following the central government’s own deportation policy across the border to No Man’s Land and even Bangladesh![6] After the SIR process was completed, the BJP state government in West Bengal set up detention camps[7] in May 2026 under the “detect, delete, deport” policy and continued arbitrary detentions.

All these steps without due process, proof or accountability. By a government that has increasingly been functioning more and more undemocratically, feeding its supporters on hysteria and propaganda not reality or fact. And while the political Opposition has in the past months been rigorously opposing the ill-conceived SIR, the detrimental impact of this process on the lives of disenfranchised citizens is still a blur, concealed from the public gaze.

Who are these hapless Indians, a staggering 160 million of them who live today under the grave and potential shadow of statelessness? Indians need to know.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQnSBVGZy-k;

[2]https://ceo.karnataka.gov.in/uploads/PDF%20FINAL%20AC%20WISE%2027_1793094730.pdf

[3] https://thewire.in/rights/rti-reveals-in-sir-purging-of-ineligibles-from-the-voter-lists-might-be-a-bogey

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowI1PVIwyE

[5] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/patna/bihar-ration-card-list-trimmed-by-3-percent-using-sir-data-and-income-flags-10716206/

[6] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/election-commission-sir-draft-rolls-13-crore-deletions-delhi-leads-10857760/

[7] https://theprint.in/india/bengals-bjp-govt-tells-districts-to-set-up-detention-camps-for-illegal-bangladeshi-rohingya-migrants/2940338/

Related:

EXCLUSIVE – SIR: The total disenfranchisement of the Indian Voter is 16 crores, not 13.60 Crores?

SIR Karnataka: Six major ‘conspiracies’ exposed in the final electoral roll

Assam NRC: Seven years after 19 lakh people were excluded, rejection slips remain a non-starter

The post SIR’s elusive illegal immigrants: Bogey Busted but will the injustices heaped be corrected? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeals filed by Aman Kashyap, Devinder Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Ashish alias Goli and Arun Kumar, upholding their conviction under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the prosecution evidence established more than the appellants’ mere presence in a crowd: it placed them at the forefront of an armed mob that pursued and assaulted the deceased.

The central question before the Court was whether the appellants could be held collectively liable for the death when the prosecution had not established which individual had inflicted the fatal head injuries. Affirming the trial court’s findings, the High Court held that the absence of proof identifying the individual assailant was not, by itself, sufficient to absolve the appellants of liability under Section 149 IPC. The Court held that the weapons carried by the mob, the exhortations attributed to the appellants and the continued assault provided the factual basis for finding that the assembly shared the unlawful common object of assaulting the deceased and causing bodily harm.

“In the present case, the evidence establishes more than the mere presence of the appellants in a crowd. PW-10 identified all five appellants at the forefront of the armed mob, exhorting others to assault the deceased. The deceased was pursued, surrounded and assaulted even after he had fallen near the police barricades. The conduct attributed to the appellants, the weapons carried by members of the mob and the continued assault upon the deceased provide the factual basis for concluding that the assembly had an unlawful common object of assaulting the deceased and causing bodily harm to him.” (Para 67)

Prosecution evidence and the appellants’ challenge

The case arose from an incident on February 25, 2020, when Monish was allegedly chased and assaulted by a mob near Gali No. 3, Brijpuri, in the vicinity of Peer Baba Mazar, Chand Bagh. He was subsequently taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he died from his injuries. The post-mortem report attributed his death to shock resulting from ante-mortem brain injuries caused by blunt-force impact.

The trial court, by its judgment dated November 30, 2024, convicted the five appellants under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. By its order dated January 13, 2025, it sentenced them to one year of simple imprisonment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹30,000, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Challenging the conviction, the appellants questioned the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the delay in recording the police witnesses’ statements, the absence of a test identification parade (TIP) and alleged deficiencies in the investigation. They also disputed the identification evidence and argued that the prosecution had failed to establish their participation in the assault or the common object necessary to attract constructive liability under Section 149 IPC.

The defence particularly relied on the changing testimony of Shashi Kant, who initially attributed the assault to the accused but subsequently clarified that he had seen the five appellants in the mob without personally witnessing them strike the deceased. Manoj Kaniyal, another prosecution witness, did not identify the appellants before the trial court and denied the prosecution’s suggestions concerning their identification.

High Court assesses identification evidence and police testimony

Rejecting the challenge to the identification evidence, the High Court placed primary reliance on the testimony of Constable Piyush, the beat constable of the locality, who stated that he knew the appellants before the incident through his official duties.

Piyush identified the five men as being at the forefront of the mob, carrying weapons and shouting “maaro maaro”. According to his testimony, the deceased was chased, assaulted near the police barricades and repeatedly beaten even after falling. The police personnel subsequently intervened, dispersed the mob and arranged for the injured man to be taken to hospital.

Head Constable Deepak and Constable Vineet substantially corroborated the account of the pursuit, assault and police intervention. The Court acknowledged, however, that these witnesses had obtained the appellants’ names from Piyush, and that their identification was not independent of his insofar as the names were concerned. Their evidence nevertheless supported the occurrence and the contemporaneous pointing out of the persons allegedly involved.

The Court also rejected the contention that the police witnesses’ testimony should be discarded merely because they were public officials. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Girja Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it reiterated that police testimony must be assessed on its own merits rather than rejected on the basis of the witness’s official status. The Court noted that duty records supported the witnesses’ presence at the police picket and that their accounts substantially corresponded on the pursuit, assault and rescue of the deceased.

“In the present case, the presence of the said witnesses at the police picket is supported by the duty records, and their accounts substantially correspond regarding the manner in which the deceased was pursued, assaulted and subsequently rescued. Their official status, therefore, cannot constitute an independent ground for rejecting their testimonies.” (Para 53)

On the absence of a TIP, the Court relied on Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that identification in court constitutes substantive evidence, while a TIP ordinarily tests a witness’s ability to identify a suspect during investigation. The absence of a TIP does not automatically render identification inadmissible, although its evidentiary value must be assessed with due caution. The Court considered Piyush’s prior familiarity with the appellants particularly relevant to this question.

Delay in recording statements and investigative lapses

The High Court acknowledged that the statements of the three police eyewitnesses were recorded on April 1, 2020, more than a month after the incident. It also noted the investigating officer’s admission that the witnesses had not approached him on their own and had instead been called for examination during the investigation.

The Court cautioned that the delay could not be accepted mechanically merely because the incident occurred during the riots. Nevertheless, after considering the explanation that several riot-related cases were being investigated simultaneously, along with the evidence of the police witnesses, it held that the delay did not, by itself, discredit the occurrence or establish false implication.

The judgment also addressed discrepancies concerning the precise place of the assault, the PCR call and the use of electronic evidence. It clarified that the hospital CCTV footage had been relied upon to identify the injured person, not to establish visually that the appellants had participated in the assault. Similarly, call-detail records could indicate the approximate location of a mobile device but could not conclusively establish the user’s precise physical location at a particular moment.

Acknowledging the investigative deficiencies raised by the defence, the Court held that such lapses did not automatically displace otherwise reliable eyewitness evidence. The relevant inquiry, it said, was whether an omission undermined the credibility of the evidence or prejudiced the assessment of guilt.

Section 149 IPC: Liability without proof of the individual fatal blow

The principal legal issue concerned the application of Section 149 IPC, which attributes liability to members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of its common object, or offences that its members knew were likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.

The Court relied on Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Lalji v. State of Uttar Pradesh to reiterate that the prosecution need not invariably establish an individual overt act by every member of an unlawful assembly. However, it also invoked Kuldip Yadav v. State of Bihar to emphasise that mere presence in an assembly, or possession of a weapon, is insufficient without establishing the unlawful common object or the requisite knowledge.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the prosecution evidence went beyond establishing the appellants’ presence in a crowd. Piyush had identified them as being at the forefront of an armed mob and exhorting others to assault Monish. The deceased was pursued, surrounded and assaulted even after he fell near the police barricades.

Taken together, the conduct attributed to the appellants, the weapons carried by members of the mob and the continued assault supported the finding that the assembly shared the unlawful common object of assaulting the deceased and causing bodily harm.

The Court therefore held that the prosecution’s inability to identify the particular person who inflicted the fatal head injuries did not, by itself, absolve the appellants of liability. The decisive consideration was whether the offence was committed in prosecution of the assembly’s common object or was one its members knew was likely to be committed in pursuit of that object.

Why the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC was upheld

The High Court separately examined the nature of the offence, emphasising that the fact of death alone could not determine whether the case fell under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. Part I applies where the act causing death is accompanied by the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part II applies where the accused has the requisite knowledge that death is likely but lacks the intention contemplated under Part I.

Relying on the evidence concerning the weapons carried by the mob, the exhortations attributed to the appellants and the manner in which Monish was assaulted, the Court held that these circumstances had to be considered together in determining the requisite mental element. It noted that the deceased was pursued by an armed mob, repeatedly assaulted after falling and sustained head injuries that proved fatal.

The Court thus upheld the finding that the offence involved the requisite intention under Section 304 Part I IPC and was committed in prosecution of the unlawful assembly’s common object, or was an offence its members knew was likely to be committed in pursuit of that object. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all five appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction dated November 30, 2024, and order on sentence dated January 13, 2025.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

Delhi HC grants bail to Rashid, a rickshaw-puller accused in Delhi Riots

The Word is the World: How the Delhi riots conspiracy case ritualises silence

“This Means FIR”: Delhi Court orders further investigation, FIR against BJP leader Kapil Mishra five years after Delhi riots

5 Years of Delhi Riots: Some Punished, Some Rewarded!

Delhi Police on Trial: Three court orders reveal collusion, cover-ups, and custodial torture by police officers during 2020 Delhi riots

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

The post 2020 Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court upholds seven-year sentence for five men in 22-year old Muslim migrant worker’s death appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Wednesday, October 28, the university announced that online teaching for the current semester would continue until November 24, with practical examinations, fieldwork and project vivas scheduled online from November 25 to 30, followed by online theory examinations from December 1 to 24. Winter vacation will run from December 25 to January 12, with physical classes for the even semester scheduled to resume on January 13, 2027.

Jamia Millia Islamia has extended online semester classes and examinations until January 2027 amid continuing student protests, according to the reported development. The decision has sparked fresh backlash, with students raising concerns over prolonged online learning and the disruption of campus life. The university’s move comes as demands for the restoration of the Students’ Union continue.
The revised schedule keeps students away from physical classrooms until at least mid-January, with even-semester classes scheduled to begin on January 13, 2027. Students are demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union and a fixed election timeline. The administration cites campus safety concerns.

— Millat Times English (@Millat_English) October 29, 2026

The announcement came as girls residing in Jamia’s BHM hostel marched inside Gate No. 8 on the night of October 28. The hostel provost reportedly warned them of disciplinary action if they did not end the march. Hostel residents were also asked to vacate all hostels by November 1, with the administration citing the shift to online classes.

Female students from the J&K Hostel at Jamia Millia Islamia staged a midnight protest demanding the restoration of the students’ union and expressing solidarity with the ongoing student movement.

#JamiaMilliaIslamia #StudentProtest #NSUI #GulistanNews https://t.co/5qebzZkCcd

— Gulistan News (@GulistanNewsTV) October 29, 2026

The order means students will remain away from physical classrooms for the rest of the current semester and throughout the examination period, with no scheduled return to campus before January. The university has justified the decision on security grounds, but the timing and scale of the restrictions raise serious questions about whether the administration is responding to the concerns of its students or attempting to contain a protest it has been unable to resolve through a credible, time-bound commitment to elections.

Delhi: The protest demanding student union elections at Jamia Millia Islamia University continues for the 18th consecutive day. A large number of paramilitary personnel and Police personnel have been deployed outside the university. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) remains in force

— IANS (@ians_india) October 29, 2026

Students at Jamia Millia Islamia have been on hunger strike for the past 16 days, demanding the restoration of student union elections.

While the administration has agreed to the students’ demands, uncertainty remains over when the elections will be held.

The protest continues, with a heavy security presence on campus. Tear gas vehicles and buses to detain protesters have also been stationed at the university.

@jaisl_khushi reports.

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) October 28, 2026

Jamia students’ protest enters day 16 as hunger strike continues over the restoration of the students’ union, defunct since 2006. Students demand a clear election timeline and withdrawal of disciplinary action. Talks with the administration remain deadlocked, while online classes and exams are extended until November 8.

— Peek TV (@PeekTV_in) October 28, 2026

#Jamia : Dean Iqtidar ले रहे थे ऑनलाइन क्लास

स्टूडेंट्स ने अपने DP लगाया ”Respect My Existence or Expect my resistance”

ये वही प्रोफेसर हैं जो प्रोटेस्ट के शुरुआती दिनों में बच्चों से नेगोसिएशन करने जा रहे थे। बाद में उन्हीं बच्चों के टेंट को उखाड़ने चले गए। फ़िलहाल ये अपने ही क्लास के बच्चों का बग़ावत झेल रहें हैं।
#jamiamilliaislamia #JamiaProtest

— Md Naiyar Azam (@theNaiyarAzam) October 28, 2026

In its order, the university said a meeting of deans, heads of departments, directors and other officials had concluded that the campus situation was “not conducive for academic environment”. It said the decision had been taken to ensure the safety and security of students.

A Jamia student asks: Why are there more security personnel than protesters? Why bring in outside forces when the university has its own security team? This issue can be resolved in a single meeting. If JNU and DU can have student unions, why can’t JMI? What’s the big deal? We are being targeted because of our religious identity. This concern for education is nothing but an excuse. If they really cared about education, they would increase the education budget instead of sending security forces into our university.

— pranav pradhi (@pranavpradhi1) October 29, 2026

For 18 days, students at Jamia Millia Islamia have been on hunger strike demanding their democratic right to an elected students’ union. Delhi Police has detained student protesters, including @nsui_jamia comrades, while Section 163 restrictions have curtailed their right to assemble. Now classes and examinations have been pushed online, affecting the entire student community.

Jamia Millia Islamia was born out of the Non-Cooperation Movement and India’s struggle against British colonial rule. Yet students demanding democratic representation at this historic institution face restrictions and repression. The BJP’s attempts to discredit their protest by invoking “Islamist” sloganeering are aimed at diverting attention from their legitimate demands.

The BJP government’s response to student dissent is repression. It seeks to silence student voices and suppress legitimate demands through restrictions.

The Jamia Millia Islamia administration must respect students’ democratic rights and restore their elected students’ union. We stand in solidarity with the students in their fight for democratic representation.

@nsui @nsui_jamia

#JamiaMilliaIslamia #StudentsRights #SaveDemocracy #RightToProtest #StudentUnion

— Dr Syed Naseer Hussain, M P (@NasirHussainINC) October 29, 2026

Yet the administration has offered no electoral timeline that resolves the principal objection raised by the protesters. Instead, physical academic life has been suspended, access to campus facilities has been restricted, hostel residents face eviction and police action against protesters has continued. Students have argued that these measures punish the wider university community for a dispute that the administration could address by committing to a transparent and enforceable election schedule.

Twenty years without a union, and still no firm election date

At the centre of the agitation is a demand that should not require weeks of hunger strikes and escalating confrontation to secure: the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMI-SU), which has remained defunct since 2006. The last elected union was dissolved amid allegations of campus violence and disruption. Two decades later, students continue to be denied a university-wide elected body through which they can represent their interests, raise grievances collectively and hold the administration accountable.

The current agitation began on October 12, when students launched an indefinite hunger strike demanding the revival of the union. The movement grew as students from different departments joined sit-in demonstrations around the Mirza Ghalib statue lawns. Five students were still on hunger strike on Wednesday, according to reports, despite the physical strain of prolonged fasting and the growing restrictions around the protest.

Students have repeatedly said that they exhausted conventional channels, including memorandums and representations to the university, before resorting to a hunger strike. Their grievances extend beyond the election schedule to include alleged administrative retaliation against students who protest, the withdrawal of disciplinary penalties and accountability for the conduct of campus security personnel.

In an account of the agitation, Indian Express reported, one hunger-striking student described the absence of an elected union as a structural problem that leaves students without an effective mechanism to challenge decisions affecting their education and campus life. The student cited previous protests over alleged irregularities in sports admissions and complaints about food quality at the Jammu and Kashmir hostel, claiming that students who raised concerns had faced campus bans or eviction.

Delhi Police detained Jamia Millia Islamia students amid the ongoing protest demanding the restoration of the Students’ Union. The protest is taking place near Gate No. 7, where students have been demanding their right to student representation on campus. https://t.co/MWkGxL8sD5

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) October 28, 2026

The account points to a broader concern: when the administration controls the channels through which grievances are heard, while students lack an elected body to represent them, dissent can become an individual act of risk rather than an institutional process of accountability.

Protesting students at #Jamia released an itinerary for the university’s 106th Foundation Day on October 29, featuring flag hoisting and speeches by hunger strikers as chief guests.

The programme is expected to conclude with an announcement of a mass hunger strike https://t.co/49IWS9cmAY

— Vishu Adhana (@vishu_reports) October 29, 2026

An election assurance tied to an approval process with no deadline

The administration announced on October 26 that student union elections would be held 15 days after the union constitution was approved. It also stated that suspension and show-cause notices issued during the agitation would be revoked and that a committee would investigate the conduct of security personnel during the protest. The announcement was presented as a step towards resolving the impasse. Students, however, rejected it as inadequate because the university did not specify when the constitution would be completed and approved.

An assurance that elections will take place 15 days after approval is not a definite election schedule when the date of approval itself remains uncertain. Without a binding deadline for the constitutional process, the administration retains control over when the condition for holding elections will be met.

Students have warned that this arrangement leaves room for further delay, allowing the university to claim that it has agreed to elections while postponing the process needed to make them possible. They have demanded that the constitution be drafted and approved within a short, fixed period and that the election dates be formally notified within 15 days of approval.

Students have also questioned why the administration needs an extended period to prepare a constitution when the university previously had an elected union. They have suggested that the existing constitutional framework could be reviewed and amended rather than used as a reason for prolonged uncertainty.

The administration’s announcement also failed to address the full range of disciplinary penalties imposed during the protest. While it referred to the withdrawal of suspension and show-cause notices, students pointed out that this did not explicitly cover rustication and campus bans. Ebin Basil was rusticated for one academic year, while Jasim Ali Khan was barred from entering the campus for six months, according to reports.

The detailed piece may be read here and here.

From campus restrictions to an extended academic shutdown

The latest order follows a series of measures that have progressively disrupted ordinary university life since the agitation began. On October 17, students alleged that university security personnel, accompanied by police, moved against protesters in the early morning, dragging and assaulting students and dismantling parts of the protest site. Videos circulated on social media showed confrontations and students being pulled away. Ebin Basil also alleged that he had been assaulted.

The administration has disputed aspects of the protesters’ account and accused students of obstructing university activities. On October 18, it condemned slogans painted on campus walls, including “Restore JMISU”, “Reclaim Jamia”, “Free Palestine”, “Free Sharjeel Imam” and “RSS Se Azaadi”, describing them as detrimental to national integrity, security and sovereignty. It also directed that the walls be repainted and called on protesters to vacate the demonstration site.

The university subsequently shifted classes online, citing disruption and security concerns. On October 24, it further restricted physical academic activity, closed gates and limited access to facilities, including the Central Library and canteen services. Students alleged that electricity and water supplies around the protest area were also cut off.

According to accounts published by Alt News and The Wire, protesters said their sit-in site had been dismantled, students had been manhandled and access to basic amenities had been restricted. Some students alleged that they were left with inadequate access to washrooms during the protest.

“We are not criminals or terrorists. We just want a date for student union elections.”

Speaking to our reporter @jaisl_khushi, Jamia student Hrithik alleges that the administration is trying to intimidate students with the threat of UAPA, NSA and police action.

With classes shifted online and a heavy security presence on campus, he says access to basic facilities, food and water has also been disrupted.

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) October 28, 2026

Students also reported that gates connecting parts of the campus and the boys’ hostels had been sealed. They said the restrictions affected not only those participating in the agitation but also students attempting to use university facilities and members of the public accessing services such as the health centre, dental hospital, bank, Aadhaar centre and post office.

Jamia Millia Islamia.
Students need to be heard: Prof Tripathi https://t.co/PUSBuN9Tjj

— Rakhi Tripathi (@rakhitripathi) October 28, 2026

Police deployment and detentions deepen the confrontation

The university’s restrictions have coincided with an intensified police presence around the campus. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been invoked to prohibit public gatherings in the area, and warning signs outside the campus have threatened the use of force and legal action to disperse unlawful assemblies.

On Wednesday, Delhi Police detained two members of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), Faizan and Zishan, outside Gate No. 4. According to The Hindu, the two were taken to Fatehpur Beri before being brought to Jamia Nagar police station. NSUI condemned the detentions, which came as the students’ hunger strike entered its 17th day.

Jamia Millia Islamia has extended online semester classes and examinations until January 2027 amid continuing student protests, according to the reported development. The decision has sparked fresh backlash, with students raising concerns over prolonged online learning and the disruption of campus life. The university’s move comes as demands for the restoration of the Students’ Union continue.
The revised schedule keeps students away from physical classrooms until at least mid-January, with even-semester classes scheduled to begin on January 13, 2027. Students are demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union and a fixed election timeline. The administration cites campus safety concerns.

— Millat Times English (@Millat_English) October 29, 2026

Students have alleged that more than 70 protesters have been detained since October 12. Earlier, Niranjan KS, Arbaaj Khan and Munna Qureshi were arrested under provisions of the BNSS and sent to judicial custody, according to media reports.

“They are our children, they are your children too. Please accept their demands,” said Dr Rehana, a Jamia Millia Islamia alumna who has been monitoring the health of students on hunger strike, appealing to the university’s Vice-Chancellor.

Dr Rehana warned that the students’ health is deteriorating day by day as they continue their hunger strike demanding the restoration of the Students’ Union.

A health update displayed at the protest site shows that Ebin Basil has lost 7.1 kg after 17 days of hunger strike, with his weight dropping from 60 kg to 52.9 kg. Rehan Khan has lost 3.8 kg after 14 days, with his weight falling from 50 kg to 46.2 kg.

The board also lists Ritik and Aitaf on their third day of hunger strike and Abuzar on his second day.

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) October 28, 2026

The police restrictions have also made the campus an increasingly difficult place for students to access and organise within. Protesters have described barricades, heavy deployment outside the gates and difficulties entering or leaving the university. Some have alleged that deliveries of drinking water and other essentials were stopped at the gates.

These are the darkest day of Jamia Millia Islamia. No students are allowed to see the flag hoisting ceremony on Foundation Day. Thus, students have decided to celebrate its own Foundation Day.

#JamiaProtest #restorejmisu https://t.co/JoAeDM7GPp

— Sherlock Holmes (@sherlock_hoIme) October 29, 2026

The situation also carries painful memories of the December 2019 police crackdown on Jamia students protesting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The circumstances of the current agitation are different, but the renewed presence of police around a university campus, alongside allegations of force against students, has revived concerns about the treatment of dissent at an institution that has previously been at the centre of national debates over civil liberties.

Administration alleges vandalism; students accuse it of discrediting the protest

The latest escalation followed allegations of vandalism on the night of October 27. In a statement reported by the media, the university said groups of protesting students and local residents had damaged gates and boundary walls, brought down Gate No. 4C, pelted stones and damaged the CCTV control room, cameras and their connections. It also alleged that masked protesters had attempted to mobilise support from the boys’ hostels and that female wardens and faculty members had been threatened.

Students have denied the university’s account and accused the administration of attempting to frame the agitation. One protester, Neville Thomas, alleged that the administration had erected aluminium sheets around parts of the campus and subsequently blamed students when the structures were damaged. Students have also alleged harassment by proctorial staff in the hostels, including the confiscation of identity cards and orders to close mess facilities from November 1.

Hostels face closure as students continue their protest

The reported decision to ask hostel residents to vacate by November 1 marks another escalation. The university has argued that keeping hostels open serves little practical purpose when classes have moved online and teachers are not attending campus. An official also alleged that a large proportion of protesters supporting vandalism were hostel residents.

For students from outside Delhi, hostel accommodation is not simply an extension of classroom attendance. It is their place of residence, and abrupt closure can create serious logistical and financial difficulties. The reported march by women residents of the BHM hostel on October 28, followed by a warning of disciplinary action from the provost, underscores the growing strain between students and the administration.

Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi has said that negotiations are continuing and appealed to students not to create a law-and-order situation. He stated that the concerns raised by students were being examined by a body constituted for the purpose. But an appeal for order does not answer the question at the heart of the protest. Students are asking when their elected union will be restored, what timeline will govern the drafting and approval of its constitution, and whether the administration will withdraw the disciplinary measures imposed during the agitation.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Jamia’s Answer to Student Protest: Online exams, hostel closures and police detentions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to Hindustan Times, the Registrar General of India (RGI), in an affidavit dated September 28, informed a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe that the state NRC coordinator had yet to begin issuing rejection slips. The RGI attributed the delay to the fact that the NRC data had not been shared with its office, as the security framework required for the data was still being prepared.

The affidavit filed by the RGI in Assam State Jamiat Ulama v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 839 of 2026, confirms that the process remains incomplete despite repeated directions and correspondence between the concerned authorities.

“Enactment of the security regime for NRC data by the state coordinator is under progress and hence data has not been shared with the Registrar General of India,” the affidavit states. It further explains that the RGI can formally notify the final NRC only after receiving the data from the state coordinator.

The immediate consequence is that people excluded from the final list remain without the rejection slips intended to facilitate their appeals before Foreigners Tribunals. The delay is particularly significant because the Supreme Court had directed the state NRC coordinator as far back as May 8, 2018, to develop a mechanism for issuing these documents.

Supreme Court directive remains unimplemented

The Supreme Court’s May 8, 2018, order required the state NRC coordinator to develop a system through which those excluded from the final register could obtain rejection slips and pursue appeals before Foreigners Tribunals. The document is intended to communicate the outcome of the NRC process and facilitate a challenge to exclusion. The RGI’s latest affidavit records that, despite subsequent directions and administrative discussions, the state coordinator has not commenced the process.

The affidavit traces the delay through a series of official communications. At a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary on February 22, 2020, it was decided that rejection slips in cases where the results were considered correct should be issued immediately, with March 31, 2020, set as the deadline. Cases involving discrepancies between the results recorded in physical records and those entered into the computer system were to be referred to the concerned Deputy Commissioners for clarification. On November 5, 2020, the RGI wrote to the state coordinator, asking that the issuance of rejection slips be completed in accordance with the applicable standard operating procedures, guidelines and Supreme Court directions. The process, however, remained uninitiated.

The state coordinator had earlier informed the RGI, through a letter dated October 8, 2020, that rejection slips could be issued only after the RGI formally notified the final NRC. The coordinator also stated that the security framework for the NRC data was under preparation and that the data had therefore not been transferred to the RGI.

This has left the process caught between two administrative requirements: the RGI says it cannot notify the final NRC without the data, while the state coordinator has maintained that rejection slips cannot be issued until that notification takes place. The result is that the Supreme Court-mandated mechanism for enabling excluded people to challenge their exclusion has remained stalled for years.

Security framework for NRC data still pending

The delay is linked to the Supreme Court’s August 13, 2019, direction that the NRC data be protected through a security regime comparable to the safeguards governing Aadhaar data. The court had directed that the lists of inclusions and exclusions be made available to the state government, the Union government and the RGI only after the prescribed safeguards were put in place. According to the RGI’s affidavit, the state coordinator is still working on implementing this framework. Until the data is shared, the RGI says it cannot formally notify the final register.

The affidavit thus places the responsibility for the continuing delay within an unresolved administrative process involving data security, transfer of records and formal notification. It does not, however, alter the practical consequence for those excluded: the rejection slips have not been issued, and the appeal mechanism envisaged by the court has not been operationalised through this step.

The prolonged delay raises serious questions about the effectiveness of a citizenship verification exercise when the administrative steps necessary to communicate its outcome and facilitate legal challenges remain incomplete years after publication.

Nearly 19.07 lakh people excluded from the final NRC

The NRC update was notified by the Union government in December 2013 and undertaken in accordance with Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Citizenship Rules, 2003. Rule 4A and the Schedule appended to the Rules prescribe the framework for preparing the NRC in Assam. The exercise was conducted against the backdrop of the Assam Accord, which established March 24, 1971, as the relevant cut-off date for determining the citizenship claims of persons who migrated to Assam from the territory that is now Bangladesh, subject to the applicable legal provisions.

According to the RGI’s affidavit, applications were received between May and August 2015. A total of approximately 68.27 lakh applications covering 3.30 crore people were submitted, accompanied by around 6.6 crore documents intended to establish eligibility for inclusion.

Applicants were required to furnish documentary evidence linking themselves or their ancestors to the prescribed legacy records, including the 1951 NRC or electoral rolls up to midnight on March 24, 1971, along with other admissible documents. Where necessary, officials undertook further verification, including inquiries concerning the authenticity of documents and the linkage between applicants and their ancestors.

The complete draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018. Those whose names were missing could submit claims for inclusion, while objections could also be filed against entries. The RGI’s affidavit records that 36,26,630 people filed claims for inclusion and that 1,87,633 objections were received by December 31, 2018.

Following the disposal of claims and objections, the supplementary lists were published on August 31, 2019. The final exercise found 3,11,21,004 people eligible for inclusion, while 19,06,657 people were left out, including those who had not submitted claims.

The exclusion of nearly 19.07 lakh people did not, in itself, eliminate their right to pursue the legal remedies contemplated under the NRC framework. Those dissatisfied with the outcome were entitled to challenge the decision before Foreigners Tribunals. The absence of rejection slips, however, has left the process without the formal documentation intended to enable such challenges.

Separate Supreme Court challenge over NRC identity cards

The dispute over rejection slips forms part of a broader set of proceedings concerning the incomplete implementation of the Assam NRC. In a separate matter, All Assam Minorities Students Union v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1030 of 2025, the petitioners have challenged the failure of the authorities to issue National Identity Cards to people whose names were included in the final NRC published in August 2019.

The petitions have been brought by organisations including the All Assam Minorities Students Union (AAMSU), Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the Assam Sankhyalaghu Sangram Parishad. They seek implementation of the legal and administrative steps that, according to them, remain outstanding despite the publication of the register.

The petitioners rely on Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the registration of citizens and the issuance of national identity cards, and Rule 13 of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, concerning the issuance of National Identity Cards to citizens whose particulars are entered in the National Register of Indian Citizens.

They have also sought the issuance of rejection slips to those excluded from the NRC and the initiation of the corresponding appeal process under Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to Rule 4A of the Citizenship Rules, 2003.

The petitioners contend that the failure to issue identity cards to those included and rejection slips to those excluded has left the NRC exercise incomplete. Their case raises questions concerning the implementation of the statutory framework and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, respectively.

The distinction between the two categories is important. People included in the NRC are seeking the identity cards contemplated under the statutory framework, while those excluded are seeking rejection slips that would enable them to challenge the outcome. Both issues concern outstanding steps following the publication of the final register, but they involve separate legal and administrative requirements.

The RGI’s affidavit in the proceedings brought by Assam State Jamiat Ulama also states that the question of issuing NRC identity cards to those included in the final list is pending before the Supreme Court in separate proceedings.

Re-verification plea adds another layer to the dispute

The NRC proceedings are further complicated by a separate plea filed by Hitesh Dev Sarma, the former state NRC coordinator, seeking a complete, comprehensive and time-bound re-verification of the draft and supplementary NRC lists. According to the RGI’s affidavit, Sarma filed an interlocutory application on May 14, 2021, in the proceedings in Assam Public Works v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274 of 2009, seeking re-verification of the NRC.

The affidavit also refers to a separate petition, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 740 of 2025, filed by Sarma on July 24, 2025, seeking comprehensive and time-bound re-verification on the ground of alleged inaccuracies in the NRC lists. The RGI has noted that the Supreme Court disposed of the original proceedings in W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009, along with pending applications, through its order dated October 17, 2024. The affidavit also refers to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which establishes the special framework for citizenship in Assam under the Assam Accord.

These proceedings form part of the continuing legal contest over the NRC’s preparation, accuracy and implementation. The outstanding questions surrounding re-verification, identity cards and rejection slips must nevertheless be distinguished: a demand to re-examine the register is not the same as the immediate issue of enabling people already excluded to pursue the remedy contemplated under the existing framework.

Supreme Court adjourns matter to November 6

The Supreme Court has adjourned the matter concerning the rejection slips to November 6 after the Assam government sought additional time to file its response, Hindustan Times reported. The proceedings arise from petitions by Assam State Jamiat Ulama, AAMSU and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, among others, seeking the issuance of rejection slips to people excluded from the NRC and identity cards for those included.

The immediate question before the court is not merely whether the NRC data can be formally notified, but how the outstanding steps required to give effect to the register will be completed. The RGI’s affidavit confirms that the rejection-slip process has yet to begin, while the security framework required before the transfer of data remains under preparation.

The delay has persisted despite the Supreme Court’s directions, administrative discussions and the RGI’s own communication to the state coordinator in November 2020. For the nearly 19.07 lakh people excluded from the final list, the absence of rejection slips continues to obstruct access to the mechanism intended to challenge their exclusion.

Seven years after the final NRC was published, the register remains caught in an unresolved administrative and legal process. Until the data is transferred, the final NRC formally notified and rejection slips issued, the exercise will continue to leave a fundamental question unanswered for those excluded: how can they effectively challenge a decision when the document intended to facilitate that challenge has not been issued?

Related:

When Belonging Must Be Proved: Assam’s Kashem Ali wins long citizenship battle

Assam citizens’ forum demands scrapping of SIR, completion of pending NRC process; police block protesters at Guwahati Press Club

CJP helps secure Ajabha Khatun’s release after 772 days in Assam’s Matia detention camp

Census 2027: When a population count starts asking for more than just numbers

Assam citizens’ forum demands scrapping of SIR, completion of pending NRC process; police block protesters at Guwahati Press Club

Supreme Court halts deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice to union and NRC coordinator

CJP EXCLUSIVE: How the Union of India took a giant step towards both NPR & NRC in 2015 without informed consent

The post Assam NRC: Seven years after 19 lakh people were excluded, rejection slips remain a non-starter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his post on X, Singh endorsed Yadav’s question to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar: “Why did Ram kill only a ‘Yadav’? Why did Ram not kill a Singh, Pathak, Asthana, Sharma, Rai or Bisht? Is your computer deeply casteist? Are you running the agenda of a political party?”

The post questioned how the name had appeared in the electoral roll and whether the discrepancy reflected a problem with the system. Singh described Yadav’s question as justified.

ज्ञानेश कुमार जी आख़िर राम ने “यादव” को ही क्यों मारा?
राम ने किसी सिंह,पाठक,अस्थाना,शर्मा,राय,बिष्ट को क्यों नही मारा?
आपका कंप्यूटर घोर जातिवादी है क्या?
क्या आप किसी पार्टी का एजेंडा चला रहे हैं? @rajeshyadavaap का जायज़ सवाल। https://t.co/XzaYVoMCEe

— Sanjay Singh AAP (@SanjayAzadSln) October 25, 2026

UP CEO’s post introduces a communal reference

In response to the controversy surrounding the name, the official X handle (@ceoup) of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Uttar Pradesh, acknowledged that an error had occurred in the electoral roll for a recent Legislative Council election. However, the post went beyond the error itself and referred to both caste and religion.

The post stated that the name “Ram ne Sharma ko maara” (Ram killed Sharma) was an unusual entry in the electoral roll. It said that computers and software were not casteist and acknowledged that a mistake had been made, adding that the error had not discriminated based on caste.

It then said that “the authorities were fortunate that Ram had not killed a person from a minority community; otherwise, they would have been accused of being communal as well as casteist”.

The remark drew criticism because it introduced a reference to a minority community into a discussion about an electoral roll error. The post was published through the official handle of the state’s chief electoral officer, prompting questions about the language used by an election authority.

हालिया विधान परिषद के चुनाव की मतदाता सूची में एक अजीबोगरीब नाम “राम ने शर्मा को मारा” भी है। कंप्यूटर/सॉफ्टवेयर जातिवादी नहीं है। हमारे द्वारा गलती किया जाना स्वीकार है लेकिन हमारे सौभाग्य से गलती होते समय भी जाति का भेदभाव नहीं हुआ है। भगवान का यह भी शुक्र है की राम ने किसी अल्पसंख्यक को नहीं मारा है। नहीं तो जातिवादी होने के साथ-साथ सांप्रदायिक होने का इल्ज़ाम भी लगता।

— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 25, 2026

CEO says Election Commission has issued instructions

The post spread across social media and drew criticism for the communal reference made from the official handle. The remarks also came amid allegations of targeted deletion of Muslim voters from electoral rolls.

Congress leader Supriya Shrinate questioned who was operating the official handle, writing that the authorities had little credibility left and that the account itself was undermining whatever remained.

Link:

इस हैंडल को कौन चला रहा है @ceoup

वैसे भी कोई खास विश्वसनीयता आप लोगों की बच नहीं है

जो थोड़ा बहुत भ्रम है – वो यह हैंडल अकेले निपटाए दे रहा है!

— Supriya Shrinate (@SupriyaShrinate) October 26, 2026

Responding to her criticism, the CEO Uttar Pradesh handle stated that the “Instructions have been issued by the Election Commission of India to use measured language in every matter and limit communication to facts without unnecessary comments.”

The response did not clarify who had drafted or approved the original post, whether the officials responsible had been identified, or whether any action had been taken. At this stage, the handle had not issued an apology.

प्रत्येक मामले में संयत भाषा का प्रयोग करते हुए बिना अनावश्यक टिप्पणी के केवल तथ्यों तक ही अपनी बात सीमित रखने के निर्देश भारत निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा दे दिए गए हैं ।

— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 26, 2026

CEO Uttar Pradesh apologises after criticism

Following the criticism, the CEO Uttar Pradesh handle issued an apology, acknowledging that the language, tone and sharpness of the earlier post were not in keeping with the communication expected from an official account.

The statement said that the anger caused by the remarks had been noted and offered a sincere apology to those who were shocked and upset. It also said that future communication would be restrained and formal.

However, the apology did not clarify who had drafted or approved the original post, whether the officials responsible had been identified, or whether any action had been taken against them.

इस हैंडल के उद्धृत पोस्ट में टिप्पणियों की भाषा के स्तर और भाव और इनकी तीखी प्रकृति इस आधिकारिक हैंडल से अपेक्षित संचार की प्रकृति के अनुरूप नहीं है। पोस्ट में टिप्पणियों से उत्पन्न वास्तविक आक्रोश को अच्छी तरह से नोट किया गया है। हम इससे अचंभित और नाराज़ लोगों से ईमानदारी से माफी मांगते हैं। अब से हमारा संचार शालीन और औपचारिक होगा।

— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 27, 2026

The original post also remained available on the official handle, with no public explanation for why it had not been removed.

Who is responsible for the post?

The apology and the assurance of more formal communication leave several questions unanswered. Who manages the CEO Uttar Pradesh’s official X handle? Who drafted and authorised the post referring to caste and a minority community? Has the Election Commission identified those responsible, and has any action been taken?

The authorities have also not publicly explained why the original post remains online despite the apology and the criticism it attracted.

The controversy began with questions about discrepancies in the electoral roll. It then shifted to the language used by the state’s chief electoral officer’s official handle. While the apology acknowledged that the post did not meet the standards expected of an official account, it did not address responsibility for its publication.

Will the Election Commission clarify who was responsible for the post and what action, if any, has been taken? Until then, the questions surrounding the official handle remain unanswered.

Related:

SIR Karnataka: Six major ‘conspiracies’ exposed in the final electoral roll

EXCLUSIVE – SIR: The total disenfranchisement of the Indian Voter is 16 crores, not 13.60 Crores?

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

UP CEO orders voter roll audit after SIR glitches exposed: Can the 2027 election be fair without public scrutiny?

The post UP CEO apologises for minority remark on official X handle, but who is responsible? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Final Electoral Roll for SIR-2026 has been published. Electors can download the part-wise electoral roll from the link below:
https://t.co/NN6wc5PKTN

The SIR Booklet is also available at the following link:

https://t.co/SsXh2HjSiZ

#SIR2026
@ECISVEEP https://t.co/7n0qaGtK8g

— Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka (@ceo_karnataka) October 27, 2026

Final roll adds 8.19 lakh voters to the draft list

The final roll records a net increase of around 8.19 lakh voters compared with the draft list. However, the overall figures do not show how many people whose names were removed at the draft stage were subsequently included in the final roll. They also do not provide a separate count of young and first-time voters added during the revision.

The constituency-wise final electoral rolls are available on the website of the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer (CEO).

Link: https://voters.eci.gov.in/download-eroll?stateCode=S10

Over 43 lakh names removed in Bengaluru

Bengaluru’s electorate fell from around 1.03 crore voters before the SIR to 59.08 lakh in the final roll, a reduction of more than 43 lakh names. The city had also recorded the highest number of deletions at the draft stage.

Across Karnataka, election officials issued 43,82,824 notices to voters categorised as having “no mapping” with the earlier electoral roll or having “logical discrepancies” in their details. The first category covered voters whose details could not be matched with the earlier roll, while the second covered entries flagged for discrepancies. Hearings on these notices were completed before the final roll was published, according to report on the CEO’s figures.

The reduction in Bengaluru accounts for a substantial share of the overall fall in the state’s electorate. However, the final figures do not establish how many voters removed from the draft list were subsequently included in the final roll.

Over 10 lakh applications received for voter inclusion

Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. Between June 16 and October 26, Karnataka received 10,62,336 Form 6 applications, according to figures reported by The Hindu. Of these, 83,806 had been rejected for reasons including applicants already being registered elsewhere, failure to submit documents and other grounds.

The CEO’s office said instructions had been issued to District Electoral Officers (DEOs) to contact applicants whose forms were rejected and include their names if they could be reached and found eligible.

During the claims and objections period, which ended on September 23, more than 7.87 lakh Form 6 applications had been received. Of these, 7.08 lakh were accepted, 76,231 rejected and 3,193 remained pending at the stage covered by the earlier report. The later figures reflect further processing of applications.

The final roll includes more than 6.83 lakh voters aged 18–19 and over 3.92 lakh voters aged above 85. It lists 2,25,83,107 male voters, 2,29,14,063 female voters and 2,841 third-gender voters.

Form 7 applications and allegations over voter deletions

The publication of the final roll follows questions over Form 7 applications, which are used to object to the inclusion of a name or seek its deletion from the electoral roll.

Notably, 61,509 Form 7 applications seeking deletions were filed in the names of election officials, without any reason being mentioned for the proposed deletions. The report said more than 53,000 such applications were filed in the final week of the notice-disposal period. By October 22, a total of 2,28,917 Form 7 applications had reportedly been received during the SIR process.

Officials said that the forms had been generated by software for people marked as ineligible among those issued notices over logical discrepancies or the inability to map their details to the 2002 electoral rolls. The reported absence of reasons in the applications has raised questions about how the deletion requests were generated and processed.

Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar had alleged that pre-filled Form 7 applications were being supplied by unidentified agencies and that BJP workers had submitted large numbers of applications seeking voter deletions. He cited 14,000 applications in Vijayapura City, 3,244 in Bhalki, 10,000 in Narasimharaja and 6,250 in Mudigere.

Shivakumar said the Election Commission of India (ECI) should identify those responsible and initiate criminal proceedings. He also said the state government was examining legal options, had asked the Chief Secretary to obtain the relevant data and that FIRs had been registered. He alleged that many of the affected voters belonged to minority, Dalit and backward-class communities. These are allegations made by the Chief Minister.

Karnataka CM Shri @DKShivakumar Ji is showing a bundle of Form 7 applications carrying pre-filled voter details in printed form, used to target and delete the names of Muslims and minorities from the electoral rolls in bulk.

@BJP4India @BJP4Karnataka, why are pre-filled Form 7 applications being used to delete the votes of Muslims and minorities?

We will never allow the Gyanesh-BJP nexus to undermine the electoral rights of the people of Karnataka.

@ECISVEEP

@INCIndia @INCKarnataka

#Form7 #SIR #VoteChori #GyaneshOut

— Dr Syed Naseer Hussain, M P (@NasirHussainINC) October 8, 2026

Kharge alleges ‘Vote Chori’ and questions protection for CEC

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge accused the Election Commission of irregularities in the electoral rolls, alleging that disclosures about the SIR process were exposing what he called “Vote Chori”.

In a post on X, he accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah of trying to suppress the public movement against the alleged irregularities and questioned why they were protecting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Kharge said the INDIA bloc would continue its democratic struggle to protect every citizen’s vote and the Constitution.

As more skeletons tumble out of the Election Commission’s cupboard, exposing Vote Chori, Modi-Shah are trying hard to suppress the people’s movement! Why are they protecting CEC Gyanesh Kumar?

This diversionary tactics and bogus propaganda is only discrediting Modi Govt, and tarnishing our Democracy!

INDIA shall continue our democratic struggle to protect every citizen’s vote and our Constitution!

#ChaloDilli

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) October 27, 2026

Karnataka CEO denies bulk Form 7 filings, says applications were generated for ‘ineligible’ electors

Responding to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s criticism of the Election Commission over the SIR process, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka clarified on X that election officials had not filed bulk Form 7 applications. The clarification was issued during a press conference on October 27, in connection with the publication of the final electoral roll.

https://t.co/Oohyj77Lew

— Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka (@ceo_karnataka) October 27, 2026

The CEO said Form 7 applications had been generated for electors marked as “ineligible” during SIR hearings. In such cases, the reason for deletion was recorded as “Others”, while the applicant details appeared as ERO/AERO, depending on the login used to generate the form. The CEO further maintained that no bulk Form 7 applications had been received without a reason for deletion being specified in the application.

Related:

EXCLUSIVE – SIR: The total disenfranchisement of the Indian Voter is 16 crores, not 13.60 Crores?

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

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

The post Karnataka’s final SIR roll delete electorate by nearly 1 crore; Bengaluru loses over 43 lakh names appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“A Hindu should only buy from a Hindu. We should only do business with Hindus,” Rane declared at the launch of the HARHAR (Hindu Association of Restaurants, Hotels, Aahar & Refreshments) campaign in Jui Nagar. In a video shared on his official X account, he called on Hindus to ensure that the person they traded with was Hindu, presenting this religious test to strengthen a Hindu Rashtra.

आज जुईनगर, नवी मुंबई येथे HARHAR (Hindu Association of Restaurants, Hotels, Aahar & Refreshments) या मोहिमेच्या शुभारंभ सोहळ्यास उपस्थित राहिलो.

हिंदू उद्योजकांना एकत्र आणून त्यांच्या व्यवसायाला आर्थिक बळ, व्यापक बाजारपेठ आणि नवी संधी उपलब्ध करून देणारा हा उपक्रम निश्चितच कौतुकास्पद आहे.

‘हिंदूंकडून खरेदी, हिंदू व्यापाराला प्रोत्साहन’ या संकल्पनेतून हिंदू उद्योजकता, भारतीय खाद्यसंस्कृती आणि स्वावलंबनाला अधिक बळ देऊया.

संघटित हिंदू समाज, सक्षम हिंदू उद्योजक आणि समृद्ध हिंदू अर्थव्यवस्था हेच आपले ध्येय!

HARHAR मोहिमेस मनःपूर्वक शुभेच्छा!

#HARHAR #HinduEntrepreneurs #HinduUnity #स्वावलंबीभारत #NiteshRane

— Nitesh Rane (@NiteshNRane) October 24, 2026

He then directed this call for economic exclusion towards the Nashik Kumbh Mela, demanding that Muslims not be allowed to set up shops at the gathering. His rhetoric escalated into an outright threat: “If Muslims come to the Kumbh Mela, they should not go back on their feet.”

This is not a call for self-reliance. It is a call for exclusion, backed by the threat of violence. A minister advocating that citizens refuse to trade with fellow citizens because of their religion, while warning of physical harm to those who attend a public religious gathering, raises concerns that cannot be brushed aside as political rhetoric or community mobilisation. In a separate video shared by news agency IANS, Rane referred to vandalism in France, claiming that Muslim-owned shops had been spared. He used this account to reinforce his demand that Hindus verify the religious identity of those with whom they conduct business.

“When you buy things, do business, or engage in trade, you must ensure that the person in front of you is a Hindu before moving forward,” he said. He also asserted that a country with a Hindu majority did not need any certificate to be a Hindu Rashtra.

Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra: Minister Nitesh Rane says, “During all those riots and vandalism, the moment they realized a shop belonged to a Muslim, they didn’t break it. They immediately moved to the next shop and continued their vandalism. When you buy things, do business, or engage in trade, you must ensure that the person in front of you is a Hindu before moving forward. That is why I am telling you this. This is how our Hindu Rashtra will be strengthened. In a country where 90% of the population is Hindu, we don’t need any certificate to be a Hindu Rashtra…”

(Source: Nitesh Rane PR Team)

— IANS (@ians_india) October 24, 2026

The logic is stark: Muslims are to be treated not as fellow citizens participating in the economy, but as people from whom Hindus must withdraw their custom, business and trust.

An economic boycott dressed up as entrepreneurship

HARHAR was presented as an initiative to bring Hindu entrepreneurs in the food and hospitality sectors together, expand their markets and strengthen their businesses. There is nothing objectionable about entrepreneurs organising around shared interests, promoting domestic products or preserving food traditions. But these legitimate objectives cannot be used to sanitise a campaign that explicitly calls for Muslims to be excluded from economic life.

As reported by The Free Press Journal, Swami Vigyananand, joint general secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and founder of the World Hindu Foundation, identified food imports, the alleged dominance of Muslims in certain sectors and the popularity of foreign brands as obstacles to creating a Hindu food ecosystem. Restaurateur Sachin Shetty spoke of building a network of Hindu entrepreneurs and restoring Hindu dominance in the fruit supply chain. Although Shetty reportedly clarified that he did not want Muslim traders thrown out, the language of restoring religious dominance sits uneasily alongside the stated aim of building an inclusive and prosperous economy.

Rane, however, left little room for ambiguity. Hindu traders, he insisted, should sell only to Hindus, while Hindu consumers should purchase only from Hindu shopkeepers, including during Diwali. The issue is not whether Hindu businesses deserve support; they do. The issue is why that support must be built on the exclusion of Muslims.

Economic self-reliance is about strengthening domestic production, supporting small enterprises, improving supply chains and creating livelihoods. A religious boycott does none of this by definition. It instead seeks to turn everyday transactions into tests of religious loyalty, casting Muslim traders as people whose businesses should be avoided simply because they are Muslim.

Rane also invoked allegations of “love jihad”, “land jihad”, “halal jihad” and “corporate jihad”, claiming that money earned through business with Muslims was being used for “jihad” against Hindus. He urged people to stop buying from Muslims and portrayed ordinary commercial relationships as a potential source of danger. These sweeping allegations were offered as justification for collective economic punishment, without credible evidence presented at the gathering to establish the claims.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Hindutva Watch (@hindutvawatchin)

The consequence of this rhetoric is to transform an ordinary act of buying or selling into a communal choice. A trader’s religion becomes a reason to distrust them; a customer’s religion becomes a condition for serving them. The economic boycott is presented as solidarity, while the people targeted by it are made to bear the cost of that solidarity.

When exclusion becomes a political objective

The demand to exclude Muslim vendors from the Nashik Kumbh Mela makes the stakes even clearer. Organisers and authorities may establish rules for licensing, sanitation, safety and the management of commercial spaces. But demanding a blanket ban on Muslim traders because of their religion raises fundamental questions about equal treatment and the right to earn a livelihood.

The threat that Muslims attending the Kumbh Mela should not return on their feet is especially grave. It goes beyond advocating a boycott or expressing hostility. It invokes physical violence against people based on religious identity. Coming from a serving minister, such language demands public scrutiny rather than being dismissed as a provocative flourish.

The constitutional implications are equally important. Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution establish guarantees of equality before the law and protection against state discrimination on grounds including religion. Their application to specific private transactions or the rules governing a particular religious gathering depends on the circumstances. But the larger democratic principle is unmistakable: religious identity cannot be turned into a general licence to threaten citizens or demand their exclusion from public life.

What is being advanced in the name of Hindu entrepreneurship is a much more consequential proposition: that Hindus should withdraw economic support from Muslims, that Muslim traders should be excluded from a major religious gathering, and that Muslims who attend should face intimidation. This is not simply a debate about food culture or domestic industry. It is a demand to organise economic and public life along religious lines.

The question raised by Rane’s remarks is not whether Hindus should support Hindu entrepreneurs. It is whether that support should be weaponised into a campaign against Muslim livelihoods and accompanied by threats of violence. In a constitutional democracy, the answer must begin with a basic principle: no citizen should have to fear exclusion from economic life, or threats to their physical safety, because of their religion.

Related:

“Festivals Must Be Fun. Not Vehicles of Hate” | Teesta Setalvad

‘Abandon Christianity or Face Consequences’: Christian families face three days of violence in Bengal

Dalit Class XI student dies by suicide after alleged casteist harassment in Coimbatore

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Defend the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How festivals became vehicles for anti-Muslim hate in September

The post Economic Boycott as Hindu Solidarity: BJP leader Nitesh Rane calls for Muslims to be shut out appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Giving a six-part breakdown, the author argues that the final, post-SIR electoral roll has ensured the deletion of not just 99.3 lakh voters as has been admitted, this includes 75 lakhs of voters in the “shifted” and “absent” category; hence 99.3 lakhs plus another possible 27 lakhs by a gross under-representation of the elector-population ratio (EPR); roughly this means that the deletions swell to an approximate 1.26 crore voter deletions in total that is a staggering 18 per cent of the state’s electorate

Six major issues exposed Karnataka’s Final Electoral Roll:

1. One Crore Voters Deleted!

According to the final electoral roll, nearly one crore voters (99.3 lakh) have been excluded in Karnataka. Compared with the deletion figures of India’s 24 major states, this is the highest number of deletions in the country. Except for the small state of Arunachal Pradesh, where 22% of voters were ultimately deleted, Karnataka has witnessed the highest percentage of exclusion, with 18% of its voters removed from the electoral rolls.

2. How Many “Illegal Immigrants/Foreign Voters” finally detected?

This was the biggest pretext advanced by the Election Commission and the Modi Government to justify conducting SIR. Their argument, hysterically made at political rallies, was that “lakhs … of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh were infiltrating India”, posing a serious threat to national security. Through the hurriedly launched SIR process –that has been widely exposed as being both unlawful and unconstitutional– these infiltrators would purportedly be identified, their names deleted from the electoral rolls, and they would be “expelled” from the country. The argument advanced was that, therefore, SIR was necessary for national security, and so on.

As part of this propaganda, the BJP and the Sangh Parivar claimed that Karnataka, particularly Bengaluru, had 10-25 lakh Bangladeshi infiltrators and that SIR was necessary to identify them! [1]At the initial stages, even Congress leader and then Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar lent his voice to this campaign. If these claims were valid, how many “Bangladeshi infiltrators” were actually detected in Karnataka after the completion of SIR? Ironically, the official details released by the Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka contain absolutely no information on this matter, which was supposedly so crucial to national security. Read the final categorisation here.^[2]

In addition, according to most newspaper reports published today, October 28 (the day after the final post-SIR list was published), the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Anbu Kumar, responding orally to a question, categorically stated that the number of foreign nationals detected was fewer than one thousand.

According to the front-page report in Prajavani, a total of 771 foreign nationals were identified in Karnataka, of whom 685 were Nepalis! In Bengaluru North district alone, 580 foreign nationals were identified, of whom 542 were Nepalis. Apart from Nepalis, the other foreign nationals detected were primarily citizens of the United States, Canada, Australia and other Western countries.

Then how many infiltrators from Bangladesh and Pakistan were actually detected?

According to documents obtained from informed sources, only one Bangladeshi national and one Pakistani national were detected, both in Uttara Kannada district. This makes two things abundantly clear. First, the malicious propaganda of the Sangh Parivar was false.

Second, the Modi Government had devised the conspiracy of SIR under the pretext of identifying foreign infiltrators, while its real objective was to deprive Dalits, oppressed communities and the indigenous people of this country who do not vote for the BJP of their voting rights.

There are two more important reasons for arriving at this conclusion.

In its judgment on SIR delivered on May 27, the Supreme Court directed states where the SIR process had been completed to submit lists of suspected foreign nationals identified during the exercise to the “Competent Authority” under the Ministry of Home Affairs within four weeks. Not merely four weeks, but five months have now passed since that judgment. Even before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, SIR had already been completed in 13 states.

Shouldn’t these states, therefore, have submitted their respective lists of identified foreign infiltrators to the Competent Authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs by the end of June?

In August itself, CHRI Director Venkatesh and RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj filed applications under the Right to Information Act seeking this information from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Election Commission. In the MHA reply in October, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that it had neither information about the “Competent Authority” nor any list of suspected foreign nationals. The Election Commission, on its part, replied that it had no report showing how many suspected foreign nationals had been identified through SIR in different states.[3]

Doesn’t this establish that both the propaganda about foreign infiltrators and SIR itself were part of a maliciously designed project of the Sangh Parivar? For this reason too, SIR must be completely abolished. Those responsible for it must face severe punishment.

3. Higher Deletions in Constituencies with Large Backward-Class, Muslim, Dalit and Adivasi Populations

In Bengaluru, every second voter has been excluded. Outside Bengaluru, Assembly constituencies in districts such as Mysuru, Belagavi, Vijayapura, Kalaburagi and Bidar, which have substantial Muslim, Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe populations, have witnessed deletions higher than the state average. In these constituencies, 20–30% of voters have been removed from the electoral rolls.

Across Karnataka, more than 10% of voters have been deleted in 135 Assembly constituencies. In approximately 32 constituencies, deletions exceed 30%.

4. The “Great Lie” of Re-Enrolment Through Form 6

The Election Commission had repeatedly boasted that it would conduct special campaigns during the claims and objections period to enable eligible voters whose names were missing from the draft electoral roll to get themselves re-enrolled. But the final electoral roll makes it clear that all these claims were false and that the campaigns were virtually ineffective. As many as 1.08 crore voters had been excluded from the draft electoral roll. Thereafter, a two-month period was provided for submitting claims. The Election Commission also claimed that it had conducted two special enrolment campaigns. Yet, in the final electoral roll, 99.32 lakh voters remain excluded. This means that only around eight lakh voters were added. Even this figure includes newly eligible voters who had attained the age of 18.

The Election Commission has not provided a separate breakdown showing how many voters who were deleted from the draft roll were subsequently re-enrolled through Form 6. Therefore, the claim that re-enrolment of excluded voters through Form 6 has been successful is a monumental falsehood.

5. The Election Commission has no programme to re-enrol 75 Lakh eligible voters excluded from the Final Electoral Roll!

According to the final electoral roll, among the 99.32 lakh excluded voters, 16.41 lakh have been classified as deceased and 7.1 lakh as duplicate entries. Even the number classified as deceased is exaggerated. Karnataka’s average annual number of deaths is around four lakhs. The number of voters classified as deceased is four times that figure! Moreover, several instances have been reported in which living persons were falsely recorded as dead. Even if we give the Election Commission the benefit of the doubt and accept that these people were genuinely ineligible for inclusion in the electoral rolls, what remains?

According to the final electoral roll itself, approximately 65.4 lakh voters have been classified as Permanently Shifted, while another 19 lakhs were recorded as Absent when Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visited their residences. In other words, these two categories—Absent and Permanently Shifted—together account for around 75 lakh voters.

Even according to the Election Commission’s own classification, all these people are eligible voters. They are not dead. They are not duplicate entries. They are not foreigners. The responsibility for including these voters in the electoral rolls rests with the Election Commission, not with the people who have been excluded.

Instead, the Election Commission is acting unconstitutionally by asking these voters to fill out Form 6 and apply for re-enrolment, thereby shifting the responsibility for inclusion onto the very victims of SIR. Worse still, the Form 6 requires a false declaration from every excluded voter stating that they are “first-time” voters or voters that have never voted before!

Under Articles 324–326 of the Constitution, the Duty to Include Eligible Voters Rests with the Election Commission, Not with the Voters! A large majority of these excluded voters are migrant workers, illiterate people and those who are completely unaware of the SIR process itself. That is precisely why, although 1.08 crore voters were excluded from the draft electoral roll, only a few lakhs were able to come forward and seek re-enrolment during the claims period.

The figures in the final electoral roll themselves prove this. Even at yesterday’s press conference, the Election Commission did not announce any programme to trace and re-enrol these 75 lakh eligible voters. Nor is the Commission capable of accomplishing this through the present process. Therefore, the SIR process, which excludes eligible voters, must be abolished in its entirety.

The earlier SSR (Special Summary Revision) system must be restored.

6. Finally, why Has Karnataka’s Elector-Population Ratio (EPR) Declined?

Generally, the proportion of adults aged 18 and above in a state or country, and the proportion of registered voters in its population, provide an indication of how effectively eligible voters are being enrolled. The higher this ratio, the healthier the voter-registration process is. For example, if a state has a population of 100 people, of whom 70 are aged 18 or above, the proportion of registered voters should also be somewhere around 70%.

In India, the average Elector-Population Ratio is around 65%, whereas in Karnataka it stood at 70.1% in 2025.[4] However now, post SIR, Karnataka’s EPR has fallen from 70.1% to 66%. When compared with the estimated population of 6.87 crore provided by the Election Commission itself, this represents the disappearance of approximately 4% of the state’s voters!

In other words, through this decline alone, the Election Commission has made 27 lakh voters vanish! If it is true that India’s population is increasing year after year, then the number of adults should also increase every year. Consequently, the number of registered voters should increase from year to year rather than decline.

But SIR seems to insist that even when the population increases, and even when the adult population increases, the number of registered voters must decline!  For this reason, too, SIR is profoundly unscientific and must be abolished immediately.

SIR is ill-conceived, motivated, unscientific and undemocratic!

For all these five reasons, Karnataka’s final SIR electoral roll proves that SIR itself is a conspiratorial, unscientific and undemocratic exercise. Such a process “cannot be reformed”.

Hence these demands must remain:

–SIR must be scrapped immediately

– All those responsible for the Karnataka exercise including CED Gyanesh Kumar must be punished

–There must be a public debate on the Judiciary’s role as Constitutional Courts, including the Supreme Court, are accountable to the people of India

-The entire electoral process including the preparation and revision of electoral rolls must be democratised!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQnSBVGZy-k;

[2]https://ceo.karnataka.gov.in/uploads/PDF%20FINAL%20AC%20WISE%2027_1793094730.pdf

[3] https://thewire.in/rights/rti-reveals-in-sir-purging-of-ineligibles-from-the-voter-lists-might-be-a-bogey

[4] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/elector-population-ratio-in-the-electoral-roll-points-to-decline-in-birth-rate-and-migration/article69701946.ece

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

Related:

EXCLUSIVE – SIR: The total disenfranchisement of the Indian Voter is 16 crores, not 13.60 Crores?

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

UP CEO orders voter roll audit after SIR glitches exposed: Can the 2027 election be fair without public scrutiny?

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

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

The post SIR Karnataka: Six major ‘conspiracies’ exposed in the final electoral roll appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement forms part of the ECI’s counter-affidavit in a petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, which challenges the functioning of the CEC and the legality of certain Commission decisions. The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, says the SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous. It was approved by all three members.

The Commission has questioned the petition’s reliance on a newspaper report, arguing that the petitioner did not independently verify the allegations. It has also said that it neither released nor authorised the release of internal notes or files to the media.

However, the concerns raised in The Indian Express investigation, published on October 27, go beyond whether the Commission formally approved its decisions. The report documented 14 notes recorded by Sandhu and Joshi over 10 months. Many concerned actions that had already been taken, systems that had been developed or proceedings that had been initiated before the two Commissioners recorded that they had not been informed.

Also, you can read our investigation here:
1. https://t.co/Ous0b5lD98
2. https://t.co/SrJbWUC9OM
3. https://t.co/PGpsT3x7ci
4. https://t.co/pFfaB1Wc5Y
5. https://t.co/ZBf8dSCt6F
(9/10)

— Ritika Chopra (@RitikaChopra__) October 27, 2026

The affidavit explains how the ECI says decisions should be taken. It does not fully explain why the two Commissioners repeatedly recorded that they learnt about important developments after they had occurred.

ECI’s explanation does not resolve concerns over consultation

The Commission has argued that notes, queries, suggestions and observations recorded by individual Commissioners during file processing are not, by themselves, decisions of the ECI.

It says files ordinarily pass from one Election Commissioner to the other before reaching the CEC. The affidavit relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides for decisions to be taken unanimously as far as practicable and by majority where unanimity is not possible.

But the timing of the notes remains central to the dispute. As reported by The Indian Express, the two Commissioners were often recording their concerns after a decision had been implemented or an official action had already taken place.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether the final orders carried the Commission’s approval. It is whether all three members were adequately informed and involved before the decisions were put into effect. The affidavit does not provide a detailed explanation for the instances in which Sandhu and Joshi said they had been left out of the process.

Form 6 was not amended, says ECI, but who introduced the online declaration?

The dispute over Form 6 illustrates the gap between the Commission’s legal explanation and the questions about how the changes were implemented.

Form 6 is used by citizens to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls. In May, Joshi recorded that the form could not be changed without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu agreed. Despite these objections, the online version of Form 6 was changed in July to include a declaration requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves, their parents or grandparents to earlier intensive electoral rolls.

According to The Indian Express, Sandhu learnt about the change through a newspaper report. In August, he described the declaration inserted into the online form as “unauthorised/ illegal”.

The ECI has now said that the declaration was a separate document introduced for the SIR and did not amount to an amendment of the statutory form. It has also maintained that only the Central Government can amend the form prescribed under the 1960 Rules.

At the same time, the affidavit acknowledges that the way the declaration appeared on the online application platform could give the impression that Form 6 had been amended. It further says that certain steps taken by officials needed to be corrected.

On October 21, the Commission’s Electoral Rolls Division decided to separate the online application into two components: Form 6 and the SIR declaration. This brings the online process in line with the procedure followed for physical applications.

The correction addresses how the two documents are presented. But the affidavit does not identify who authorised the declaration’s insertion into Form 6 in July or explain why it was implemented after two Commissioners had recorded objections. It says the declaration was entered on the online page of Form 6 but does not name the official responsible.

ECINet: Formal authority rests with EROs, but earlier software concerns remain

The ECI has defended ECINet, the platform used for electoral roll-related work, by stressing that the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) remains the statutory authority. According to the affidavit, no name can be added to, deleted from or modified in the electoral roll without an order from the competent ERO.

The Commission has also said that an expert committee comprising members from IIT Madras and IISc Bengaluru has been constituted to examine the platform’s compliance with applicable requirements. It has referred to arrangements for scrutinising new information technology modules before they are approved.

However, the measures now described in the affidavit resemble a proposal Joshi made on May 29. He had raised concerns about the gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database and sought an outside expert’s involvement to verify that only the relevant statutory authorities could make changes to it. Sandhu endorsed the proposal in July.

On August 14, Sandhu recorded that he did not know what had happened to the two notes. The affidavit identifies September 26 and 30 as the dates of the Commission’s decisions on the committee but does not mention the earlier proposal.

Other concerns recorded by the Commissioners also remain unanswered. In April, Sandhu noted that the IT division had developed several modules and portals without bringing them before the Commission. He said he had learnt about them through the media. In August, he recorded complaints from field officers who said the system did not allow them to perform functions required by law.

The affidavit’s assurance that the ERO remains legally responsible does not establish whether the software enabled officers to carry out their statutory duties when these concerns were raised.

Goa deletions: Subsequent applications do not explain why officers could not reverse them

The affidavit refers to 97 voters who were left off Goa’s final electoral roll and says that 88 have since applied for inclusion through Form 6.

But this does not explain the earlier failure of the software to allow Electoral Registration Officers in Goa to implement decisions reversing the deletions.

The state’s election office made eight requests over seven days in February for the system to permit the deletions to be reversed. A Deputy Election Commissioner had also recorded that the “IT system cannot block necessary action.”

The affidavit does not explain why the software prevented the required action or how the requests were handled at the time. The fact that 88 voters subsequently applied again does not answer why the earlier decisions could not be implemented through the system.

West Bengal appeals: Who authorised the filings, and how were so many cases handled?

The affidavit states that appeals against orders restoring voters to the electoral roll in West Bengal were filed by officers in the office of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO). It says the matters were not brought to the Commission and argues that the officers had authority to file the appeals under the Supreme Court’s orders.

How the appeals were handled and who knew about them

On August 7, after a newspaper report about the appeals, Joshi’s office sought the factual position from the officer in charge of the state. Five days later, Sandhu put five questions to the same officer. His note recorded that Joshi had told him he did not have the details.

The affidavit identifies the officers who filed the appeals and says they had the authority to do so under the Supreme Court’s orders. But it does not reconcile this explanation with Sandhu’s note recording that the West Bengal CEO had also said she did not have information about the details of the matter.

The affidavit now cites a letter from the CEO’s office dated October 22 to establish that officers from that office filed the appeals. It does not explain the apparent gap between the earlier account and this later clarification.

There are further unanswered questions. The affidavit does not explain how lakhs of appeals came to be filed on nearly identical grounds, whether the cases were examined individually or how proceedings on this scale moved forward without the Commission being informed. The circumstances also remain unclear given the CEO’s earlier statement, recorded by Sandhu, that she lacked the details.

July administrative order: ECI says it was not implemented

Another issue concerns an order issued in July by a senior officer who had been given temporary charge of the Commission’s administration. The order redistributed work among ECI officers.

Joshi wrote to the Cabinet Secretary that the Administration Division did not provide him with the file when he sought it. The ECI says the order was never implemented after Sandhu and Joshi issued a joint direction. It adds that the two Commissioners’ letters related to this order.

However, the affidavit does not explain why the order was issued without the Commission’s involvement, why the file was not provided to a member of the Commission or what happened to the officer who issued it. The Commission’s explanation addresses the order’s eventual non-implementation but leaves the circumstances surrounding its issuance and the withholding of the file unresolved.

ECI disputes the release of internal files

The Commission has stated that it did not release or authorise the release of any internal note or file to a news agency. This contests how the documents reached the media, rather than answering the concerns recorded in them.

The affidavit also opposes the plea seeking to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC. Relying on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the ECI says the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. It has also referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier consideration of challenges to the credibility of Electronic Voting Machines.

The Commission described its affidavit as a short response filed because of the intervening Dussehra holidays and reserved the right to submit a detailed, paragraph-wise counter.

Supreme Court to examine the Commission’s explanation

The ECI’s affidavit sets out its position on three central issues: the unanimity of SIR decisions, the legal status of the declaration accompanying Form 6, and the ERO’s authority over electoral roll changes. It also identifies corrective measures, including separating Form 6 from the SIR declaration online and establishing an expert committee to examine ECINet.

But several specific questions raised by Sandhu and Joshi remain unanswered. These concern the implementation of the online declaration, the software’s failure to permit action in Goa, the handling of appeals in West Bengal, the administrative order issued in July and the repeated instances in which the Commissioners said they were not informed of developments.

The affidavit’s claim that the final decisions were unanimous does not, by itself, settle whether the decision-making process worked as it should have. Nor do the corrective measures fully explain how the earlier problems arose.

On October 5, the Supreme Court declined to suspend Gyanesh Kumar through an ex-parte interim order while issuing notice on the petition. The bench said it would examine the decisions and take appropriate action if they were found incompatible with the law.

The Court’s examination will now determine whether the Commission’s explanations adequately address the concerns about consultation, access to information and the implementation of decisions during the SIR exercise.

The controversial ECI affidavit may be read here.

Related:

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

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

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

The post ECI affidavit says SIR decisions were unanimous, but questions over two commissioners’ objections remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That the instructions covering Forms 6, 7 and 8 across the state’s 403 Assembly constituencies. Form 6 concerns registration of new voters, Form 7 objections to inclusion or deletion, and Form 8 corrections and other specified changes.

What the statewide audit will examine

According to the Hindustan Times, as per instructions the election officials must scrutinise additions, deletions and amendments entered by computer assistants after April 10. It reported that the ECI had not released a consolidated account of the names added or deleted during this period.

The moot question that remains, however, is whether the audit trail –of who filed which form applications, who scrutinised and took what decisions (Vis a Vis Forms 6, 7 and 8) will be made public? More pertinently will there be a prosecution of the officials involved?

At an October 24 virtual meeting, Rinwa directed divisional commissioners, designated electoral roll observers, to supervise the work. District election officers must oversee the officials preparing the rolls.

Computer assistants have been barred from entering applications received physically. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must digitise them through the BLO App, while the original documents must be preserved. Electoral Registration Officers have been instructed to review pending Forms 6, 7 and 8 daily. There is silence from the poll body however on whether they will be made public as the law demands!

“All entries must be verified to prevent a recurrence of a Pilibhit incident,” Rinwa said, according to the report. He also directed officials to ensure that the draft roll for the forthcoming Special Summary Revision was free of duplicate entries.

The instructions include protecting ERONET login credentials, changing passwords and addressing complaints received since April 10 through grievance portals, social media and other channels. District election officers in Bulandshahr, Sitapur, Ghaziabad and Aligarh were criticised for delayed reports on alleged duplicate voters.

However, the Commission also issued a November 12 deadline for publication of the forthcoming draft roll. Requests under the “Book a Call with BLO” service must not remain pending beyond 48 hours, and BLOs must contact voters before marking themselves unavailable.

Pilibhit: 10,470 approved changes found irregular

The immediate concern is Pilibhit, where an inquiry found irregularities in 10,470 approved changes to voter records after publication of the final SIR roll.

An FIR was registered on October 22 against two Electoral Registration Officers and a computer operator. The case concerns 13,779 Form 8 entries made between May 31 and August 29, 10,470 were approved and 3,309 rejected. No corresponding application forms or supporting records were found in the office.

“This is not an error or negligence. This is a crime. It was done deliberately,” Rinwa told The Times of India.

That the FIR invoked Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Section 201 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Rinwa said the operator entered applications without receiving them from voters and the officers approved them. These are the authorities’ findings and allegations underlying the proceedings; criminal responsibility remains for the legal process to determine.

Officials and applicants face different provisions

Rinwa has warned that Electoral Registration Officers, Assistant Electoral Registration Officers and computer assistants could face action under Section 32 for irregularities. District election officers could also be held responsible for inadequate supervision, according to the audit reports.

Separately, the CEO’s office issued an October 17 statement on Form 7, warning against knowingly false statements or declarations. It cited Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which provides for imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both.

कार्यालय मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी, उत्तर प्रदेश

(प्रेस विज्ञप्ति)

फार्म-7 में जानबूझकर झूठा कथन या मिथ्या घोषणा करने पर एक वर्ष तक के कारावास अथवा जुर्माने या दोनों से दंडित करने का प्रावधान

लखनऊ, 17 अक्टूबर, 2026

प्रदेश के समस्त जिला निर्वाचन अधिकारियों एवं निर्वाचक रजिस्ट्रीकरण अधिकारियों को फार्म-7 के माध्यम से दाखिल किए जाने वाले आवेदनों के संबंध में भारत निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा जारी दिशा-निर्देशों का कड़ाई से अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करने के निर्देश दिए गए हैं।

लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1950 की धारा-31 के अनुसार मतदाता सूची की तैयारी, पुनरीक्षण अथवा शुद्धि या किसी प्रविष्टि को मतदाता सूची में शामिल करने अथवा हटाने के संबंध में जानबूझकर मिथ्या कथन या घोषणा लिखित रूप में करना दंडनीय अपराध है। इसके लिए दोषी व्यक्ति को एक वर्ष तक के कारावास अथवा जुर्माने या दोनों से दंडित किए जाने का प्रावधान है।

फार्म-7 में भी आवेदक से इस संबंध में निर्धारित घोषणा प्राप्त की जाती है। यदि निर्वाचक रजिस्ट्रीकरण अधिकारी की जांच में फार्म-7 के माध्यम से की गई आपत्ति मिथ्या पाई जाती है, तो संबंधित आवेदक के विरुद्ध लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1950 की धारा-31 के अंतर्गत नियमानुसार कार्रवाई की जाएगी।

भारत निर्वाचन आयोग के दिनांक 09 अक्टूबर, 2026 के निर्देशों के क्रम में सभी संबंधित अधिकारियों को निर्देशित किया गया है कि फार्म-7 के माध्यम से प्राप्त आपत्तियों की जाँच एवं निस्तारण नियमानुसार किया जाए तथा मिथ्या या मनगढ़ंत आपत्ति पाए जाने पर विधिक प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्रवाई सुनिश्चित की जाए।

यह भी निर्देश दिए गए हैं कि इन विधिक प्रावधानों एवं आयोग के दिशा-निर्देशों का प्रिंट मीडिया, इलेक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया, सोशल मीडिया तथा अन्य माध्यमों से व्यापक प्रचार-प्रसार किया जाए, ताकि आमजन को फार्म-7 दाखिल करते समय सही एवं तथ्यपरक जानकारी देने तथा मिथ्या घोषणा करने के विधिक परिणामों के प्रति जागरूक किया जा सके।
@ECISVEEP
@SpokespersonECI
@ANINewsUP
@PTI_News
@ians_india
@DDNewsUP
@AIRNewsHindi

— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 17, 2026

The statement directed officials to investigate objections according to the rules and act against false or fabricated claims. The two provisions concern different conduct: knowingly false declarations by applicants and breaches of official duty connected with electoral rolls.

Why close election margins matter

An October 25 analysis by Omar Rashid in The Wire explains the electoral significance of these discrepancies. Pilibhit’s 10,470 irregular entries exceed the BJP’s 2022 victory margin there of 6,970 votes.

Rashid found that 43 of the 100 constituencies flagged by the Samajwadi Party included seats the party narrowly won or lost in 2022. Across Uttar Pradesh, 170 seats were decided by margins of 15,000 votes or fewer; 124 had margins below 10,000, and 53 below 5,000.

Samajwadi Party has identified 100 seats where lakhs of duplicate voters–with a voter registered twice, thrice, and even 5 times–exist.

How many of these seats did the SP/BJP win or lose by a thin margin in 2022?

To know more, read my story

https://t.co/5DJYSdP9cK https://t.co/eW09GaKaye

— Omar Rashid (@omar7rashid) October 25, 2026

Survey predictions cannot answer questions about the rolls

An analysis attributed to NDTV in a circulating social media post places the Samajwadi Party ahead in 183 Assembly segments, Congress in 40 and the BJP in 162, based on Uttar Pradesh’s 2024 Lok Sabha voting patterns. The post presents the combined SP–Congress tally of 223, above the Assembly majority mark of 202, as an encouraging sign for the alliance ahead of 2027.

This is a breakdown of past results rather than a fresh opinion survey.

Co-Convenor, Vote for Democracy, Teesta Setalvad has been questioning whether the UP Vidhan Sabha polls, or any polls post the exposes of past months can be held on the faulty SIR list at all. VFD has argued that not only must the SIR be scrapped but there must be a reversion to the 2024 Lok Sabha Rolls along with the First-Time Voter enrolment post 2024.

Wait. This could be a ploy to shift demands away from #ScrapSIR and #Revertto2024 Rolls. There is NO WAY @yadavakhilesh @samajwadiparty can win on these rolls. Remember #WestBengal. NEVER FORGET WHO OWNS #NDTV @RahulGandhi

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) October 25, 2026

Congress and SP seek wider scrutiny

Congress raised the Pilibhit issue on October 21, alleging that the names of 13,150 voters had changed while their EPIC and serial numbers remained unchanged. That allegation must be distinguished from the subsequent official finding concerning 10,470 irregular approved Form 8 entries. Congress leaders sought an investigation into the SIR process and warned that mismatched identities could prevent otherwise eligible voters from exercising their franchise.

The Samajwadi Party has also submitted complaints about duplicate registrations and voter identity mismatches. In Azamgarh, an official inquiry found the name “Vikas Yadav” recorded at 13 places in Hindi in the electoral roll, following complaints raised by the party. Action was initiated against electoral officials. That finding should not be presented as proof that one person cast 13 votes, as The Wire reported.

Agra re-poll follows complaints about MLC voting

Separate concerns arose during the October 23 Legislative Council elections. SP state president Shyam Lal Pal sought action over alleged booth capturing and irregularities in Amroha, Agra, Fatehpur, Pratapgarh, Gorakhpur and other districts.

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh: On the recommendation for repolling at three polling booths following the Uttar Pradesh MLC election in the Agra, Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinwa says, “The Returning Officer has recommended repolling at three polling booths, Saiyan, Fatehabad and Kheragarh. We have sent the recommendation to the Election Commission. We will proceed according to the Commission’s decision. When the candidates’ video surfaced, we personally spoke to them and asked about their concerns. They had submitted the names of five polling booths in writing, and we got all of them investigated. During the investigation, three polling stations were found to have grounds for a possible repoll, while the other two did not…”

— IANS (@ians_india) October 24, 2026

The party demanded examination of polling-station videos, fresh voting were warranted and FIRs against those responsible. It alleged that ruling-party representatives influenced voting and that earlier complaints had not received adequate action. These remain party allegations.

The ECI subsequently declared polling at three stations—20, 21 and 26—in the Agra Division Teachers’ Constituency void, fixing October 26 for fresh voting between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. The stations were at Kheragarh, Saiya and Fatehabad. SP candidate Akash Agarwal had alleged harassment of supporters and irregularities during voting.

‘Thank god Ram didn’t hit a minority’: UP CEO’s communal reply

Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)’s official X handle on October 16, sarcastic response to errors in voter slips has triggered a political controversy, with question over the impartiality and conduct of the state’s top election official through official social media handle.

The controversy began after a voter’s name, “Ramhit Yadav”, was incorrectly rendered as “Ram ne Yadav ko Maara” in the electoral records.

The CEO acknowledged the mistake and cited another incorrect entry, “Ram ne Sharma ko Maara”, in the voter list for recent Legislative Council elections. However, his remark that it was fortunate that “Ram did not hit a minority”,

हालिया विधान परिषद के चुनाव की मतदाता सूची में एक अजीबोगरीब नाम “राम ने शर्मा को मारा” भी है। कंप्यूटर/सॉफ्टवेयर जातिवादी नहीं है। हमारे द्वारा गलती किया जाना स्वीकार है लेकिन हमारे सौभाग्य से गलती होते समय भी जाति का भेदभाव नहीं हुआ है। भगवान का यह भी शुक्र है की राम ने किसी अल्पसंख्यक को नहीं मारा है। नहीं तो जातिवादी होने के साथ-साथ सांप्रदायिक होने का इल्ज़ाम भी लगता।

— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 25, 2026

AAP questions CEO’s conduct and electoral impartiality

Reacting to the CEO’s remarks, Sanjay Singh called his language deeply communal and questioned whether free and fair elections could be conducted in Uttar Pradesh under an official making such statements. Singh announced that AAP would respond to the CEO at a press conference at 3 p.m. at the party’s office. He also alleged that the Election Commission’s handling of voter-list errors raised serious concerns and said the party would not allow alleged attempts to manipulate electoral rolls to help the BJP succeed. These are allegations made by Singh; the controversy over the erroneous entries, by itself, does not establish that the voter list was manipulated to favour any political party.

AAP कार्यालय पर आज 3 बजे प्रेस वार्ता कर CEO का जवाब देंगे।
CEO उत्तर प्रदेश की भाषा एक चिरकुट घोर सांप्रदायिक व्यक्ति की भाषा है।
क्या ऐसे व्यक्ति के रहते हुए यू पी में निष्पक्ष चुनाव संभव है?
CEO जी वोटर लिस्ट में हेर फेर करके BJP को चुनाव जीताने की मंशा सफल नही होने देंगे।

— Sanjay Singh AAP (@SanjayAzadSln) October 26, 2026

However, while the state-wide audit is an important step, this course correction has clearly happened under compulsion. UP’s State Election Commission must go beyond internal checks. With irregularities reported in voter records and complaints raised by opposition parties, the Election Commission must ensure that every addition, deletion and correction is properly verified and that the findings are made public.

Electoral Rolls too need to be the pre-SIR ones. Public confidence in the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election will depend on a transparent process that protects every eligible voter’s right to vote.

Related:

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

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

The post UP CEO orders voter roll audit after SIR glitches exposed: Can the 2027 election be fair without public scrutiny? appeared first on SabrangIndia.