In a significant judgment dated October 1, 2026, Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar, sitting at the Aurangabad Bench, allowed an application filed by Krushna Arun Shingare challenging the legality of his arrest and subsequent custody in a murder case. The Court held that the arrest and consequential custody were vitiated by the failure to establish that the requisite written grounds of arrest had been furnished to him.

The Court directed Shingare’s immediate release without requiring a bail bond or surety, subject to the condition that his detention was not independently required in another case under a subsisting lawful order. It also directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra, to review existing police instructions and arrest forms and issue corrective instructions to ensure compliance with binding Supreme Court directions.

The judgment, Krushna Arun Shingare v. State of Maharashtra, also places a specific responsibility on Magistrates and other courts dealing with remand applications to examine the substance of the communication furnished to an arrested person rather than rely mechanically on signatures, printed declarations or routine entries in remand orders.

The absence of factual grounds, not the absence of paperwork

The application arose from Crime No. 01 of 2026 registered at Shrirampur City Police Station in connection with the fatal shooting of Aslam Shabbir Shaikh, also known as Bunty Jahagirdar, on December 31, 2025. The prosecution alleged that Shingare and another accused were involved in the shooting and relied on material including firearm recoveries, identification proceedings, CCTV recordings, mobile-phone material and witness statements.

Shingare did not press his application on the merits of the prosecution’s allegations. Instead, he challenged the legality of his arrest on the ground that the police had failed to communicate the factual grounds for his arrest in writing, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The arrest notice identified the police station, crime number and penal provisions and stated that he was being arrested in connection with the investigation of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. It also bore his acknowledgment. However, it contained no account of the shooting, no identification of the deceased, no allegation explaining Shingare’s purported role and no factual basis connecting him to the offence.

The State argued that the notice had been signed, that Shingare’s brother had been informed of the arrest and that the arrest papers, station diary and Magistrate’s remand order established compliance. The prosecution also pointed to Shingare’s legal representation from his first production before the Magistrate and the absence of an immediate objection to the grounds of arrest.

The Court rejected the proposition that these circumstances, taken together, could substitute for the communication required by law. Examining the notice and accompanying documents, Justice Venegavkar observed that their collective omission of the basic facts meant that the documents conveyed no intelligible factual accusation against Shingare. They identified the proceedings in which he was being arrested but did not explain the grounds for arresting him in that case. The Court clarified that it was not insisting on a rigid, universally prescribed format for arrest notices. The deficiency was substantive, not technical: the documents relied upon by the State failed to communicate the factual basis for depriving this particular accused of liberty.

Article 22(1) requires more than awareness of the case

The judgment reiterates the distinction between informing an arrested person of the general nature of an accusation and communicating the specific factual grounds on which their arrest rests. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court explained that the communication must convey the basic facts underlying the arrest. It need not disclose the entire case diary, every witness statement or evidence yet to be collected.

As the Court explained, an arrest memorandum, a combined notice or another document may satisfy the requirement, provided that it contains the requisite facts and is actually furnished in the manner and within the time prescribed by law. The document’s title or nomenclature is not decisive. What matters is what was communicated, to whom and when.

The Court also relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reiterating that meaningful communication must be in a language understood by the arrested person and that the State bears the burden of establishing compliance when it is challenged. A printed recital stating that the grounds were explained cannot replace proof of what was actually communicated.

The distinction between informing the arrested person and notifying a relative was equally important. The Court held that the intimation given to Shingare’s brother served a separate statutory purpose under Section 48 of the BNSS. It could not, without more, establish that the factual grounds of arrest had been communicated to Shingare himself. Nor could the presence of a lawyer cure the omission. Legal representation and communication of the grounds are complementary safeguards. An advocate’s presence does not dispense with the State’s obligation to provide the information necessary for the arrested person to understand the accusation and effectively oppose a request for custody.

Written grounds must precede remand

A significant part of the Court’s reasoning rests on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which prescribed the requirement of written grounds of arrest under ordinary penal law as well as special statutes. The High Court noted that where an exceptional situation makes immediate written communication impracticable, an oral explanation at the time of arrest must be followed by written grounds within a reasonable time and, in every event, at least two hours before production for remand. The remand papers must contain the grounds and explain any delay in supplying them.

Since Shingare’s arrest took place on January 1, 2026, the Court held that the applicable directions governed his arrest. The first remand order recorded that the accused had been informed of the grounds of arrest and their right to legal representation, and that they understood the information provided. The High Court did not find it necessary to disbelieve that judicial record. It instead distinguished between an oral exchange in which the accused indicates that they understand the situation and the separate requirement to furnish written factual grounds before remand.

The remand order did not identify any written communication containing those grounds, while the documents relied upon by the State contained no factual account of the accusation. Even if an oral explanation had been given and understood, the Court held, that would not establish compliance with the applicable requirement for written grounds.

The Court also rejected the argument that the absence of an immediate objection or the availability of legal representation established compliance. Shingare had raised the objection on January 9, 2026, eight days after his recorded arrest. The investigating officer’s response asserted compliance but did not identify any written communication containing the requisite factual grounds. Importantly, the High Court held that subsequent remand orders and the filing of the charge sheet could not retrospectively validate custody founded on an arrest that violated Article 22(1).

Supreme Court directions govern the consequences of an unlawful arrest

The Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, which clarified the legal consequences of a breach of the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest. Rejecting the argument that the decision could not apply because it arose from a prosecution involving different penal provisions, the High Court emphasised that the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) is not confined to any particular category of offence.

It held that an established breach of the applicable constitutional requirement vitiates the resulting custody and requires release without making proof of further prejudice a precondition for relief. The Court also rejected the State’s contention that such relief could be granted only in writ jurisdiction and not in an application brought under Section 483 of the BNSS. The form in which the application was filed could not prevent the Court from giving effect to an established constitutional infirmity in custody.

At the same time, the Court carefully distinguished the legality of the arrest from the merits of the criminal prosecution. It did not pronounce Shingare innocent, assess the ultimate evidentiary value of the prosecution’s material or quash the FIR, charge sheet or trial. The prosecution proceedings were to continue in accordance with law.

The judgment further clarified that any subsequent request for custody must comply with the Supreme Court’s directions. The police cannot simply issue a corrected notice and immediately re-arrest the accused. If custody is still sought, the authorities must furnish written grounds after release and move the competent court with an application explaining the earlier failure and the present necessity for custody, endorsed by the immediate superior authority. The court must independently scrutinise the explanation and the need for renewed custody after giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.

Magistrates must verify compliance, not merely record it

Beyond the individual relief, the judgment addresses the institutional responsibility of courts authorising detention. Justice Venegavkar observed that remand proceedings can become routine exercises in which Magistrates ask standard questions about custody, ill-treatment or complaints against the prosecution, without adequately examining whether the statutory safeguards governing arrest have actually been followed.

The Court held that Magistrates and other courts dealing with remand applications are duty-bound to verify substantive compliance. They must examine the communication furnished to the arrested person, the language in which it was provided, its date and time of delivery, and the material establishing that it was delivered. The Magistrate must determine whether the communication conveys grounds specific to the arrested person and enables an intelligible response to the request for custody. Where the police rely on exceptional circumstances to explain why written grounds could not be furnished immediately, the explanation and subsequent compliance must also be examined.

A signature or a printed declaration that the grounds were communicated may be relevant, but neither automatically establishes compliance. The Court clarified that this exercise does not require a preliminary trial or disclosure of the entire body of prosecution evidence. It requires a focused examination of the material necessary to establish that the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been respected.

The Court also directed that police documentation should reliably record the actual grounds communicated, the language and mode of communication, and the date and time of delivery. Any exceptional inability to provide immediate written grounds, subsequent delivery, or refusal or inability to acknowledge receipt must be recorded contemporaneously.

Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to forward the judgment to the Maharashtra DGP and all Principal District and Sessions Judges for circulation and compliance. The DGP must review the instructions and forms currently in use and issue corrective instructions, where necessary, to secure compliance with Mihir Rajesh Shah and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol.

A constitutional safeguard cannot be reduced to a procedural formality

The significance of the judgment lies in its insistence that the legality of arrest cannot be established through paperwork that records the existence of a criminal proceeding but fails to explain the factual basis for arresting the individual concerned.

Article 22(1) protects more than a formal right to be told that an arrest has taken place. Its purpose is to enable the arrested person to understand why their liberty has been curtailed and to challenge the grounds on which the State seeks to justify continued detention. Without an intelligible factual account, the ability to instruct counsel and oppose remand risks becoming merely formal.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling places the burden where it belongs: on the State to demonstrate that the constitutional safeguard has actually been honoured. It also makes clear that judicial oversight cannot stop at accepting a signed notice or recording that an accused appeared to understand the accusation. By directing a review of police forms and requiring meaningful verification at remand, the Court has underscored that constitutional protections must operate at the point when liberty is taken away, not merely appear as declarations in official records.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune

Ex-TISS student gets bail as Mumbai Court rejects Maoist link based on ‘suspicion’

‘Subjective Satisfaction’ Cannot Be Built On Conjecture: Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary

Declared ‘Foreigner’, denied a hearing, pushed across the border: Gauhati HC pulls up Assam

Supreme Court: UP Gangsters Act ‘stillborn’ for prescribing punishment without creating an offence

The post Bombay High Court orders Maharashtra DGP to review arrest forms, flags failure to communicate grounds of arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most decided Form 7 requests resulted in deletion

The Wire examined annexures R/1 and R/2 of the Election Commission of India’s counter-affidavit in proceedings brought by Prasenjit Bose. The data covered claims and objections received between December 17, 2025, and August 7, 2026. Form 7 can seek deletion from the electoral roll, including through an objection by another person; Form 6 concerns inclusion. Of the 6,39,049 Form 7 applications, 5,72,330 resulted in deletions and 14,506 were rejected. Together, these decisions accounted for 91.83% of the applications received. Almost every decided request—about 97.5%—resulted in removal.

The Form 6 figures were different. Of 34,13,481 applications, 7,07,606 resulted in additions, 14,079 were separately recorded as accepted, and 7,26,660 were rejected. The analysis also identified 4,86,395 applications marked unprocessed. An application marked accepted is distinct from a name recorded as actually added to the roll.

The share of all applications resulting in an actual roll change was more than four times higher for Form 7 than for Form 6. The figures show how many applications reached a recorded outcome, but do not show how long each application took to decide.

Large gaps across constituencies

Dabgram-Fulbari recorded 16,514 deletions from 16,559 Form 7 requests, compared with 1,056 additions from 31,976 Form 6 applications. Bagda recorded 15,307 deletions from 15,561 requests and 4,826 additions from 29,831 applications. These were the two largest totals of completed Form 7 deletions in the analysis, followed by Sonarpur Uttar with 9,354.

Rajganj recorded 3,866 deletions from 3,891 requests, but only 143 additions from 18,528 inclusion applications. Just ten deletion requests were rejected in Dabgram-Fulbari, three in Bagda and one in Rajganj.

Chopra recorded 948 deletions from 954 requests, while only 28 names were added from 28,701 inclusion applications. It also recorded 1,570 rejected inclusion applications and 3,600 unprocessed claims.

Several other constituencies recorded few additions compared with the applications received. Kaliaganj added 24 names from 14,477 applications and had 5,191 unprocessed claims. Basanti added 54 from 12,195; Swarupnagar 71 from 12,106; Madhyamgram 115 from 17,717; and Islampur 439 from 16,767. Noapara added 187 names from 17,403 applications, with 9,249 marked unprocessed. These were the recorded outcomes for the period examined; they were not final decisions on every application.

The gap remained when the comparison was limited to applications that had been allowed or rejected. In Chopra, only 1.75% of those inclusion applications succeeded. Kalyani recorded 585 additions and 6,097 refusals, giving an inclusion rate of 8.75% among those outcomes. It recorded 9,063 deletions and only 21 rejected deletion requests.

Nakashipara recorded 934 additions against 9,339 refusals, alongside 3,214 deletions and eight rejected deletion requests. Matigara-Naxalbari recorded 2,264 additions against 9,754 refusals, while 8,491 deletion requests succeeded and 55 were rejected. The data records these differences but does not provide the reasons for every decision.

Border seats and areas with large Scheduled Caste populations

Across the 24 district units analysed, none recorded a higher share of successful inclusion applications than successful deletion requests. Uttar Dinajpur recorded additions from 8.16% of inclusion applications and deletions from 96.11% of deletion requests. The corresponding figures were 8.21% and 98.59% in Jalpaiguri, and 10.58% and 87.71% in Murshidabad.

The gap also appeared in districts with higher inclusion rates. Jhargram recorded 52.16% for inclusion and 62.52% for deletion; Kolkata South 42.91% and 85.91%; and Purbo Medinipur 42.20% and 66.70%.

In 43 constituencies classified as border seats, 30.62% of inclusion applications had been decided, and 34.70% of those decided cases were allowed. For deletion requests, 95.37% had been decided and 99.67% were allowed. These seats recorded 6.28 additions and 10.57 deletions for every thousand electors on the pre-SIR roll.

Non-border constituencies recorded 9.76 additions and 6.92 deletions per thousand electors. Among decided applications, the reported approval rates were 51.83% for inclusion and 96.96% for deletion. Thus, non-border seats recorded more additions than deletions, even though deletion requests had a much higher approval rate.

A similar gap appeared in 31 constituencies where Scheduled Castes made up at least 40% of the population. Of the inclusion applications, 31.19% had been decided and 36.82% of those were allowed. For deletion requests, 95.52% had been decided and 99.67% were allowed. These constituencies recorded 6.12 additions and 13.76 deletions per thousand electors.

Across the lowest and highest Scheduled Caste population bands, additions fell from 12.62 to 6.12 per thousand electors, while deletions rose from 5.74 to 13.76. The analysis noted that several of these constituencies also fall in border areas and the Matua belt. The figures therefore do not show a separate effect attributable to caste composition alone.

In constituencies with larger minority populations, the reported gap concerned inclusion. Additions fell from 9.89 per thousand electors in areas with low minority populations to 7.14 where minorities made up at least 60%. The analysis did not find a similar concentration of Form 7 deletions in Muslim-majority seats.

Low registration among young voters

Age-wise figures in the Commission’s affidavit, reported by The Hindu, showed low registration among young adults. Against a projected population of 22,26,101 people aged 18 or 19, only 5,23,229 were registered—23.5%.

Registration was reported at 70.3% for people aged 20–29, 92.7% for those aged 30–39 and 99.9% for those aged 50–59. The final roll of about 6.45 crore represented 84.9% of the State’s projected adult population of 7.59 crore, within a projected total population of 10.40 crore.

For people aged 60–69 and 70–79, the ratios were 104.5% and 109.1%. These figures compare electoral entries with population projections, rather than an exact population count. The low registration rate among young adults is not a count of young voters deleted during SIR.

The Hindu reported the case of Faruk Kazi, a 19-year-old labourer in Rejinagar, who registered in 2025 but could not vote in the Assembly election after his name was excluded. He had linked his entry to his grandfather Hossain Ali in the 2002 roll because his parents registered later. His parents and elder brother remained on the revised roll. When the report was published, his tribunal appeal was undecided, putting his participation in the October 6 by-election in doubt as well.

Appeals remain largely undecided

The Form 6 and Form 7 figures are one part of the wider revision process. Other concerns voters whose cases went before judicial officers and who later appealed against the decisions.

On February 20, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to bring judicial officers into the verification exercise. Officers from West Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand examined unresolved cases under arrangements made through the Calcutta High Court.

On March 10, the Court directed the creation of an appellate mechanism. Nineteen single-member tribunals were established later that month. The Hindu reported that they began functioning around April 13. An April 16 Supreme Court direction provided for successful appellants to be included through supplementary lists.

Assembly polling began on April 23. According to the same report, only 136 names had been cleared by then. Two tribunal judges later resigned for personal reasons and were replaced.

In its September 18 submission to the Supreme Court, the Commission said 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed: 22.21 lakh challenged deletions, while 16.10 lakh challenged inclusion and sought removal of names. Only 1.26 lakh appeals had been disposed of by September 10.

That disposal figure covers both categories and does not indicate how many voters were restored. A later Hindu report described 22.21 lakh deletion appeals as pending, but the material cited does not provide separate disposal figures for each category.

Fresh enrolment drive and pending tribunal cases

The Commission’s October 1 letter to Chief Electoral Officers instructed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to compare current rolls with pre-SIR rolls, identify people whose names were missing, visit them and help eligible voters apply through Form 6.

A senior Commission official told The Hindu that cases already before Bengal’s appellate tribunals would be treated differently because they were under adjudication. Voters with pending tribunal appeals would therefore continue through that process, while other eligible people could seek enrolment through Electoral Registration Officers. The report said Form 6 applications were to be cleared within one or two months.

Before the October 6 by-elections in Nandigram and Rejinagar, West Bengal Congress leaders said more than 6,000 appeals in Nandigram and 12,000 in Rejinagar remained pending. They said these voters could miss another election.

As reported by The Times of India, Pradesh Congress president Shubhankar Sarkar and the party’s SIR committee chairperson Prasenjit Bose asked the Commission to provisionally restore the 22.21 lakh appellants until their cases were decided or treat their appeals as Form 6 applications before the respective Electoral Registration Officers. The reports cited did not record acceptance of either proposal.

Judges report problems with the appeal portal

Judges of more than a dozen of the 19 tribunals discussed problems with the appeal system at an August 11 meeting. The minutes were sent to the Election Commission and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, according to The Indian Express.

The judges reported that the Commission’s portal lacked a common system for serving notices, obtaining additional documents, holding virtual hearings and giving appellants copies of orders. Some judges had approved a notice format in May, but it had still not been implemented by August.

Where documents were incomplete or did not match the enumeration form, tribunals had no proper mechanism to seek further material. Individual tribunals were trying to communicate through District Magistrates and District Election Officers, but the minutes recorded poor responses.

The portal also did not allow a disposed appeal to be reopened when a judicial direction or another reason required it. This was a problem with reopening proceedings on the portal, separate from the question of restoring a voter’s name.

Appellants could neither download tribunal orders nor obtain certified copies through the portal, the judges said. This made it difficult for them to obtain the reasons for a decision. The minutes also recorded uncertainty over the handling and digitisation of physical appeals submitted to district authorities.

An April 6 Supreme Court order had referred to appeals being submitted through ECINET or at designated district and sub-divisional offices, which were required to digitise and upload them promptly. An April 1 order had required tribunals to revisit records and communicate reasons.

The August meeting followed an earlier warning. On May 22, a tribunal judge wrote to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice that the lack of a notice mechanism was slowing disposal. The judge also alleged that incorrect disposal figures were being circulated to the press through unnamed Commission sources without explaining the administrative difficulties.

The Indian Express said it sought responses from the Commission and the High Court’s Registrar General on October 1 but received none by publication. Its account documents repeated complaints; it does not establish whether every problem recorded in August remained unresolved in October.

Deletions at different stages of SIR

The report Inside the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), prepared by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Vote for Democracy (VFD), records several stages of exclusion and verification in Bengal. At the stage it examined, it recorded a draft electorate of 7,08,16,630 and cumulative deletions of 63,66,952, including removals before the draft and further deletions before the final roll.

It separately recorded 60,06,675 cases under adjudication. Those cases were still pending at that point and were not all confirmed deletions. Later reporting on 27.16 lakh deletions following judicial scrutiny described a subsequent stage, taking the reported overall figure to nearly 91 lakhs.

The Hindu reported that 58,20,898 names were excluded from the December 16, 2025, draft roll under the Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD) categories. Its rounded breakdown was 24.16 lakh marked dead, 32.65 lakh shifted or absent, and 1.38 lakh duplicates.

Separately, 31,68,424 people were identified as “unmapped”, meaning they could not be linked to the 2002 electoral roll. Approximately 1.36 crore were flagged for “logical discrepancies”. Notices and hearings followed, but around 60 lakh cases remained unresolved when the final roll was published on February 28.

The CJP–VFD report describes discrepancies involving fathers’ names, ages, family relationships and entries linking more than six children to one person. It also reports difficulties with Bengali names transliterated into English and with matching current details to older records.

The report recounts the Supreme Court’s January 19 directions to display discrepancy lists locally, allow submissions through authorised representatives, provide additional time and enable affected people to be heard. Its account of the February 24 order explains that supplementary lists could follow the February 28 final roll, with subsequently included voters treated as part of that roll.

Voters describe spelling and family-record problems

Several voters interviewed by The Hindu said differences in names or family records had led to exclusion despite their attending hearings or supplying documents.

Imamuddin Sheikh, 53, an elected panchayat member in Rejinagar, said his father Wahab Sheikh appeared as Kalu Sheikh in the 2002 roll. Kalu was his father’s nickname, he said, and the EPIC number matched. Nevertheless, Imamuddin’s name was deleted.

Najmatara Khatoon, a 29-year-old Anganwadi worker in Samserganj, said her father’s name appeared as Abdul Haq Sheikh in the old roll and Abdul Haq elsewhere. She said she attended a hearing and submitted documents but was excluded. Both she and Imamuddin approached the tribunal. Khatoon also said local officials questioned her nationality when she sought help.

Md. Mojahar Hossain, a 39-year-old teacher who served as a BLO in Samserganj, said six other people were linked to his father in the old records, although he had one sister and three brothers. His father’s surname was also recorded as “Hosen” instead of “Hossain”, despite a matching EPIC number. His three brothers remained on the roll, while he, his sister and his father were excluded. He said three other teachers at his school who had performed BLO duties also lost their entries.

Md. Alauddin Sheikh, 47, who contested an election in 2021, described deletions affecting his brothers and their wives despite their attending hearings. He alleged political targeting, but the newspaper account did not independently establish that allegation.

Md. Shamim Akhtar, a 49-year-old retired Indian Air Force Wing Commander in Entally, said both his and his father’s names appeared in the 2002 roll. His case nevertheless went under adjudication in February, and his name was missing from a March supplementary list. He said he received neither a hearing nor an explanation of how to resolve the problem.

In Medinipur, 24-year-old student S.K. Riaz said a discrepancy in his father’s name affected the family’s entries. Their cases remained unresolved despite repeated visits to officials when they spoke to the newspaper.

VFD: Earlier findings on mapping and documentation

The CJP–VFD report cites a December 2025 SABAR Institute study examining unmapped voters. The 20 constituencies with the highest proportions of unmapped voters reportedly had an average Muslim population of 13.75%, while the 20 with the lowest proportions averaged around 40%.

Full report can be accessed here

It also describes documentation difficulties faced by Matua families, particularly in North 24 Parganas and Nadia, and reports pressure on members of the community to apply through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act route. These findings concern mapping and documentation at an earlier stage and are separate from the later Form 6 and Form 7 results.

The report records complaints about tight deadlines, digital uploading problems, language barriers and the workload of teachers and Anganwadi workers carrying out BLO duties alongside their regular work. Its Bengal accounts include the reported deaths by suicide of Rinku Tarafdar in Nadia and Shantimoni Ekka in Jalpaiguri, discussed in the context of work-related pressure.

It also records deaths and distress among voters facing documentation problems. Broader death estimates in the report are attributed to political leaders and are not an independently verified official total. The accounts do not establish a single cause for every reported death.

Ask for public access to revision records

An April 11, 2025, memorandum to the Election Commission, reported by SabrangIndia, called for public access to electoral rolls and revision records. Coordinated through VFD and endorsed by 83 individuals, it followed a three-hour national consultation and an earlier notice issued in July 2024.

The memorandum sought searchable past and present electoral rolls showing additions and deletions; booth-wise Form 17C records and aggregate vote counts; searchable revision records in Forms 9, 10, 11, 11A and 11B; public inspection of EVM source code; disclosure and independent technical oversight of Symbol Loading Unit contents; and a revised VVPAT system in which voters would manually deposit slips in a separate box, with all slips counted and results based on those records.

Signatories included M.G. Devasahayam, Madhav Deshpande, Harish Karnick, Justices D. Hariparanthaman and B.G. Kolse Patil, Aruna Roy, E.A.S. Sarma, Venkatesh Nayak, Anjali Bhardwaj and Teesta Setalvad. The accompanying campaign raised concerns about Commission independence, enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and unexplained changes to electoral rolls. Its demand for searchable revision records would allow the public to examine additions, deletions and the steps taken before those decisions.

Separately, a September investigation by The Indian Express reported 14 objections raised by two Election Commissioners over ten months, including restricted ECINET access for officers responsible for electoral rolls. The Commission subsequently announced a committee, including an independent expert, to examine the system and its compliance with the law.

The Supreme Court’s March 10 order had also recorded technical difficulties faced by judicial officers and called for prompt repairs and logistical support. The later tribunal minutes set out specific problems with notices, documents and access to decisions while large numbers of appeals remained undecided.

Related

A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence

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

Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC! 

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

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

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

The post SIR West Bengal: Most Form 7 requests lead to deletions; Form 6 additions remain low appeared first on SabrangIndia.

JUST IN | Protesters head towards Barakhamba Junction as Rahul Gandhi calls for an INDIA bloc march.

@kaurlavpreet_ https://t.co/l3ITr8ozlS

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 12, 2026

JUST IN | Protesters head towards Barakhamba Junction as Rahul Gandhi calls for an INDIA bloc march.

@kaurlavpreet_ https://t.co/l3ITr8ozlS

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 12, 2026

VIDEO | Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav joins protests in Delhi.

#Delhiprotest https://t.co/IN4BRAvCa4

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 12, 2026

The march, led by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, headed towards the Supreme Court from Barakhamba Road, with crowds stretching between Mandi House and Connaught Place. The protesters’ central demand was that allegations of large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls must be addressed, and that the institution responsible for conducting elections must be held accountable.

#WATCH | Delhi: A bus carrying Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of the INDIA bloc ready to leave from the Constitution Club of India.

The alliance has called a march to the Supreme Court today. They have also announced that they would file a petition before the apex court in connection with CEC Gyanesh Kumar matter and their allegations with respect to the SIR process.

— ANI (@ANI) October 12, 2026

Congress leader Sachin Pilot at Mandi House as the INDIA bloc’s march to the Supreme Court begins in Delhi. https://t.co/4CrIQURETA

— Hemant Rajaura (@hemantrajora_) October 12, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi: INDIA bloc MPs, including Dharmendra Yadav, Sanjay Raut, Arvind Sawant, Mahua Majhi, Mahua Moitr, and other opposition leaders, raise slogans against CEC Gyanesh Kumar during their protest at the Constitutional Club. https://t.co/f2YbP22JAV

— ANI (@ANI) October 12, 2026

Our Hon’ble Chairperson @MamataOfficial, along with our MPs, was present at the Constitution Club in New Delhi.

Today, alongside INDIA Bloc leaders, we marched to the Supreme Court, demanding justice for every rightful voter who had been wronged by Gyanesh Kumar and Mo-Shah.

The fight for the rights of our voters and the integrity of our democracy continues!

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) October 12, 2026

The mobilisation was not confined to the Congress or the larger opposition parties. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, CPI, student organisations and civil society groups also joined the march.

INDIA Bloc March | October 12

INDIA Alliance leaders, MPs and party representatives, including CPI(ML) Liberation General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya, PBM Ravi Rai, AISA President Neha and CPI(ML) leader Balaji, are arriving at Mandi House to begin a march to the Supreme Court.

The march will submit a petition demanding the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, an immediate halt to the SIR process, and an end to police repression against democratic voices.
.
.
.

(Visuals: @anishsingh21)

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) October 12, 2026

interesting – @neha_aisa joins opposition march…in the same bus as @kharge and @MPDharmendraYdv.

Follow @newslaundry for updates from the Opposition march today, in collab with @SreenivasanJain https://t.co/BSW2D8bIW0

— Manisha Pande (@MnshaP) October 12, 2026

Scenes from Barakhamba Road, New Delhi from @atti_cus https://t.co/MzhRpMRILx

— Article 14 (@Article14live) October 12, 2026

CPI(ML) Liberation and the All India Students’ Association (AISA) called for Kumar’s removal, the scrapping of the SIR process and an end to police repression against democratic voices. Their representatives, including CPI(ML) Liberation General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya, arrived to participate in the march. The CPI, the All India Students’ Federation (AISF) and the All India Youth Federation (AIYF) likewise joined the mobilisation, declaring that barricades and the deployment of security personnel could not silence demands for accountability.

Opposition Parties (Left parties + SP) Civil Society and CJP join in the Chalo Delhi March led by LoP Rahul Gandhi

@jahnavi_sen reports for The Wire

#VoteChori #ECI #Delhi #INDIA https://t.co/IrhtDTIRwO

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 12, 2026

The presence of student and youth organisations was particularly significant in the context of the police action reported during the October 10 protests. The CPI(M) General Secretary M. A. Baby and Brinda Karat also addressed the media at A. K. Gopalan Bhawan alongside student and youth protesters who alleged police brutality.

CPI(M) General Secretary M A Baby and senior leader Brinda Karat addressed the media at AK Gopalan Bhawan in New Delhi, along with student and youth protesters against SIR who were subjected to police brutality. https://t.co/4BgBNJ9q36

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 12, 2026

INDIA Bloc March | CPI(ML) Liberation and AISA comrades join the INDIA Alliance march from Barakhamba to the Supreme Court, demanding the removal of Vote Chor CEC Gyanesh Kumar, scrapping of the SIR process and an end to police repression against democratic voices! https://t.co/0KJpIaJPqN

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) October 12, 2026

The gathering also drew people beyond the established party structures. As the march moved through central Delhi, the participation of lawyers, students, activists and citizens underscored the breadth of concern over the SIR exercise and the treatment of those opposing it.

VIDEO | Delhi: CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat says, “What is happening in Delhi is unprecedented. We want this government to stop its dictatorship. We will not stop now.”

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/d8jp61yd2p) https://t.co/StD6SgJc3c

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 12, 2026

The scale of the mobilisation was striking. The Indian Express reported that thousands had gathered for the march, while The Wire reported that Congress sources estimated the turnout at around 50,000. Participants had arrived from neighbouring states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana, as well as Mumbai, according to The Wire. Left parties, the Samajwadi Party, civil society organisations and the Campaign for Judicial and Public Accountability (CJP) were among those participating in the mobilisation.

A march for electoral accountability

The march followed days of mounting anger over the SIR exercise and the treatment of protesters who had taken to Delhi’s streets on October 10. The opposition has alleged that the revision process risks disenfranchising legitimate voters, while demanding accountability from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its chief, Gyanesh Kumar.

Protesters have arrived in Delhi from neighbouring states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana, as well as Mumbai, to join the march. Congress sources estimate the turnout at 50,000.

@antarabaruah reports

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 12, 2026

The INDIA bloc announced that it would approach the Supreme Court over the allegations. Bar and Bench reported that Rahul Gandhi filed a petition before the apex court concerning alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the SIR process. The opposition has demanded that the exercise be halted and that Kumar resign over the allegations of ‘vote chori’.

The march was therefore not merely a show of opposition unity. It sought to take a dispute over electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission directly to the country’s highest constitutional court, placing the question of electoral integrity at the centre of a mass political mobilisation.

The alliance’s message was forceful. In a statement posted by the Indian National Congress, the party declared that the march was intended to protect democracy and the Constitution and ensure accountability for those accused of stealing votes.

At the Constitution Club of India, opposition MPs raised slogans against Kumar. Leaders and representatives of the alliance, including Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress chairperson Mamata Banerjee, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut and Congress leader Sachin Pilot, joined the mobilisation. Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat also criticised the government, telling the Press Trust of India (PTI), “What is happening in Delhi is unprecedented. We want this government to stop its dictatorship. We will not stop now.”

BREAKING: Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, files petition before the #SupremeCourt over alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The Opposition has demanded a halt to SIR and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged ‘vote chori’.

@RahulGandhi

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 12, 2026

CPI, AISF & AIYF at the Forefront of the INDIA Bloc’s March to Supreme Court!

Turn Delhi into a fortress, deploy barricades, fill the streets with security personnel but you cannot silence people’s demand for accountability. The demand is clear: CEC Gyanesh Kumar must resign! https://t.co/5knjYPUNYP

— CPI – Communist Party of India (@CPI_National) October 12, 2026

Barricades, restrictions and a city turned into a security zone

As protesters converged on Barakhamba Road and prepared to move towards the Supreme Court, the police response was conspicuous. Roads were crowded with security personnel, and multiple layers of barricades were erected along the route.

Journalist Raunaq Bali reported at least four layers of barricades and police personnel on Bhagwan Das Road, towards the Supreme Court. Loudspeaker announcements repeatedly informed people that restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force and asked them to leave the area peacefully.

There are at least 4 layers of barricades and police personnel on Bhagwan Das Road towards Supreme Court. Loudspeakers are repeating the announcement that restrictions under S. 163 BNSS are in force in this area and persons are requested to leave the area peacefully. https://t.co/uU3a4PT46z

— Raunaq Bali (@RaunaqBali) October 12, 2026

The security arrangements stood in sharp contrast to the crowds gathering to assert their right to democratic participation. As the bus carrying opposition leaders moved slowly through the packed streets, protesters continued to assemble, raise slogans and press their demands. PTI also reported protesters climbing barricades near Barakhamba Road during the ‘Dilli Chalo’ march.

VIDEO | Delhi: Protesters climb barricades near Barakhamba Road during INDIA bloc’s ‘Dilli Chalo’ march against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. https://t.co/S4zwZFjfLE

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 12, 2026

The restrictions also come against the backdrop of the reported denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site. PTI reported that the Congress criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the decision, accusing them of treating democracy as a matter of political convenience.

The question confronting the authorities is not simply how to manage a large gathering. It is whether restrictions on public spaces and the deployment of extensive security arrangements are being used in ways that make the exercise of the right to protest increasingly difficult. Section 163 BNSS permits preventive orders in specified circumstances; its invocation does not, by itself, settle the constitutional question of whether restrictions on peaceful assembly are necessary and proportionate.

Lawyers take to the streets and the courtroom corridors

The mobilisation also brought lawyers into the protest, following reports of detentions and alleged police violence against lawyers during the October 10 demonstrations. In a striking show of dissent, lawyers at the Delhi High Court gathered to recite the Preamble to the Constitution. Bar and Bench reported that the demonstration came days after lawyers were detained and allegedly attacked during the earlier protests. The Indian Express separately reported that lawyers wore black ribbons and read the Constitution to protest police action against their colleagues.

Several lawyers gather in Delhi High Court to recite the preamble to the constitution.

This comes days after several lawyers were detained and allegedly attacked during the October 10 protests.

#Lawyers https://t.co/6X6SXOWSz8

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 12, 2026

Senior advocates also joined the mobilisation outside the court. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi led a group of lawyers walking from the Supreme Court towards Modern School in protest against Kumar and the alleged police brutality against lawyers, according to a post by advocate Paras Nath Singh.

Lawyers led by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi walked from the Supreme Court to Modern School, protesting against Gyanesh Kumar and police brutality against lawyers. I am proud to be a part of that crowd. We will not let democracy die or be rigged in our beloved country. @DrAMSinghvi https://t.co/d0q89OQeVH

— Paras Nath Singh (@parasnsingh95) October 12, 2026

Senior Advocate Rebecca John articulated the constitutional stakes of participating in the demonstration. Speaking to The Wire, she asserted, “We have the right to our roads, and we have the right to protest.”

“We have the right to our roads, and we have the right to protest”: Senior Advocate Rebecca John on Why She is Joining the protest

#VoteChori #Delhi #India https://t.co/W5tyYaDux0

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 12, 2026

Yogendra Yadav, who also joined the mobilisation, stressed that the march was not intended to pressure the judiciary but to strengthen its role as the guardian of the Constitution. The distinction matters: the opposition’s stated objective was to bring allegations concerning the electoral process before the court, while asserting that democratic accountability cannot be reduced to a matter of political disagreement.

Protesters have arrived in Delhi from neighbouring states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana, as well as Mumbai, to join the march. Congress sources estimate the turnout at 50,000.

@antarabaruah reports

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 12, 2026

From October 10 to October 12: The streets remain a site of resistance

Monday’s march unfolded two days after Delhi witnessed a sweeping police crackdown on people attempting to march to Jantar Mantar to demand Kumar’s removal. Reports of detentions and alleged assaults on protesters and lawyers have since prompted further demonstrations, including the recitation of the Preamble by lawyers at the Delhi High Court.

The protests on October 12 thus carried a demand that extended beyond the immediate question of the SIR. They also challenged the growing use of police restrictions and preventive measures against those seeking to demonstrate in public spaces.

The crowds moving from Mandi House and Connaught Place towards Barakhamba Road, the lawyers reading the Constitution, and the student and youth organisations joining opposition leaders all formed part of the same wider assertion: that electoral integrity and the right to dissent are questions of democratic accountability, not simply matters of law and order.

For the INDIA bloc, the march was an attempt to bring the allegations of electoral manipulation before the Supreme Court while demanding consequences for the Election Commission’s leadership. For the lawyers and civil society participants, it was also a protest against the alleged use of police power to suppress democratic voices.

Detailed reports may be read here, here and here.

Related:

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

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

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post ‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now his parents, Ravindra and Sonali Wakode, are sitting on a hunger strike at Azad Maidan, seeking answers and justice after their son’s death at IIT Bombay.

Teesta Setalvad asks a larger question: when a student dies inside one of India’s most prestigious institutions, who examines the environment around that death? And what happens when the institution is effectively examining itself?

The post When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protests, led by the student organisations, Left parties, lawyers’ groups, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other groups, centre on allegations of irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Protesters are demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and the withdrawal of the revision exercise, which critics say has resulted in the exclusion of millions of voters. The Election Commission has denied wrongdoing.

According to multiple media reports, thousands of people were detained in Delhi on October 10 alone. While estimates varied, reports put the number at approximately 7,000. The police action continued on Sunday, October 11, when student and youth organisations attempted to resume demonstrations despite the Supreme Court’s intervention concerning restrictions on public transport and the rights of protesters, journalists and lawyers.

Prison-style buses, alleged beatings and minors among detainees

Accounts published by The Wire detail allegations of physical violence against people detained during Sunday’s protests, including minors. At least 50 people picked up from Connaught Place and Jantar Mantar were taken to a community centre in Pandwalan Khurd, around 40 kilometres from central Delhi, after being moved through Chhawla police station.

Arjun Unnikrishnan, a 30-year-old lawyer who was among those detained, told The Wire that detainees were made to sit in rows on an isolated road before police personnel began identifying people who had recorded videos or taken photographs of the protests. He alleged that officers seized phones, demanded passwords and beat people who refused to hand over access to their devices.

Unnikrishnan described detainees being passed from one police personnel to another, slapped and struck, including on their private parts. He said minors were among those subjected to the alleged violence.

A student who spoke to The Wire on condition of anonymity also alleged that detainees were slapped and beaten inside a police vehicle. The student described the vehicles as prison-like, with railings and enclosed compartments that left those inside unable to escape the alleged assaults. Detainees further alleged that police personnel accessed their phones, deleted photographs and videos of the demonstrations, and withheld the devices after taking them into custody.

The detainees were eventually taken to the community centre at Pandwalan Khurd, where they said they were not provided food or water and were unable to contact lawyers or obtain immediate medical assistance. Lawyers who arrived at the centre later that evening alleged that police personnel initially refused to let them enter, despite the Supreme Court’s directions concerning access for lawyers and journalists.

Fahad M. Khan, a lawyer who went to the centre with his colleague Gaurav Cyclewalla, told The Wire that they had to call a police control room vehicle before they were able to gain entry. Injuries among detainees reportedly included a fractured arm. Lawyers said they were preparing complaints alleging illegal detention, physical assault, phone seizures and denial of medical examinations.

The Hindustan Times also published accounts from protesters who alleged that police slapped them, struck them on their private parts and transported them 30–40 kilometres from central Delhi. The allegations came as the police continued to use stadiums and other facilities as temporary detention locations.

Aranya Singh Rathore allegedly assaulted inside a detention van

Aranya Singh Rathore, a member of the Disha Students’ Organisation, was allegedly assaulted during detention on October 11. According to accounts published by The Wire, Rathore was held by the throat and beaten inside a police vehicle, with fellow detainees alleging that police personnel targeted protesters after the vehicle’s lights were switched off.

Her friends and lawyers reportedly struggled to locate her and were unable to obtain immediate access to her at the Connaught Place police station. She was subsequently taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College for a medico-legal examination and was released a little after 2 am, according to The Wire. Members of the organisation also alleged that phones had been taken from detainees and that police personnel taunted them about the absence of media coverage inside the vehicles.

The Wire report also documented allegations that women protesters were confined in cage-like compartments inside detention vehicles. AISA president Neha Bora questioned whether the buses were being used as makeshift jails before protesters could even reach designated detention centres.

Are detention buses the new jails? https://t.co/XFxcGxUVGg

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 11, 2026

The Students’ Federation of India (SFI) separately alleged that its national president, Adarsh M. Saji, Delhi state secretary Sooraj Elamon and other student activists had been assaulted inside police vehicles. Images and accounts circulated by student organisations showed injuries among those detained.

Journalists detained despite press cards; reporters allegedly manhandled

Journalists covering the demonstrations faced police action on both Saturday and Sunday, with media organisations reporting detentions, physical assaults and the seizure of reporting equipment. According to the Hindustan Times, at least 12 journalists were detained on October 11 while covering the protests. Those detained included reporters from The Indian Express, The Hindu and other publications.

Where is @harshdelhise???

@DelhiPolice has made a journalist disappear, and his whereabouts have been unknown for over 48 hours!

AMPLIFY THIS EVERYWHERE until his whereabouts are known!

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 12, 2026

Three journalists from the Hindi edition of The Indian Express, identified as Shashwat, Siya and Vijay Kumar, were detained in Connaught Place despite displaying their press credentials. They were taken to Chhatrasal Stadium, approximately 12 kilometres away, and released after around 45 minutes, the newspaper reported.

Peek TV journalists Vedanta Agarwal and Sara Khan also alleged that police personnel dragged them while they were reporting on the detention of demonstrators. Khan told The Hindu that a male police officer grabbed her by the neck and pushed her towards woman security personnel after she attempted to document the police action.

Journalist Shyam Meera Singh was also seen in video footage being manhandled and pushed into a detention bus while reporting on the protests. The Times of India reported allegations that journalists were punched, pushed into police vehicles and detained despite wearing identification.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said it had confirmed the detention of Newslaundry reporters Ashwine Kumar Singh, Astha Savyasachi and Anmol Pritam, as well as Scroll reporter Ayush Tiwari. It called on the Delhi Police to release detained journalists and media workers, return their equipment, investigate allegations of physical abuse and allow the press to report without interference. Newslaundry also reported that police seized its reporters’ official phones.

DIGIPUB News India Foundation condemned the detentions of journalists, digital creators and citizens, describing the seizure of reporting equipment and the detention of reporters who had shown their credentials as intimidation and an assault on press freedom. The organisation demanded the release of detained journalists, the return of seized devices and accountability for alleged misconduct.

Digital journalists deserve the same rights, protection and respect as any newsroom.
DIGIPUB demands unhindered access for all journalists, legacy or digital, to cover protests in Delhi and across the country.
@DelhiPolice @HMOIndia @LtGovDelhi @indSupremeCourt https://t.co/H3JBDCPznP

— DIGIPUB News India Foundation (@DigipubIndia) October 11, 2026

The National Alliance of Journalists also condemned the action and expressed solidarity with the Delhi Union of Journalists, the Indian Women’s Press Corps and the Press Club of India. Earlier, the Editors Guild of India had expressed grave concern over reported sexual assault against women journalists covering the protests. In a statement issued on October 10, the Guild said it was concerned that the Delhi Police had yet to take cognisance of the serious allegations.

Lawyers detained outside the Supreme Court; senior advocate allegedly thrown into moving bus

Lawyers attempting to protest the electoral roll revision were also detained, including advocates picked up near the Supreme Court complex. India Today reported that around 50–60 advocates, including senior and women lawyers, were detained on October 10. They were subsequently released following the intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, after the Supreme Court Bar Association sought urgent assistance.

The Hindustan Times reported that the lawyers had been taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex after being detained near the Supreme Court. Their detention prompted the Chief Justice of India to contact the authorities to secure their release.

The Indian Express reported that the Delhi High Court Bar Association condemned the detention of lawyers and the alleged excessive use of force. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat reportedly said that police personnel tore his shirt and threw him into a moving bus during the crackdown. The detention of lawyers was particularly significant given the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings concerning the restrictions imposed on demonstrations and the need to ensure that legal professionals could discharge their duties without obstruction.

Chhatrasal Stadium, Yamuna Sports Complex among detention sites

Police transported protesters detained at different locations to stadiums and other facilities being used as temporary detention centres. The Indian Express reported on October 10 that protesters were picked up before they could reach Jantar Mantar and taken to stadiums and makeshift detention locations. The Yamuna Sports Complex was among the locations used for detaining lawyers, while Chhatrasal Stadium was used to release journalists who had been taken into custody the following day.

The Wire subsequently reported that detainees from Connaught Place and Jantar Mantar were taken to Pandwalan Khurd, where they alleged they were kept behind locked gates and denied timely access to lawyers and medical assistance.

A separate report by The Wire on October 12 disclosed that the Union Home Ministry had ordered the suspension of mobile internet services within a 500-metre radius of eight detention centres on October 10. The order covered Chhatrasal Stadium, Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana, Yamuna Sports Complex, Jasola Sports Complex, a community centre in Daulatpur, another in Pandwala Khurd, Jangli Ram Stadium in Nizampur and Surajmal Stadium in Nangloi.

The suspension was ordered from midnight until 10 pm on October 10, under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024. The order cited public safety, the prevention of a public emergency and the maintenance of public order.

The additional shutdowns came alongside a separate 24-hour suspension of mobile internet services within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing, near the planned protest site.

Right-wing group members unleash violence, assault on protesters

Amid the widespread police action against demonstrators, videos also emerged of right winged men openly assaulting young protesters on October 10. According to The Wire, four men identified as members of the right-wing Hindu Raksha Dal were seen in footage attacking a male protester and knocking a woman to the ground before assaulting her. The incident took place on DDU Marg in central Delhi.

The Indian Express and NDTV reported that the Delhi Police arrested four men in connection with the assault on October 11. The men were accused of assaulting students and pushing and hitting women during the protest. Hindu Raksha Dal president Bhupender, also known as Pinky Chaudhary, publicly acknowledged the accused as members of his organisation and vowed to protect them. His statements followed the circulation of videos showing the assault.

The footage also prompted questions about the conduct of police personnel present at the scene. The assault took place amid the broader crackdown on protesters demanding accountability over the SIR exercise. While demonstrators were being detained across central Delhi, the video of the alleged attack by members of the right-wing organisation triggered a separate round of public condemnation.

United Nations calls for release of ‘arbitrarily detained’ protesters

The United Nations human rights office (OHCHR) expressed concern on October 10 over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, protest leaders, civil society members, lawyers and journalists before and during the protests in Delhi. In its statement, the UN called on the authorities to ensure that the right to peaceful assembly was fully respected and fulfilled and urged the release of those it described as arbitrarily detained. The statement came as thousands of protesters were being taken into custody, while journalists and lawyers reported being prevented from carrying out their professional duties.

#India: We are concerned by reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, protest leaders, members of civil society organisations, lawyers and journalists, before and during today’s large-scale demonstrations in Delhi.

We call on the authorities to ensure that the right to peaceful assembly is fully respected and fulfilled.

https://t.co/tqrQyZoXBJ

— UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) October 10, 2026

The Union Ministry of External Affairs rejected the UN’s intervention on October 11, calling its observations an example of “extreme selectivity” in public positions. The ministry maintained that Indian law enforcement authorities acted in accordance with the law and that citizens could seek redress through the courts.

The MEA also accused the UN human rights office of applying double standards and described its comments as unwarranted interference in India’s internal affairs. The Permanent Mission of India to the UN had similarly termed the concerns misplaced and urged the OHCHR to apply its mandate impartially.

The exchange followed the UN’s call for the authorities to uphold peaceful assembly amid reports of widespread detentions, including those of journalists, lawyers and civil society members.

Amnesty International condemns restrictions on protest

Amnesty International had raised concerns even before the October 10 demonstration, warning on October 9 that the restrictions imposed in Delhi were disproportionate and threatened the right to peaceful assembly. Aakar Patel, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International India, said protesters must be able to demand accountability from those in power without facing intimidation, arbitrary detention or sweeping restrictions on their freedoms.

The right to protest is protected in India’s constitution. Denying permission, halting trains, sealing Delhi’s borders, restricting internet and pre-emptively arresting activists suppresses dissent.

The Delhi Police must protect not punish people exercising their fundamental rights. We urge the authorities to exercise the utmost restraint and take all necessary steps to protect and facilitate the right of peaceful assembly.
https://t.co/29FKGipnE6

— Amnesty India (@AIIndia) October 9, 2026

Reports of more than 5,000 people including opposition leaders, student union leaders, journalists, and lawyers being detained by the Delhi police point to the desperate attempt by the government to suppress critical voices. The Delhi police is creating a climate of fear. https://t.co/ZaGagRaua2

— Amnesty India (@AIIndia) October 10, 2026

Amnesty cited the denial of permission for the planned demonstration, restrictions on travel into Delhi, the sealing of borders, the proposed suspension of public transport and the internet shutdown near the protest site. It also flagged the preventive detention of activists and the deployment of more than 30,000 security personnel, according to reports at the time.

The organisation urged authorities to lift arbitrary restrictions, exercise restraint and protect the right to peaceful assembly. It also emphasised that security measures should protect the public rather than punish people for exercising their rights.

In an earlier statement on October 2, Amnesty had condemned prohibitory orders, detentions and internet and public transport restrictions imposed amid protests in Delhi and Mumbai. It reiterated that the right to protest was protected under the Constitution and international human rights law.

Supreme Court intervenes as crackdown continues

The police action continued despite the Supreme Court’s intervention on October 9 and its subsequent proceedings on October 11. On October 9, the Court directed the Centre not to completely suspend train services to Delhi or shut down Delhi Metro stations, stressing proportionality and the need to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to commuters. It also asked the government to consider an alternative venue equipped to accommodate peaceful demonstrations.

During the subsequent hearing, the Court issued notice in a contempt petition concerning the restrictions and sought to ensure that journalists, lawyers and other professionals were not obstructed while performing their duties. Its directions also addressed unlawful detention, internet access and the review of barricades.

The proceedings came amid reports that protesters were being detained, transported to distant facilities and denied access to lawyers. The allegations of physical violence inside detention vehicles emerged as the Court was considering the restrictions imposed on the demonstrations.

The Indian Express reported that the Court’s intervention followed widespread detentions and concerns over the closure of public transport facilities. The Times of India also reported the Court’s directions concerning peaceful assembly, access to public transport and the ability of journalists and lawyers to discharge their duties.

The police maintained that protesters had been unwilling to cooperate during detention operations and that force was sometimes required to remove them. However, allegations of beatings, phone seizures, denial of legal access and mistreatment of minors continued to emerge from detainees and their lawyers.

Crackdown extends beyond Delhi

The restrictions and detentions were not confined to the national capital. Amnesty International reported that activists and student union members were intercepted while travelling to Delhi, placed under house arrest or detained outside the city.

According to the civil liberties organisation People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), students travelling from Pune were removed from the Goa Express at Itarsi on the night of October 8. Other students were reportedly detained in Bhopal and Gwalior, while activists and student leaders faced police action in several states.

PUCL also reported detentions and restrictions in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Chandigarh. In Ahmedabad, the organisation alleged, plainclothes Crime Branch personnel visited students and professors and sought undertakings that they would not participate in the protests.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

The Indian Express reported that the crackdown extended to political leaders, activists and demonstrators intercepted at transport hubs and along routes leading to the planned protest venue.

In Mumbai, around 700 people were reportedly detained during solidarity demonstrations on October 10, including protesters at August Kranti Maidan and Hutatma Chowk. Those detained included Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and other activists.

PUCL subsequently condemned the detentions and alleged use of force against protesters, including young people, lawyers and women. The organisation called for the release of those still detained, the withdrawal of cases against peaceful demonstrators and an independent inquiry into alleged custodial violence.

The organisation also raised concerns about the deployment of facial recognition systems, drones and body cameras during the crackdown, and called for an end to mass surveillance of peaceful protesters.

Related:

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

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a statement titled “Vote for Democracy Statement on the ECINET-TCS Nexus: Asking Some Questions”, VFD questions the nature of the arrangement between the ECI and TCS, the extent of the company’s involvement in managing electoral databases, and the oversight exercised by the constitutional body over these systems. The statement calls for transparency from both institutions on who controls access to electoral data, who authorises changes to the system and how accountability is ensured.

The statement refers to reports that TCS has been operating ERONet 2.0, the electoral registration network, since 2023, and notes that the company’s involvement reportedly came to light through its corporate disclosures to shareholders rather than a formal announcement by the ECI.

VFD also raises concerns over reports that restrictive declaration clauses were introduced in Form 6, used for fresh voter registration, during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). It questions the legal authority under which these changes were made, alleging that they were introduced without parliamentary oversight or explicit approval from the Ministry of Law and Justice.

ECINET is the ECI’s unified digital platform intended to consolidate several existing electoral applications, including the Voter Helpline, cVIGIL and Suvidha. Against this backdrop, VFD seeks clarity on the division of responsibilities between the ECI and TCS, particularly regarding the administration of electoral databases and the authority to modify access permissions.

A central concern in the statement is the reported alteration of access rights assigned to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), the statutory authorities responsible for decisions concerning additions to and deletions from electoral rolls. VFD questions how such changes could have occurred without the Election Commissioners’ knowledge and whether the existing system allows other users to access or modify electoral records without appropriate authorisation.

The statement warns of the risks associated with inadequate access controls, including unauthorised database modifications, compromised data integrity and the possible exposure or transfer of citizens’ personal information. It raises the possibility of privileged or specially designated user accounts operating beyond established authorisation mechanisms. These are concerns and scenarios raised by the signatories; the statement does not establish that unauthorised access or data transfers have occurred.

VFD states that it had sent questions to TCS in October-November 2025 concerning data integrity and electronic election management through software systems and databases managed by the TCS group but received no response. Its latest statement renews the demand for answers and places the onus on both the ECI and TCS to clarify the arrangement, their respective responsibilities and the safeguards governing electoral data.

Sixteen questions on database access and accountability

The statement puts forward 16 questions seeking disclosure of the technical and administrative safeguards governing electoral data. These cover the categories of users permitted to access databases, the allocation of privileges and the officials responsible for proposing, reviewing and approving changes to user permissions.

VFD asks whether TCS itself administers database access and, if so, at what level permissions are enforced: the database, individual tables, rows or specific fields. It also seeks details of whether attribute-based access control is implemented, the eligibility criteria for personnel responsible for access management, and the authority that establishes those criteria.

The signatories seek information on the database technology and access-control tools used by the ECI, the security certifications they hold and the standards with which the systems comply. They also ask when the last compliance audit was conducted, whether an independent third party has audited access administration, and whether the audit report and its findings can be made public.

Other questions concern the security of connections between electoral databases and external databases. VFD asks how such connections are inspected and monitored, whether traffic logs are maintained, and what firewall infrastructure protects the systems. It also seeks clarity on the Election Commissioners’ oversight of access controls and the authorisation of database operations.

The statement specifically asks which user category was assigned to judges in West Bengal who participated in the SIR exercise, seeking transparency about the permissions granted to them within the database system.

Concerns over voter data and electoral integrity

Invoking the principles underlying the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the statement emphasises that citizens’ personal data must be protected against unauthorised access and use. It raises concerns about whether the handling of voter information complies with applicable legal obligations and whether citizens’ data could be used or shared beyond the purposes for which it was collected.

VFD calls on TCS to answer the questions and disclose the relevant facts, arguing that the public has a right to know how electoral data is managed and protected. The statement concludes by warning that any unauthorised interference with electoral databases, if established, would have serious implications for voter rights and the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.

The statement is signed by M. G. Devasahayam, retired IAS officer and founder of the Forum for Electoral Integrity; Madhav Deshpande, a computer science expert; Dr Pyara Lal Garg, former Dean of the College of Medical Sciences at Panjab University; and Teesta Setalvad, co-convenor of Vote for Democracy, Maharashtra.

The complete statement may be read below:

Related:

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

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

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

3,404 SIR Forms Found at Kharghar Xerox Shop: CJP, VFD and BCS demands answers from Maharashtra SEC

VFD’s rebuttal of the Fadnavis’ Claims on Electoral Manipulation Allegations

The post Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

All your lathis and all your khaki cannot drown the slogan..

Vote Chor, Gaddi Chor!! #JantarMantar https://t.co/b961H0NQMY

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 10, 2026

#Watch | Protesters try to stop police vehicles carrying Neha Bora, other leaders and protesters detained near the Safdarjung Airport flyover. https://t.co/27c7Zf7lMW

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 10, 2026

The day’s demonstrations unfolded amid barricades, restrictions on movement and a heavy police presence. Yet the attempts to contain the mobilisation did not bring it to a halt. As groups were stopped or detained, others continued marching, regrouped at alternative locations and raised slogans against the Election Commission and the SIR exercise.

BREAKING: Another group of protesters begins a demonstration near INA Metro Station in Delhi. https://t.co/1HhKKnaEy1

— Hemant Rajaura (@hemantrajora_) October 10, 2026

Neha Bora and others detained. Detention bus being stopped at Safdarjung airport flyover https://t.co/yon4uMHYeX

— Hemant Rajaura (@hemantrajora_) October 10, 2026

Protest starts near INA. Neha Bora and others are leading the March https://t.co/lUjMcqvvU8

— Hemant Rajaura (@hemantrajora_) October 10, 2026

Dilli Haat becomes Jantar Mantar today!

See you there!

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 10, 2026

Neha Bora and other Protesters are moving on the roads. Police have started to arrive https://t.co/sw9aIcCzMk

— Hemant Rajaura (@hemantrajora_) October 10, 2026

The crackdown extended well beyond the organisers of the protest. Among those detained were senior leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), student leaders associated with the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), lawyers marching from the Supreme Court, and journalists reporting on the unfolding events. The breadth of the detentions raised serious questions about the space being allowed for political dissent, peaceful assembly and independent reporting.

Rajya Sabha MP @AARahimdyfi, along with all the detained activists from the @SFI_CEC, has announced hunger strike with the demands of action and apology from a Delhi Police inspector who misbehaved with students, and for the return of all the phones and bags snatched illegally by Delhi Police. Around 300 students detained here at at Nangloi Stadium.

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 10, 2026

CJP protest against CEC:

Police detain CPI(M) general secy MA Baby in Delhi. https://t.co/Op37UaKty8

— News Arena India (@NewsArenaIndia) October 10, 2026

@thewire_in CPI(M) leaders tried to march from Kerala House to Jantar Mantar. MA Baby, Brinda Karat, KK Shailaja and others detained immediately; John Brittas, Pinarayi Vijayan, KN Balagopal march towards Jantar Mantar and detained after. https://t.co/TiGrJG2Q3d

— Jahnavi Sen (@jahnavi_sen) October 10, 2026

CPI(M) leaders detained as protest spreads

Several prominent CPI(M) leaders were detained near Jantar Mantar as they joined the protest. Those detained included party general secretary M.A. Baby, former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, former Kerala finance minister K.N. Balagopal, senior leader Brinda Karat and former Kerala health minister K.K. Shailaja.

The detentions were reported by The Indian Express and The Week. John Brittas also posted about the developments on his social media account, while the CPI(M)’s official account shared updates on the detention of its leaders.

@thewire_in CPI(M) leaders tried to march from Kerala House to Jantar Mantar. MA Baby, Brinda Karat, KK Shailaja and others detained immediately; John Brittas, Pinarayi Vijayan, KN Balagopal march towards Jantar Mantar and detained after. https://t.co/TiGrJG2Q3d

— Jahnavi Sen (@jahnavi_sen) October 10, 2026

“The Delhi Police are behaving without basic courtesy. We have now been brought to Chhatrasal Stadium; they brought us here after driving us around all of Delhi for about an hour.”

#gyaneshkumarresign #delhipolice #delhi #jantharmanthar https://t.co/ivh3rUqTlB

— John Brittas (@JohnBrittas) October 10, 2026

The detention of an entire group of senior political leaders underscored the scale of the police action against the mobilisation. Their presence also made clear that opposition to the SIR was not confined to the youth-led initiative that had helped bring protesters onto the streets.

Protestors being detained at Connaught Place. All access to Jantar Mantar totally blocked. https://t.co/MwHqU2IxWd

— Vandana (@vandana_menon) October 10, 2026

The central demand of the protest concerns the accountability of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and opposition to the SIR process. These concerns go to the heart of democratic representation. The integrity of electoral rolls is not merely an administrative matter: the process through which voters are included or excluded determines who can exercise the franchise.

#WATCH | AISA and Left parties protest near the BJP Headquarters in Delhi.

On the other hand, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has called a protest at Jantar Mantar today over CEC Gyanesh Kumar matter. https://t.co/Z1tT27WDvj

— ANI (@ANI) October 10, 2026

Police unleash brutal repression on workers of the CPI(M), @SFI_CEC , and @dyficec .

But we remain defiant. We shall overcome, Inquilab Zindabad! https://t.co/wmrunNA7EX

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 10, 2026

Student activists detained, but protesters regroup

Student activists were among those targeted as police sought to contain the demonstrations at different points in Delhi. Aishe Ghosh was detained near Bangla Sahib, while SFI activists were seen confronting police barricades. Footage shared by The Hindu documented developments around the protest, including scenes of student demonstrators pushing against barricades.

The first batch of revolutionaries from AISF-AIYF has begun its march from Ajoy Bhawan to Jantar Mantar.

PM Modi has imposed a virtual curfew in Delhi to protect vote-chor Gyanesh Kumar. Barricades, lathis, detentions, surveillance, we brave it all because democracy must live! https://t.co/9tQ88zZ0vD

— CPI – Communist Party of India (@CPI_National) October 10, 2026

Connaught Place

Students hiding inside a public toilet to evade the police were detained after police personnel entered the toilet.

When our reporter @anmolpritamND tried to ask questions, police officers stopped him.

During protests at Jantar Mantar and other major demonstrations in Delhi, this is the first time the media has been prevented from interacting with protesters altogether. The police are also recording journalists themselves.

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) October 10, 2026

#Watch | Student and youth activists march from Gurudwara Bangla Sahib to Jantar Mantar amid the anti-CEC protest in New Delhi on Saturday, October 10, 2026. https://t.co/p2EqtHXNuJ

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 10, 2026

A.A. Rahim, detained SFI activists announce ‘Jantar Mantar 2.0’, hunger strike, and sing the national anthem.

Video: Special Arrangement https://t.co/l2OQqMC44v

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 10, 2026

Members of the Communist Party of India (CPI) also marched from Ajoy Bhawan as the mobilisation continued. Meanwhile, another group of protesters gathered near INA Metro station, demonstrating how the mobilisation was spreading across different parts of the city even as police attempted to restrict movement around the principal protest site.

बीजेपी के ऑफिस के सामने
लोकतंत्र को बचाने
विरोध प्रदर्शन
Gyanesh, it’s done bro.
janter manter 2.0
#cjp #dyfi #protest #delhi
#Jantarmanatar
तानाशाही नहीं चलेगी। https://t.co/P50Ajl519C

— DYFI DELHI (@DyfiDelhi) October 10, 2026

AISA national president Neha Bora announced Dilli Haat as an alternative location for the demonstration. She was subsequently detained near the Safdarjung Airport flyover. Videos circulating from the site showed protesters surrounding the police bus in which she was being held.

The sequence of events was significant: rather than simply dispersing the gathering, police action was followed by fresh attempts to assemble elsewhere. Protesters continued to look for ways to make their opposition visible despite the risk of detention.

Mass detentions on the cards. Buses, including vehicles with grills used to ferry undertrials from prisons to courts, have been pressed into service. Multiple detention centres, including three major stadiums, have been designated. The objective is to prevent protesters from gathering anywhere in Delhi. @ThePrintIndia

— Ananya Bhardwaj (@BhardwajAnanya) October 10, 2026

The relocation of demonstrators also exposed the practical consequences of restrictions imposed across the city. When access to one location was blocked, protesters attempted to find another. The response was further police intervention, rather than an evident effort to facilitate a peaceful assembly.

Despite border security forces and innumerable cops trying to turn 110001 (and kilometres beyond) into a cantonment in war time – people are turning up.
Delhi police pushing them around before detention. #Darr @SravastiDasgup2 https://t.co/RbreuK2xkG

— Seema Chishti (@seemay) October 10, 2026

Lawyers detained on their way from the Supreme Court

The crackdown also reached members of the legal community. Lawyers marching from the Supreme Court were detained, with Bar & Bench reporting that around 100 lawyers had been detained. Reports also alleged that women lawyers were manhandled during the police action.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sought the intervention of the Chief Justice of India over the detentions and the alleged use of excessive force.

The SCBA has sought CJI Surya Kant’s intervention over the detention of advocates staging a peaceful protest outside the Supreme Court.

It has also criticised the alleged use of excessive force by authorities against the protesting lawyers. https://t.co/FJihZAHErQ

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 10, 2026

OCT 10 | DELHI POLICE DETAIN LAWYERS MARCHING FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO JANTAR MANTAR!

Modi-Shah’s colonial crackdown cannot silence the people’s democratic voice demanding resignation of Vote Chor Gyanesh Kumar! https://t.co/o7Gx7OTlLI

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) October 10, 2026

Journalists detained while covering the protest

Journalists reporting on the demonstrations were also detained, adding to concerns about the ability of the press to document police action. Newslaundry reporters Ashwine Singh, Savyasachi Astha and Anmol Pritam were detained, and their phones were reportedly seized. They were later released. Scroll reporter Ayush Tiwari was detained near ITO, while the publication’s political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, was detained near CR Park. Journalists from The Wire were also reportedly threatened with detention despite carrying press cards. Reports further identified journalists from Navbharat Times and Reporter TV among those detained.

Now @scroll_in’s political editor Shoaib Daniyal detained by the police near CR Park.

He was not even in Central Delhi.

— Supriya Sharma (@sharmasupriya) October 10, 2026

Brinda Karat along with other MP’s Detained, Police stops media from Coverage.

@Saurabh_Unmute

Watch Full Ground Report on The Red Mike’s YouTube Channel. https://t.co/CAJ5fHMtuo

— The Red Mike (@TheRedMike) October 10, 2026

Ground Report | Journalists and Mediapersons show their Press cards as Police continue to detain them.

Follow @thequint for more updates.

#CockroachJantaParty #Protest #JantarMantar #Delhi #Politics https://t.co/TAPxD4Kd7Y

— The Quint (@TheQuint) October 10, 2026

The Wire reported that Delhi Police detained journalists despite press identification and its own guidelines concerning the handling of media personnel. The News Minute also reported detentions involving journalists from Newslaundry, Scroll, Navbharat Times and Reporter TV.

UPDATE: Three Newslaundry reporters detained by Delhi Police.

Our reporters @AshwineSingh, @SavyasachiAstha, and @anmolpritamND have been detained while covering the October 10 protest. Delhi Police have also seized Newslaundry’s official phones, which our reporters were using to carry out their reporting duties.

When the journalists identified themselves as media personnel, they were reportedly told, “Koi media nahin hai.”

Around 30 people have been put into a single bus, including protesters and journalists. Our reporters have identified Inspector Dhan Singh Malik as the officer who snatched the phones.

Journalists are there to report, not to protest. They were not obstructing police operations. On what grounds are they being detained and their phones seized?

@DelhiPolice must explain these actions and allow journalists to do their jobs without intimidation.

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) October 10, 2026

The detention of reporters covering a public demonstration cannot be treated as an incidental detail in the day’s events. Journalists are responsible for documenting what takes place on the streets, including the conduct of the police and the treatment of protesters. Detaining reporters, seizing their phones or obstructing their work risks preventing the public from receiving an independent account of the exercise of state power.

Sweeping restrictions across the capital

The protests took place amid extensive restrictions on movement and transport. According to live reporting by NDTV, gates at 45 Metro stations were closed, while more than 250 trains departing from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations were cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm. Internet services were also suspended within a four-kilometre radius around the Janpath–Kartavya Path area.

#Watch | All India Kisan Sabha president Ashok Dhawale detained by Delhi Police amid the anti-CEC protest on Saturday (October 10, 2026).
Video: Special arrangement https://t.co/1exXxQrTib

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 10, 2026

The scale of these measures extended the impact of the police response beyond those directly participating in the protest. Commuters and other residents were also affected by disruptions to public transport and connectivity. The Supreme Court intervened over the proposed Metro shutdown, emphasising that restrictions had to be proportionate. The intervention brought the question of proportionality into sharp focus: authorities may regulate public assemblies and take measures to address genuine security concerns, but restrictions cannot be allowed to become a blanket mechanism for suppressing dissent or imposing disproportionate hardship on the public.

Total police mayhem on the streets of Delhi. It seems they are just grabbing any young person they can find on the streets and loading them into buses and paddy wagons. https://t.co/JHMsYum69M

— Lydia Polgreen (@lpolgreen) October 10, 2026

The news godi media won’t tell you: The protesters succeeded in setting up Jantar Mantar 2.0 at several sites in Delhi.
Despite curfew like situation, we managed to breach the fortress. With @neha_aisa @pbhushan1 Deepankar Bhattacharya, Shadaan Farasat and nearly 500 young protesters, we marched from AIIMS for about 2 km, bypassing two barricades. Young protesters blocked police van that was taking Neha Bora. Finally police swooped down, grabbed and pushed me inside their van. The rest are still being detained.
Jantar Mantar lives on.
The fight continues.

— Yogendra Yadav (@_YogendraYadav) October 10, 2026

The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) also condemned the police repression of protest in Delhi, demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Their statement read:

The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) strongly condemns the government’s repression of today’s protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over serious concerns regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

The reported detention of students, activists and protesters, along with attempts to obstruct their participation in the democratic demonstration, is a serious attack on citizens’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and democratic dissent.

INSAF holds that the Election Commission, as an independent constitutional institution, must function impartially and transparently and remain accountable to the people. Instead of suppressing democratic protests, the government must address public concerns over electoral integrity and ensure that no eligible voter is arbitrarily deprived of their right to vote.

INSAF demands an immediate end to the repression of protesters, the release of all those detained in connection with the peaceful demonstration, and accountability for the police action. We reiterate our demand for the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and call upon democratic organisations, civil society groups and citizens to unite in defence of democracy, constitutional rights and free and fair elections.

Democracy cannot be defended by suppressing dissent. The people’s voice must be heard and respected.

The constitutional framework recognises both the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) and the power of the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests specified under Article 19(3). In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Supreme Court recognised the right to hold public meetings on streets while also acknowledging the authority of the state to regulate their use. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court addressed the need to balance the right to protest with the rights of other users of public spaces.

That balance cannot be reduced to the question of whether police have the authority to erect barricades or impose restrictions. The legality and proportionality of the measures, their impact on fundamental rights and the manner in which they are enforced are equally important. Public order cannot become a blanket justification for preventing citizens from expressing political opposition.

CJP organisers detained on arrival

The organisers associated with the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), whose mobilisation had helped draw attention to the protest, were also detained. Founders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were reportedly taken into custody after arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport.

According to reports by Reuters, NDTV and The Economic Times, the three were detained from inside the plane after it landed in Delhi. Dipke had reportedly recorded a message in advance naming Ajinkya Shinde to lead the protest in his absence.

Their detention did not end the mobilisation. Protesters continued to gather and march at different locations, even as police action against political leaders, students, lawyers and journalists drew further attention to the restrictions surrounding the demonstration.

The detentions of the CJP organisers were one part of a much wider police response. The day’s events cannot be understood solely through the fate of the protest’s founders: the participation of Left leaders, student organisations, lawyers and journalists demonstrated that the opposition to the SIR had drawn a broader cross-section of people into the streets.

A protest that police action has not silenced

The events in Delhi on October 10 raise fundamental questions about the limits of police power in a democracy. But can detention, restrictions on movement and the disruption of reporting cannot substitute for an answer to the concerns that brought people onto the streets?

Detailed report on the extent of suppression of dissent tactics used by Delhi police may be read here.

The protest was directed at the Election Commission, the SIR exercise and the accountability of the Chief Election Commissioner. Those are matters of public and constitutional significance. They cannot be made to disappear by detaining demonstrators or making it difficult for them to assemble.

The continued attempts to march, regroup and demonstrate across Delhi showed that the mobilisation had not been extinguished by the day’s police action. If anything, the detention of political leaders, students, lawyers and journalists has sharpened the questions about the space available for dissent.

A democracy is tested not only by whether citizens are permitted to participate in elections, but also by whether they can question the institutions that administer them. The right to vote and the right to protest are not competing principles. Both are integral to democratic participation, and both require institutions to remain answerable to the public.

Related:

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

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), left organisations, student organisations, opposition parties and their youth groups, and civil society groups have called for a protest over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Election Commission of India (ECI) maintains that the revision is intended to remove duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries. Critics, however, have raised concerns about the scale of deletions, the risk of eligible voters being excluded, and the transparency and independence of the electoral process.

This comes on the background of more than 130 million names being removed from electoral rolls during the revision exercise, although the ECI and the government dispute the allegation that the exercise is politically motivated. The scale of the deletions makes questions of verification, notice, appeal and effective remedy matters of democratic urgency, not issues that can be brushed aside as partisan agitation.

Yet, instead of treating dissent over electoral integrity as a legitimate part of democratic life, authorities across several states are accused of taking steps that could prevent people from travelling to Delhi, meeting fellow protesters or exercising their right to peaceful assembly. The distinction matters. A government may regulate a demonstration to protect public safety. It cannot treat the very possibility of mass dissent as a threat to be neutralised through preventive detention, surveillance, intimidation and restrictions that extend far beyond the protest site.

One must also not forget that with Delhi Police reportedly planning to shut entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations and all train services to and from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations set to be cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm on October 10, the national capital is bracing for extraordinary restrictions ahead of a protest demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. As reports emerge of activists allegedly detained, placed under house arrest or stopped from travelling to Delhi, the scale of the measures raises a disturbing question: is the state preparing to maintain law and order, or making it increasingly difficult for citizens to exercise their democratic right to protest? Is this an undeclared emergency?

The following incidents, reported by news organisations and raised by activists and student organisations, point to an increasingly disturbing pattern.

The incidents: A nationwide pattern of intimidation

Delhi: Delhi Police official enters an Old Delhi Mosque to discourage participation: A video circulated on social media, reported by ThePrint, purportedly shows a Delhi Police official inside a mosque in Old Delhi reading out an advisory asking people to keep their family members away from “unnecessary” protests. The official is heard saying: “Parivaar ko samjhayein ki unnecessary bheed ya protest mein hissa na lein, kyunki prashasan apna kaam kar raha hai.”

According to ThePrint, police officials confirmed that personnel had also approached other gathering places and marketplaces to discourage participation in what they described as unlawful assemblies.

This is troubling for reasons beyond the choice of venue. The police are entitled to communicate lawful restrictions and explain genuine safety risks. But when official messaging moves into community spaces to discourage people from joining a protest against the government and the electoral authorities, the line between public information and political demobilisation becomes dangerously thin.

Calling a protest “unnecessary” does not settle whether it is lawful, nor does it answer the concerns that brought people to the streets. The police cannot substitute their assessment of whether citizens ought to protest for citizens’ own constitutional judgment.

Delhi Police official goes to a mosque in Old Delhi, reads out text from his phone, asks people to not participate in CJP’s October 10 protest. “Parivaar ko samjhayein ki unnecessary bheed ya protest mein hissa na lein, kyunki prashasan apna kaam kar raha hai.”

Delhi Police official goes to a mosque in Old Delhi, reads out text from his phone, asks people to not participate in CJP’s October 10 protest. “Parivaar ko samjhayein ki unnecessary bheed ya protest mein hissa na lein, kyunki prashasan apna kaam kar raha hai.”

— Vijaita Singh (@vijaita) October 8, 2026

Rajasthan: CJP spokesperson Deepak Baliyan allegedly detained, assaulted and confined

The CJP alleged that Rajasthan Police detained its national spokesperson and organisational co-in-charge, Deepak Baliyan, from his home in Mankheda village, Kathumar tehsil, Alwar district, on the night of October 8.

According to statements by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and co-convener Ashutosh Ranka, Baliyan was taken away despite recovering from a fractured leg, allegedly dragged and injured further, and later released during the night. The organisation subsequently alleged that his phone was retained without a seizure memo or other documentation being provided.

On October 9, CJP and activists reported that around 20 policemen were stationed outside Baliyan’s home, preventing him from moving freely. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), through its president Kavita Srivastava, condemned the reported restrictions and demanded that the police withdraw from his residence.

CJP Org In-Charge Deepak Baliyan (26) Former Bhartiya Kisan Union Leader & close aide of Ashutosh Ranka was detained from his village Kathumar, Alwar. Latest info is that police now wants his family to come. If arrested a team will appear for him!

CJP Org In-Charge Deepak Baliyan (26) Former Bhartiya Kisan Union Leader & close aide of @AshutoshRanka was detained from his village Kathumar, Alwar. Latest info is that police now wants his family to come. If arrested a team will appear for him! https://t.co/ry5HStoLbM

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 8, 2026

Rajasthan: Sanju Verma allegedly taken away by Reengus Police

CJP activist Sanju Verma, from Reengus in Rajasthan’s Sikar district, was reportedly picked up by Reengus Police at around 9.30 am on October 9. The account supplied by activists alleges that police personnel pushed, pulled and dragged him away. The PUCL also reported that Verma had been taken to an undisclosed location and demanded his immediate release.

Rajasthan: Geegraj Jodli allegedly prevented from leaving home

Geegraj Jodli, a CJP activist from Neem ka Thana in Sikar district, was reportedly prevented from leaving his residence for work, with Sadar Police personnel stationed outside his home from approximately 8.30 am. PUCL described the action as an unlawful restriction on movement and demanded that police withdraw from the residences of Jodli and Baliyan.

Uttar Pradesh: Eighteen-year-old Arjun Sharma reportedly placed under house arrest

Arjun Sharma, an 18-year-old recent school graduate who had raised concerns about irregularities in the CBSE On-Screen Marking System, was reportedly detained by Uttar Pradesh Police in Ghaziabad at around 8.30 pm. An account circulated on X claimed that Sharma had not issued a call for the October 10 protest but was nevertheless placed under house arrest until Sunday.

Fresh school graduate Arjun Sharma (18) who raised CBSE On-Screen Marking System irregularities was detained by UP Police in Ghaziabad around 8:30 PM He didn’t give any 10th October call still under House Arrest till Sunday!

THREAD OF DETENTIONS & HOUSE ARREST

Fresh school graduate Arjun Sharma (18) who raised CBSE On-Screen Marking System irregularities was detained by UP Police in Ghaziabad around 8:30 PM

He didn’t give any 10th October call still under House Arrest till Sunday! https://t.co/Jyv1WqMr50

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 8, 2026

Maharashtra: Police allegedly demand written assurances that people will not attend

In a report published on October 9, The Indian Express documented allegations from activists in Mumbai, Thane, Nagpur and Pune that police had contacted them, visited their homes, questioned their travel plans and, in some cases, asked them to sign documents promising not to attend the Delhi protest.

Sadaf Raza Zaidi, a 31-year-old creative strategist from Santacruz, told the newspaper that officers visited her home, asked where she planned to go on October 10, sought information about other potential participants and asked her to sign a document stating that she would not attend the protest. She also said police asked for her live location, which she refused to share. Zaidi believed she had been approached because she had been detained during an earlier protest in July.

The Maharashtra Director General of Police’s office acknowledged that notices had been issued in a handful of cases but denied that detentions had taken place in the state.

Mumbai: Feroze Mithiborwala and Salim Saboowala reportedly detained and warned against protesting

Civil society activists Feroze Mithiborwala and Salim Saboowala, associated with Hum Bharat Ke Log, said police personnel from Mumbai’s MIDC police station took them to the police station on October 8 after visiting their homes. According to Hindustan Times, the activists said they were held for several hours and released after being warned against participating in the October 10 protest. The newspaper reported that a senior police official denied that the duo had been detained, describing the interaction as routine questioning.

Mumbai Police have started detaining Constitutional Activists. Saleem Saboowala and Feroze Mithiborewala have been detained at police stations in Mumbai.

@AshutoshRanka @AISFofficial @divy_bhraman @akshaylakra17 @aishe_ghosh From Tushar Gandhi : @TusharG

Mumbai Police have started detaining Constitutional Activists. Saleem Saboowala and Feroze Mithiborewala have been detained at police stations in Mumbai. https://t.co/PH3fQoP9Il

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 9, 2026

Maharashtra: Police reportedly track travel plans and seek information about other protesters

The allegations extend beyond the two Mumbai activists. The Indian Express reported that Mayur Sharma, a Thane-based AISF member, received calls from police personnel in Mumbai and Delhi seeking details of his journey to the capital. Sharma said he feared being stopped at Bandra Terminus and boarded a train from Borivali instead. He later received a call from Delhi Railway Police asking about his journey and the number of people travelling with him. He eventually got off near Faridabad rather than arriving at Hazrat Nizamuddin, where he feared police might be waiting.

In Nagpur, CJP volunteers alleged that Railway Protection Force personnel contacted them for the names and numbers of people travelling to Delhi and even offered to check the status of their waitlisted tickets. At least two volunteers were reportedly served notices under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh: AISF students allegedly targeted on the Goa Express

The All-India Students’ Federation (AISF) alleged that a group of its student delegates travelling from Pune to Delhi aboard the Goa Express faced an attempt by police to forcibly remove them from the train at Bhusawal railway station in Maharashtra.

According to a statement attributed to AISF Pune district convener Shravani, around eight to ten personnel, including Police Inspector Govind Pathak and woman police officer Minal Tayade, entered the compartment and attempted to detain and deboard the students. The students alleged that police failed to produce warrants, written orders or other legal documents authorising their detention. AISF said its members refused to leave the train and remained aboard after a confrontation lasting more than 30 minutes.

Separately, the organisation alleged that 22 women AISF activists were detained at Itarsi station in Madhya Pradesh after being assaulted by police and Government Railway Police personnel. Those named included Pune coordinator Shravani Buva and Pune committee member Preeti Londhe. The organisation demanded that authorities disclose the whereabouts of the detained students and explain the grounds for their detention.

Sixteen people from Maharashtra were on their way to Jantar Mantar to join the protest. In Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh, the police have detained all of them after disembarking them from the train.

महाराष्ट्र से 16 लोग प्रोटेस्ट में शामिल होने जंतर मंतर आ रहे थे। मध्य प्रदेश के इटारसी में पुलिस ने ट्रेन से सभी को उतारकर हिरासत में ले लिया है। https://t.co/eMqv3yzyWI

— Sachin Gupta (@Sachingupta) October 9, 2026

Over dozens of students onboard Goa Express and on their way to participate in protests in Delhi were detained by the local police in Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh.

Over dozens of students onboard Goa Express and on their way to participate in protests in Delhi were detained by the local police in Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh. https://t.co/cdw8ooVUGr

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) October 9, 2026

Madhya Pradesh: CJP volunteers from Telangana reportedly detained in transit

As reported by The Reuters, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that volunteers travelling from Telangana were detained by Madhya Pradesh Police aboard a train at Bhopal. The organisation also circulated footage purportedly showing young people inside a moving bus in Madhya Pradesh, with one person heard saying that police had detained them.

Delhi: Police reportedly enter the SFI national office carrying lathis

The Students’ Federation of India (SFI) alleged that Delhi Police personnel carrying lathis entered its central executive committee office at HKS Surjeet Bhawan in New Delhi and sought details of activists ahead of the October 10 protest. SFI also alleged that police personnel had visited activists’ homes and approached their families to discourage them from travelling to the capital.

A group of policemen carrying lathis arrived at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi, where the SFI Central Executive Committee office is located, searching for SFI activists. The police also tried to collect details of SFI activists coming to Delhi to participate in the protest.

SFI will not back down in the face of such intimidation tactics by the BJP-RSS using the police.

SFI will participate in large numbers in the 10^th October protest against Vote Chori.

Delhi Police, are you trying to scare us or silence us? Do you want to see how many of us will come?

Amit Shah ji, we will be in thousands.

Let’s wait and watch. Don’t panic.

A group of policemen carrying lathis arrived at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi, where the SFI Central Executive Committee office is located, searching for SFI activists. The police also tried to collect details of SFI activists coming to Delhi to participate in the protest.

SFI will not back down in the face of such intimidation tactics by the BJP-RSS using the police.

SFI will participate in large numbers in the 10th October protest against Vote Chori.

Delhi Police, are you trying to scare us or silence us? Do you want to see how many of us will come?

Amit Shah ji, we will be in thousands.

Let’s wait and watch.
Don’t panic.

#gyaneshitsdonebro #gyaneshkumarmustresign

— SFI (@SFI_CEC) October 8, 2026

Gujarat: Student activist Satyesha reportedly placed under house arrest

Former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Aishe Ghosh shared an account alleging that the SFI national vice-president, Satyesha, had been placed under house arrest in Gujarat.

1st video is from Delhi, where the police entered our National Office with sticks and enquired about the details of our activists. 2nd video is from Gujarat, where our National Vice President Satyesha has been kept on house arrest.

Coming From Former JNUSU President @aishe_ghosh :

1st video is from Delhi, where the police entered our National Office with sticks and enquired about the details of our activists.

2nd video is from Gujarat, where our National Vice President Satyesha has been kept on house arrest.

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 9, 2026

Chandigarh: Former IES officer Prempal Singh reportedly placed under house arrest

Prempal Singh, a former Indian Engineering Services officer who had joined the CJP’s July protest at Jantar Mantar, was reportedly placed under house arrest in Chandigarh ahead of the October 10 demonstration.

Prempal Singh, UPSC 2018 Ex IES who had joined the CJP’s call at Jantar Mantar in July has been put under House Arrest in Chandigarh.

@AshutoshRanka @AISFofficial @divy_bhraman @akshaylakra17 Prempal Singh, UPSC 2018 Ex IES who had joined the CJP’s call at Jantar Mantar in July has been put under House Arrest in Chandigarh. https://t.co/ECICfFmASQ

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 9, 2026

Delhi: Political Youth Congress president Divy Gaur reportedly confined to his home

Divy Gaur, president of the Political Youth Congress in Delhi’s Hari Nagar area, was reportedly placed under house arrest for several days because of his involvement in the “Vote Chori” campaign. The allegation was that the restriction was intended to prevent him from participating in the October 9–10 mobilisation.

Hari Nagar Delhi PYC President Divy Gaur has been placed under House Arrest for being vocal in the VoteChori campaign since 3 days now. Maybe they don’t want any movement from 9 to 10th October. 

@AshutoshRanka @AISFofficial Hari Nagar Delhi PYC President Divy Gaur has been placed under House Arrest for being vocal in the VoteChori campaign since 3 days now. Maybe they don’t want any movement from 9 to 10th October. https://t.co/Bp1LbtTh1B

— Rishav Ranjan (@rishav_ranjan18) October 8, 2026

Uttar Pradesh: Student and youth activists reportedly placed under house arrest

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) alleged that Uttar Pradesh Police had placed Democratic Youth Federation of India state secretary Raj Kumar, DYFI activist Kunal and SFI Sultanpur district president Salil under house arrest.

The party further alleged that SFI Saharanpur district convenor Arif had been detained at home and taken to a private location, while All India Kisan Sabha leader Daud Rao had also been detained at his residence. The organisation said the actions were intended to prevent them from reaching Delhi on October 10.

UP Police’s Repressive Measures Continue! Student and Youth Activists Targeted! DYFI Uttar Pradesh State Secretary Raj Kumar, DYFI activist Kunal and SFI Sultanpur District President Salil have all been illegally placed under house arrest by the UP Police. Earlier, the UP Police had detained SFI Saharanpur District Convenor Arif from his home and are keeping him at a private location. AIKS leader Daud Rao was also detained at his home yesterday. All this to prevent them from reaching Delhi on 10 October!

UP Police’s Repressive Measures Continue! Student and Youth Activists Targeted!

DYFI Uttar Pradesh State Secretary Raj Kumar, DYFI activist Kunal and SFI Sultanpur District President Salil have all been illegally placed under house arrest by the UP Police. Earlier, the UP Police had detained SFI Saharanpur District Convenor Arif from his home and are keeping him at a private location. AIKS leader Daud Rao was also detained at his home yesterday. All this to prevent them from reaching Delhi on 10 October!

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 9, 2026

Onground blanket restrictions

Police deny permission for the October 10 protest: The Delhi Police has refused permission for the CJP–All India Students’ Association (AISA) protest at Jantar Mantar, citing prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. As reported by The Times of India, police have argued that the organisers did not comply with the required notice period and had not followed directions during a previous demonstration. Authorities have also cited public safety, law and order, and traffic management concerns.

Authorities can impose proportionate conditions on a demonstration, designate routes and times, and take action against specific unlawful conduct. But refusing permission, while simultaneously restricting travel, monitoring prospective participants and preparing detention facilities, risks making the right to protest meaningless in practice.

Around 23,000 central armed police personnel and 10 detention centres reportedly prepared: According to The Indian Express, the Union Home Ministry made 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, comprising approximately 23,000 personnel, available to the Delhi Police for October 8–12. The report also said that around 10 detention centres were being prepared across the capital, including facilities at Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana and Chhatrasal Stadium.

The scale of the proposed deployment is striking. Security arrangements must be based on credible assessments of specific risks, not on the political significance of a demonstration or the number of people expected to criticise the government.

The preparation of detention facilities before a protest also raises a question of institutional intent. Authorities may reasonably plan for arrests if unlawful conduct occurs. But when detention capacity is presented as a central component of a pre-emptive security strategy, the public is entitled to ask whether the objective is to facilitate a safe assembly or to prepare for its mass dispersal.

Entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations reportedly targeted for restrictions: The Times of India reported on October 9 that Delhi Police had proposed closing entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations and reducing train frequency ahead of the protest. The proposed restrictions were to begin at 9 pm on October 9 and continue on October 10 until the situation normalised.

The report made clear that the police communication sought arrangements from the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation; it did not establish that every proposed restriction had been approved or implemented. Notably, the stations listed extend well beyond the immediate vicinity of Jantar Mantar and include major transport interchanges and stations serving residential, educational and commercial areas. Public transport is not merely a convenience for demonstrators. It is an essential service for workers, students, patients and commuters. Restricting it across a wide geographical area imposes costs on people who may have no connection to the protest at all. If individual stations require temporary restrictions because of a specific and immediate danger, authorities should explain the grounds and keep the restrictions as narrow and brief as possible.

Service Update

Due to security reasons, the entry and exit at the following metro stations will remain closed from 09:00 PM on 9th October, 2026 and continuing on 10th October, 2026 till further notice. However, interchange facility will remain available at all the concerned metro stations except New Delhi metro station.

— Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (@OfficialDMRC) October 9, 2026

Notably, in a significant intervention on October 9, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the Delhi Police’s move to close entry and exit gates at 57 Delhi Metro stations ahead of the October 10 protest. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana asked the government to take corrective steps and ensure that restrictions did not bring public life to a standstill. “You cannot bring everything to a halt,” the bench observed, stressing that its concern extended to thousands of ordinary commuters, including workers, students and senior citizens travelling to Delhi from Gurugram, Greater Noida and other parts of the National Capital Region. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that he would discuss the matter with the government and work towards proportionate measures.

The court’s intervention raises a fundamental question about the proportionality of the restrictions imposed in the name of maintaining public order. While authorities may regulate demonstrations and take lawful preventive measures, the potential disruption of essential public transport across large parts of the capital places an extraordinary burden on people who have no connection to the proposed protest. The court emphasised that maintaining law and order is not merely about protecting state property, but also about protecting people and ensuring that ordinary citizens can go about their lives. The intervention comes amid wider allegations of police detentions, house arrests and attempts to prevent activists from travelling to Delhi. However, the court also made clear that the right to protest must operate within the applicable legal framework, including questions of permission.

Train services to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin reportedly cancelled: In a report published on October 9, The Indian Express said that train services to and from New Delhi Railway Station and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station would be cancelled between 4 am and 2 pm on October 10. The report also identified the Howrah–New Delhi and Sealdah–New Delhi Rajdhani Express services among trains cancelled because of anticipated congestion around the stations.

The Ministry of Railways described the measure as precautionary, citing traffic congestion and the need to prevent passengers from facing difficulties reaching stations. The report also noted that approximately 5,000 passengers had missed trains on the preceding Thursday.

Those operational concerns cannot simply be ignored. But the cancellation of essential transport services on the day of a protest, with consequences extending to passengers travelling for entirely unrelated reasons, calls for a transparent assessment of necessity and proportionality. The state cannot treat the inconvenience caused by a protest as a reason to impose restrictions whose consequences are borne by the public at large. If the concern is congestion, targeted traffic management, alternative access routes and clearly communicated passenger arrangements should be considered before sweeping disruption.

Restrictions reportedly considered for taxis, hotels and guest houses: The Indian Express reported that police were coordinating with app-based cab operators such as Ola and Uber to regulate movement towards Lutyens’ Delhi. Police officials also said hotels, guest houses and other accommodation facilities in and around Central Delhi had been asked to restrict or stop fresh bookings for a specified period.

Such restrictions have consequences beyond the immediate protest. People may need transport to reach hospitals, workplaces, homes, railway stations or other essential destinations. Hotels and guest houses serve visitors with no connection to political mobilisation. If the police have evidence that particular vehicles or premises are being used to facilitate a specific offence, action should be directed at that conduct. Broad restrictions based on the possibility that protesters might use ordinary transport or accommodation risk turning routine urban infrastructure into a tool for controlling political participation.

Internet restrictions and action against citizen journalists reportedly under consideration: The same Indian Express report said internet restrictions might be imposed in areas where detainees were housed and potentially extended to parts of New Delhi and Central Delhi, depending on the security situation. It also reported that people recording or livestreaming the protest could face action if they obstructed police operations, violated restrictions or contributed to unlawful mobilisation. Journalists were asked to carry and prominently display valid press identification at barricades and sensitive locations.

Liquor outlets ordered to close on October 9 and 10: The Delhi government’s Excise Department ordered liquor stores to remain closed on October 9 and 10, citing public-order concerns and police inputs, according to report in Hindustan Times.

The constitutional question: Can the state prevent a protest before it begins?

The crackdown allegations have unfolded alongside police action against opposition politicians. Reuters reported that Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra were among those briefly detained during protests in Delhi over the electoral roll revision. Their detentions are part of a wider confrontation over the ECI’s conduct and the opposition’s demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

The Constitution does not grant an unconditional right to assemble anywhere, at any time, regardless of the consequences. The state may impose reasonable restrictions, regulate public spaces and intervene against credible threats to public safety. But these powers are not a licence to suppress peaceful dissent.

Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 19(1)(d) protects the right to move freely throughout India, subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions. These rights are essential to democratic participation, particularly when citizens seek accountability from public institutions.

In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Supreme Court recognised that the state may regulate public meetings on streets but cannot exercise its regulatory power in a manner that effectively destroys the right to hold them. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court considered the competing interests involved in demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the need to balance the right to protest with the rights of residents and the maintenance of public order. These principles matter in the present context. The existence of regulatory powers does not answer whether their use is lawful in a particular case. A blanket refusal of permission, restrictions on travel across several states, alleged confinement of activists, questioning of prospective participants and sweeping disruptions to public transport must each be justified on their own facts.

Section 163 of the BNSS, which empowers executive magistrates to issue urgent orders in cases of apprehended danger or nuisance, is not a free-standing authority to extinguish constitutional freedoms. Its application must satisfy the statutory conditions and remain open to legal scrutiny.

The question is especially acute when restrictions appear designed not merely to control the location or manner of an assembly but to prevent people from reaching it at all.

The central contradiction: Public order or the prevention of dissent?

The state has defended the SIR exercise as a lawful effort to clean electoral rolls. The Election Commission maintains that duplicate, deceased and ineligible entries must be removed. Those objectives can be legitimate. An accurate electoral roll is indispensable to free and fair elections.

But the legitimacy of cleaning electoral rolls does not place the process beyond scrutiny. Nor does it make questions about wrongful deletions, procedural safeguards, access to appeals or the independence of the Election Commission illegitimate.

The dispute has acquired greater urgency amid reports that more than 130 million names have been removed from electoral rolls. As Reuters has reported, the opposition and critics argue that the scale of the revision raises concerns about the possible exclusion of eligible voters, while the ECI and the government reject allegations of political manipulation.

The correct response to such concerns is transparency, accessible remedies and an evidence-based explanation of the revision process. It is not to treat those demanding answers as a public-order problem.

There is an obvious contradiction in claiming that electoral-roll revision is necessary to protect the integrity of elections while allegedly using the police to stop citizens from questioning how that revision is being carried out. The ECI’s decisions must withstand scrutiny, and citizens must be free to demand that scrutiny without being treated as enemies of public order.

The concern is not confined to the conduct of Delhi Police. The allegations span Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Chandigarh. If the reported interventions are established, their geographical spread would demand answers about coordination between police forces, the basis on which individuals were identified and whether lawful preventive powers were being used to obstruct political participation.

The police cannot become an instrument for deciding who may dissent

The police are not responsible for determining whether a political demand is correct, whether an opposition movement deserves public support or whether citizens should be persuaded to stay home. Their responsibility is to enforce the law impartially, protect life and property, facilitate lawful assemblies and intervene against specific unlawful conduct. Those responsibilities require professionalism and restraint, especially when a protest is directed against the government or a constitutional authority.

The reported use of police personnel to discourage participation through community spaces, visits to homes and inquiries about travel plans raises questions about institutional neutrality. So does the alleged use of preventive powers to restrict individuals who have participated in previous demonstrations.

If police action is justified by a credible threat, the authorities should disclose the relevant legal grounds and explain why the restrictions imposed were necessary. If a person has been detained, their whereabouts and legal status should be made clear. If a restriction is imposed on movement, its legal basis, duration and scope should be identifiable.

The burden cannot be shifted entirely onto citizens to prove that every intervention against them was unlawful. Public authorities exercising coercive power must be able to account for that exercise.

The refusal of permission for the October 10 gathering may be challenged or defended on its own legal merits. But it cannot automatically justify every other measure taken against prospective participants across the country.

A protest against electoral uncertainty cannot be answered with restrictions on democratic participation

The October 10 mobilisation centres on a fundamental question: whether India’s electoral institutions are functioning with sufficient transparency and public confidence. The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation is a political demand, not a judicial finding of wrongdoing. Allegations of electoral manipulation must be investigated and assessed on evidence, and the ECI’s position must be fairly represented.

But peaceful protest is one of the means through which citizens raise questions that they believe existing institutions have failed to answer adequately.

The state’s response must therefore be judged not only by whether it prevents traffic disruption or maintains order at Jantar Mantar, but also by whether it preserves the conditions under which citizens can criticise those in power.

There is a difference between regulating an assembly and suppressing the possibility of assembly. There is a difference between investigating a credible threat and treating prospective protesters as suspects. And there is a difference between communicating lawful restrictions and using the authority of the police to persuade citizens that they should not exercise their rights. A democracy is not tested by how efficiently it prevents dissent from assembling. It is tested by whether it can accommodate dissent, protect those who express it and answer criticism without resorting to coercion.

Related:

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

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bihar’s electorate has increased from approximately 7.41 crore in September 2025 to 7.55 crore in October 2026. Around 18.7 lakh applications were received through Form 6, of which nearly 14 lakh resulted in enrolment.

The new additions include first-time voters and people seeking re-registration. However, the available figures do not establish how many of these individuals had previously been registered and were subsequently removed during SIR.

That distinction is important because any eligible voter wrongly excluded from the final electoral roll before the Assembly election would have lost the opportunity to vote in November 2025. Adding their name now would allow them to vote in future elections, but it cannot restore their participation in the election already held.

Nearly 47 lakh fewer voters after SIR

Bihar had around 7.89 crore registered voters when SIR began on June 24, 2025. The draft roll published on August 1 contained approximately 7.24 crore names, a reduction of nearly 65 lakhs.

During the claims and objections period, 21.53 lakh voters were added and another 3.66 lakh names deleted. The final roll published on September 30 contained approximately 7.42 crore voters, nearly 47 lakhs fewer than before the exercise. The November 2025 Assembly election was conducted using the revised electoral rolls. The Supreme Court subsequently recorded these figures in its May 27, 2026 judgment concerning SIR.

The Election Commission maintained that SIR was necessary to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters and people who had permanently shifted, while ensuring that all eligible citizens remained registered.

VFD report questioned large-scale deletions

The latest additions have renewed the relevance of concerns raised by Vote for Democracy (VFD) in its report, The Bihar Verdict 2025: An Audit of the “Stolen Mandate”. The report questioned the scale and pace of deletions, including approximately 21.27 lakh names reportedly removed only between July 21 and July 25, 2025. These included 5.44 lakh voters categorised as deceased and 14.24 lakh as permanently shifted.

VFD also examined constituencies where the number of deleted voters exceeded the winning margin and raised concerns about the verification process. These comparisons raised questions requiring investigation but did not, by themselves, establish that the election results would have been different.

The addition of 14 lakh voters after SIR does not prove that those voters were all wrongly deleted. It does, however, make it important to determine how many were previously registered and how many could not vote in the Assembly election because their names were missing.

ECI orders fresh drive to enrol excluded voters

On September 26, 2026, the Election Commission announced that people left out during SIR could seek inclusion through the continuous updating of electoral rolls. It subsequently ordered a special drive in 20 states and Union Territories where SIR had been completed.

Under the new exercise, Booth Level Officers have been directed to identify eligible voters who remain excluded, compare earlier and revised rolls, visit households and help people submit applications. The drive covers both previously excluded voters and first-time electors.

The Commission has also allowed the regular Form 6 to be used without the additional SIR declaration in states where the revision has been completed. Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has questioned why a person whose name was deleted should be treated as a new voter. He has argued that previously registered eligible voters should not have to undergo the same process as first-time applicants.

The revised instructions have therefore raised another question: if earlier electoral rolls can now be used to identify excluded voters, why could this process not have prevented wrongful exclusions before the 2025 election?

Protests spread over voter deletions

The controversy has also led to protests in Bihar and other states. On October 7, Opposition parties organised demonstrations across Bihar against alleged irregularities in SIR and demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The following day, INDIA bloc parties held a protest march in Patna, demanding fresh Assembly elections and action over alleged wrongful deletions. Protests have also taken place in Delhi and Bengaluru, where political parties, student groups and civil society organisations have questioned the revision process and its impact on eligible voters. The Election Commission and the BJP have denied allegations of wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment recognised the ECI’s authority to conduct SIR but also provided that eligible voters wrongly deleted on grounds such as death, absence, shifting or duplication could challenge those decisions through judicial review.

What remains unanswered?

The addition of nearly 14 lakh voters is significant, but the overall increase does not establish how many people were wrongly excluded during SIR.

For that, the ECI would need to publish a clear breakdown showing how many newly enrolled voters were first-time applicants, how many had moved from other constituencies, how many were previously registered and how many were deleted during the 2025 revision.

The Commission would also need to identify how many eligible voters remained outside the rolls when the Assembly election took place.

The central issue is the voting opportunity lost in November 2025. If eligible citizens were wrongly excluded, adding their names now may allow them to vote in future elections, but it cannot give them back the vote they were unable to cast in Bihar’s last Assembly election.

Related

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

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

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

The post Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kavoor police in Mangaluru registered two cases on October 5 and 6, following directions from a local court. Both concern the Edurupadavu and Shivanagar polling booths in the Moodbidri Assembly constituency.

In the first complaint, Anisha and Ayish Bhanu alleged that a person named Kishan submitted Form 7 applications seeking the removal of 68 voters from the two booths. In the second, Abdul Lateef, Nebisa, Mohammed Altaf, Mohammed Asfak, Fayaz and Akbar alleged that applications had been submitted to remove a further 68 voters from the same booths.

Kishan, Rithesh, Yuvaraj and Shashikala are named as accused in both Mangaluru FIRs. The complaints allege that the applications contained false information. Police will examine the applications and the evidence behind the claims. The New Indian Express reported the two cases and the allegations made in them.

The third FIR was registered at Shanivarasanthe police station in Kodagu after Safwan G.M. complained that applications had been filed against members of his family. Safwan lives in Doddakunda village and is registered at Byadagotta Polling Booth No. 21.

Safwan alleged that the applications sought to remove 19 members of his family, all of whom live in the village and vote at the same polling booth. He said the matter came to light on October 1.

He further alleged that a pre-filled Form 7 objection was submitted to Booth Level Officer Nirmala. According to the complaint, it said a physical check had been made at the family’s residence, and the members had been found absent or ineligible. Safwan also alleged that applications sought the removal of 64 Muslim voters registered at the same booth.

Five people are named as accused in the Shanivarasanthe FIR: Lokesh U.H., identified as the BJP booth president in Byadagotta; his wife Rajani, described as a Booth Level Agent (BLA); Nagaraj A.C., also described as a BLA; his wife Savitha Malali; and B.N. Basavaraj, another BLA. Police have booked them under Sections 190, 192, 353(1), 353(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Dakshina Kannada District Congress Committee president Padmaraj R. Poojary alleged that Yuvaraj, one of the accused in the Mangaluru cases, was a BJP BLA-2 and that the other accused supported the party. Congress leader Mithun Rai alleged that false objections were being filed to remove eligible voters. These claims have not been established by the FIRs and remain part of the investigation.

Statewide count: 91,278 applications

Karnataka received 91,278 Form 7 applications between June 16 and October 4, according to data from the Chief Electoral Officer’s office. Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbukkumar said on October 5 that no voter had been removed through these applications so far.

“Just because objections have been filed, no name has been deleted so far from the electoral roll,” Anbukkumar , said at a press conference, according to The News Minute. He said each application would be examined before the relevant Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decided whether a name should be removed.

The state had received 58,220 Form 7 applications by September 23, the last day of the claims and objections period. The reported total reached 91,278 by October 4. The CEO’s office said none of these applications objected to a proposed inclusion; all sought deletion of an existing entry.

Bidar recorded the highest number, with 5,953 applications. Shivamogga followed with 5,936 and Dakshina Kannada with 5,534.

The 91,278 figure is the number of applications received, not the number of voters removed. As of October 5, the CEO said no voter had been deleted through this process. The applications still had to be checked and decided by the EROs.

What Form 7 is used for

Form 7 allows an elector to object to a proposed inclusion in the electoral roll, request deletion of an existing entry, or ask for their own name to be removed. Reasons for seeking deletion can include a voter’s death, being underage, having permanently shifted, being registered more than once or not being an Indian citizen.

The Election Commission’s guidelines require the applicant to provide the details of the voter whose entry is challenged and state the reason for the objection. The applicant is responsible for supporting the claim. The form also requires a declaration that the information is true to the best of the applicant’s knowledge and belief.

An objection does not by itself remove a voter’s name. The CEO said the ERO must issue notice to both the person who filed the objection and the voter concerned. A hearing is held after seven days. The officer then checks the documents and other information before deciding whether the name should be deleted.

The police complaints raise separate questions about whether information in some applications was false or whether forms were submitted without proper verification. Those questions are being investigated alongside the election officials’ review of the objections.

Earlier reports from other constituencies

Complaints about bulk Form 7 applications had surfaced in several constituencies before the latest FIRs as more than 4,000 applications seeking voter deletions had been submitted in multiple constituencies. Most of the voters named in those cases were Muslim.

According to The Hindu, In Babaleshwar constituency in Vijayapura district, 1,373 applications were received on September 22. Ten people filed 1,363 of them, the report said. Huchappa Ganiger reportedly submitted 493 applications over September 22 and 23, covering about 30 polling stations. He filed 423 applications on September 22 and 70 the following day. Govindaraj Mundur reportedly filed 413 applications on September 23 across 33 polling stations.

In Bhalki, Bidar district, at least 30 people together sought the removal of more than 1,700 names on September 23. One voter named Santosh reportedly filed 54 applications on September 22 and 120 on September 23.

The report also described two Bhalki forms on which the voters’ details were already printed while the objectors’ details were handwritten. In Basavakalyan, one voter filed 32 of the 37 applications received in a day; those forms named Muslim voters at one polling station. In Belthangady, Umesh Bangera reportedly filed 21 applications against voters at one polling station, citing “Absent/Permanently Shifted”.

These figures describe the applications reported in those constituencies. They do not establish whether every objection was false. Each application must be examined on its own grounds.

Ballari list concerned 7,561 voters

Another case arose in Ballari City, where election authorities received a list concerning 7,561 electors. The Hindu reported that T. Srinivas Mothkur, the Opposition leader in the Ballari City Corporation and the BJP’s BLA-1, first tried to submit Form 7 applications through Booth Level Officers.

In a letter dated September 21, Mothkur said some officers had refused to accept the applications, so he took the remaining ones to the Electoral Registration Officer. Election authorities replied that claims that voters were registered elsewhere, absent or permanently shifted were not supported by documents or other information.

Mothkur wrote again on September 22, saying he was ready to submit objections against 7,561 names in the draft electoral roll. Officials again said they could not verify voters’ registration on the basis of the complaint alone.

An FIR was registered at Brucepet police station on October 1 after Congress BLA Goutham S. complained about the matter. He alleged that Form 7 applications had been submitted against the 7,561 electors and that most of the names belonged to a minority community.

Mothkur told The Hindu that he had asked a BLA-2 to identify voters who were believed to have shifted or been absent. He said he submitted the list for verification and had neither sought deletion nor claimed the information was correct. Police will have to examine the applications, the letters and the declarations made with them.

Rules for bulk submissions

The CEO said an ERO could ask an objector to withdraw applications if the number exceeded the prescribed limit. The reported limits were 50 forms per BLA-2 or 10 forms per voter of the constituency. The CEO said all Form 7 applications would be processed before October 22.

In Ballari, election authorities had referred to instructions that a BLA could submit no more than 10 applications to a Booth Level Officer at a time or in a day. If a BLA submitted more than 30 applications during the claims and objections period, the ERO or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer had to cross-check them personally. The BLA was also required to submit a list and declare that the details had been personally verified.

The two accounts describe instructions given in different settings. In both, bulk filing does not remove the need to check the basis of each objection before deciding whether a voter’s name should be deleted.

Inquiry into false claims

Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbukkumar said election officials had been directed to act against applicants who knowingly made false claims or objections through Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8. Such action would follow an inquiry under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and could be taken under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The CEO said his office had not registered an FIR. The police cases concerning alleged misuse of Form 7 were filed by private individuals and were being investigated separately.

On October 1, Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and Congress legislators protested at the CEO’s office and demanded action over alleged bulk filings. Shivakumar said the CEO had directed electoral officers not to approve certain Form 7 objections without supporting material. For death-related claims, he cited the need for a death certificate; for duplicate entries, he said the second EPIC number should be provided.

A delegation led by state BJP president B.Y. Vijayendra, former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa and Assembly Opposition leader R. Ashoka met the state police chief on October 3. The delegation argued that filing multiple Form 7 applications was not, by itself, a criminal offence and said investigators should examine whether individuals knowingly supplied false information or forged documents, as per a report in the Indian Express.

Hearings and publication of the final roll

Form 7 applications are one part of the larger SIR exercise. Between June 16 and October 4, Karnataka received 22,05,171 applications across four electoral forms: 9,10,732 Form 6 applications, 4,677 Form 6A applications, 91,278 Form 7 applications and 11,98,484 Form 8 applications.

Election officials also generated 43,82,313 notices for voters classified under “No Mapping” and “Anomalies”. Of these, 43,55,818 had been delivered. Hearings were completed in 36,89,063 cases, or 84.69 per cent, while 6,66,755 remained pending.

These notices relate to separate verification categories; they are not Form 7 applications. The CEO said voters did not have to attend every hearing in person. Booth Level Officers could visit homes to verify documents, and an authorised family member could appear for a voter. An ERO could require a personal hearing where necessary.

The last hearing was scheduled for October 12. October 22 was the deadline to dispose of claims and objections, and Karnataka’s final electoral roll was scheduled for publication on October 27.

The CEO also said the Election Commission had directed Karnataka to hold a special enrolment drive for first-time voters and people left out of the final roll. He said Form 6 applications submitted for fresh inclusion after publication would not require the SIR-specific declaration.

The final figures will show how many Form 7 applications were examined, accepted or rejected, and how many led to changes in the electoral roll. As of October 5, the CEO’s position was that no voter had been removed through these applications.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Karnataka Form 7 Row: 91,278 deletion requests and bulk filing complaints—where was the ECI’s check? appeared first on SabrangIndia.