SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ News Related to Human Rights Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:44:09 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ 32 32 Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation https://sabrangindia.in/mumbai-police-detain-ambedkarite-leaders-demanding-justice-for-sahil-wakode-iit-bombay-refuses-to-hear-delegation/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:44:09 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49654 As Sahil Wakode’s parents continue their hunger strike over his death and allegations of caste discrimination, Mumbai Police barricaded access to IIT Bombay and detained civil society leaders

The post Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Mumbai Police on Wednesday, October 14, detained Ambedkarite leaders and civil society representatives who gathered outside IIT Bombay under the call of ‘Chalo IIT Bombay’, demanding accountability over the death of second-year BTech student Sahil Wakode and an impartial investigation into allegations of caste discrimination. Among those detained were Rahul Sonpimple, Deepali Salve and Sambhaji Bhagat. The protest was organised in solidarity with Sahil’s parents, who have been on hunger strike for nearly two weeks, demanding answers from the institute and a fair investigation into their son’s death.

 

According to The Federal, police detained protesters demonstrating outside IIT Bombay following the call by Sahil’s father, Ravindra Wakode. IANS also reported the detention of demonstrators supporting the family. The police response was striking: a heavy deployment across the campus, restrictions on entry and the detention of people seeking to present their demands to the administration. Instead of facilitating a meeting with the delegation, the authorities prevented the protesters from proceeding.

 

 

The question is unavoidable: if the administration has nothing to hide, why was a delegation seeking a hearing met with police restrictions and detention rather than an opportunity to be heard?

Police refuse entry, even as family seeks answers

Posts put across X by Greeshma Kuthar, an independent journalist, showed that police personnel had spread across IIT Bombay ahead of the march and were refusing entry to the campus. When asked why Sahil’s parents themselves were not being allowed in, a police officer reportedly responded, “Why will they come here?”

 

The reported exchange is particularly disturbing given that Sahil’s parents have been undertaking a hunger strike since the past two weeks to demand accountability following their son’s death. Their struggle has not been met with the institutional engagement they seek. Instead, their supporters were reportedly prevented from entering the campus and approaching its administration.

Dalit-Bahujan students deserve more than institutional assurances

According to Maharashtra Times, student and Ambedkarite organisations have demanded an impartial inquiry committee, a clear response from IIT Bombay’s director and concrete action on alleged caste discrimination and student safety. They have also raised broader concerns about institutional discrimination, including previous disputes involving reservation rosters.

The protesters are asking a question that the institute cannot afford to evade: why do Dalit-Bahujan students continue to raise concerns about discrimination and safety within an institution that is expected to uphold equal opportunity?

An investigation into Sahil’s death must establish the facts independently and fairly. At the same time, the administration has a responsibility to address allegations of discrimination, examine institutional failures where evidence warrants it, and ensure that students’ complaints receive a credible response.

These obligations are not mutually exclusive. Calling for an impartial inquiry does not prejudge its findings. Demanding accountability does not amount to obstructing due process. And raising concerns about caste discrimination cannot reasonably be dismissed merely because they are being voiced through protest.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

 

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

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

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

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

The post Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ https://sabrangindia.in/jantar-mantar-shut-to-protest-cjp-leaders-sent-to-jail-delhi-police-invoke-breach-of-peace/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:39:51 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49651 Denotification of the protest site precedes preventive action against Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who attempted to enter the barricaded area and unfurl the Tricolour

The post Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Two leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, have been remanded to five days of judicial custody by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) in Delhi after attempting to enter Jantar Mantar on October 13, a day after the site was de-notified as a designated protest venue. A third leader, Ajinkya Shinde, has been released on a personal bond.

The three were among 14 CJP members who allegedly climbed over a locked gate and barricades to enter the area, unfurled the national flag and raised slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest was part of the CJP’s continuing agitation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Delhi Police has justified the arrests by citing alleged trespass, obstruction, breach of bond conditions and repeated attempts to disturb public peace. But the sequence of events is significant: after Jantar Mantar was stripped of its designated protest status, activists attempting to demonstrate there were detained, and two were sent to judicial custody under preventive proceedings. The case raises questions about the increasingly coercive response to political mobilisation and dissent in the capital, particularly when the protest concerns the functioning of a constitutional institution and the exercise of a fundamental right.

SEM orders five-day judicial custody

In an order dated October 14, Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena remanded Das and Ranka to five days of judicial custody under preventive proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The order records that notice under Section 130 BNSS was to be issued to the two respondents and that the matter would be listed for further inquiry on October 19.

The order relies on the account presented by Sub-Inspector Mohit Bhati, who alleged that CJP members entered the area through premises associated with the Janata Dal (United) office at around 9 am on October 13, raised slogans and created a disturbance. The police also alleged that the group had used social media to mobilise people to assemble at Jantar Mantar despite its denotification.

The SEM recorded that preventive proceedings had previously been initiated against the leaders following their detention on October 10, when they arrived in Delhi for a proposed protest. They were subsequently released after furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

According to the police, the leaders’ subsequent mobilisation and their October 13 entry into the area violated those undertakings. The SEM accepted the material placed before it as sufficient to proceed with preventive action. The order also cited the absence of what it described as “sound surety” as a reason for remanding Das and Ranka to judicial custody.

Jantar Mantar denotified as protest site

The arrests followed the Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. The order was issued on October 11, following recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as reported by Hindustan Times. The decision came amid denial of permission to protest to left parties, CJP, opposition parties and student groups demanding accountability from the ECI over the SIR exercise. 

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

According to the police account cited in media reports, 14 CJP members entered the area on October 13 by climbing over a locked gate after approaching through premises associated with the JD(U) office. Videos shared by the group show members carrying the Tricolour and raising slogans, including “Inquilab Zindabad” and “Gyanesh Kumar Isteefa Do”, before police personnel detained them.

The police have alleged that the group surveyed the area in advance to identify an entry route and that some members jostled with officers attempting to stop them. These allegations remain distinct from any final determination of criminal liability. As reported by Hindustan Times, the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court that the denotification followed consideration of alternative venues where citizens could exercise their democratic rights without compromising public safety. The authorities have identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative protest locations. However, naming alternative venues does not, by itself, establish that the right to protest remains practically accessible. 

CJP alleges denial of access to lawyers

The Delhi Police has registered two cases in connection with the October 13 incident, according to Hindustan Times. One was registered at Connaught Place police station and the other at Parliament Street police station. Reported allegations include disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant, trespass and criminal conspiracy.  The police described the leaders as having made repeated attempts to disturb public peace and violate the law. It also said their social media activity, which allegedly encouraged others to participate in similar actions, had been taken into consideration.

Before the remand order was passed, CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh alleged that Das, Ranka and Shinde had been denied access to their lawyers until late on Tuesday night. In posts on X, Singh said the leaders had been moved to Parliament Street Police Station during the early hours of October 14 and were expected to be produced before the SEM. Singh further alleged that lawyers and volunteers had been prevented from meeting the detained activists despite repeated attempts. 

Rahul Gandhi backs CJP leaders

The remand has drawn criticism from opposition leaders. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said that waving the national flag during a peaceful protest was not a crime and described jailing young people for doing so as an “act of cowardice”.

“Students. Youth. Journalists. The INDIA bloc. Different banners, one cause. All protests are one: citizens demanding their constitutional rights. Jantar Mantar belongs to the people of India. We will reclaim it,” Gandhi said in a post on X.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke also condemned the remand, questioning whether unfurling the Tricolour had become an offence and accusing the government of using coercive tactics against dissent.

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal questioned whether waving India’s national flag could be treated as a crime, while Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and DMK chief M.K. Stalin also condemned the action.

 

 

 

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 Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe https://sabrangindia.in/bihar-custodial-death-six-suspended-after-dilshad-ansaris-death-in-custody-family-demands-high-level-probe/ Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:07:13 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49648 Dilshad Ansari’s family disputes the police claim that he jumped from a moving vehicle, demanding a thorough probe into his fatal head injury

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Six police personnel, including two sub-inspectors, have been suspended following the death of 25-year-old Dilshad Ansari in police custody in Bihar’s West Champaran district. The suspension comes amid allegations of police assault and demands from Ansari’s family for an independent investigation into the circumstances of his death.

According to a report by The Indian Express, Ansari was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He was allegedly being taken to Sahodra police station when he sustained serious head injuries.

The suspended personnel have been identified as sub-inspectors Ravi Shankar Kumar and Arun Kumar, and constables Saudagar Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Rishi, Kundan Kumar and Suman Kumar. All six were posted at Sahodra police station and have been suspended with immediate effect, police said.

In a statement issued on Monday, Bettiah Police said Ansari had jumped from a moving police vehicle while being taken into custody, resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to a subdivisional hospital in Narkatiaganj and subsequently referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Bettiah, where doctors declared him dead on arrival.

Ansari’s family has rejected the police version of events and alleged that he was assaulted in custody.

 

Family disputes police account

Speaking to the media, his wife, Nagma Khatoon, said a police team took him from their home at around 2 am on October 12. She alleged that the officers assured the family he would be released by morning after questioning. The family later received a call from Banuchhapar police station asking them to reach GMCH in Bettiah, reportedly on the grounds that Ansari had fallen ill. They found him dead on arrival at the hospital, she said. Ansari’s father, Akhbar Ansari, alleged that police personnel had struck his son hard on the head and called for a thorough inquiry into his death. 

Ansari, a resident of Badhayi Tola in Auraiya, under the Banuchhapar police station area, was named as an accused in NDPS case number 65/25, registered on August 8, 2025. Ansari leaves behind his wife and their six-month-old daughter. His family is seeking a high-level investigation into the death.

Calls for accountability

The incident has also drawn criticism from former Rajya Sabha MP Ali Anwar, who heads the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz. In a statement, reported India Today, Anwar urged Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary to take action against the police personnel allegedly responsible for Ansari’s death.

Citing accounts from social activists in West Champaran, Anwar questioned the claim that Ansari had jumped from a moving vehicle, arguing that the reported absence of injuries to his arms and legs warranted further scrutiny. He also urged the National Human Rights Commission to intervene and called for ex gratia compensation for Ansari’s family.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Protect the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How September’s festivals became stages for anti-Muslim hate

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

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards https://sabrangindia.in/supreme-court-seeks-senior-delhi-police-officers-presence-over-alleged-assault-on-women-journalists-nwmi-seeks-binding-safeguards/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 18:31:42 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49643 The Network of Women in Media, India, has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that the detention, physical handling and forcible removal of journalists covering protests violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution

The post Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 13, sought the personal presence of a senior Delhi Police officer to explain allegations that journalists, including women journalists, were assaulted, manhandled and detained while covering recent protests in the national capital. The development came after Senior Advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a writ petition filed by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), seeking enforceable safeguards for journalists engaged in reporting protests and other events of public importance.

“We’d like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed, making it clear that the police would be required to answer the allegations. After Jaising informed the Court that advance notice had been given to the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice indicated that the petition would be listed on Thursday alongside the matter concerning the alleged police action.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also mentioned a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, alleging that the police had assaulted journalists in violation of the Supreme Court’s October 10 order protecting media personnel covering the protests from harassment. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh mentioned a similar petition.

The NWMI’s petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, brings a distinct constitutional question before the Court: whether journalists can be physically restrained, detained or removed while documenting the exercise of State power, without a specific legal basis and without demonstrable necessity. It argues that the issue extends beyond the treatment of individual reporters to the institutional freedom of the press and the public’s right to receive information about events unfolding in public spaces.

A fresh petition following repeated allegations of police action against journalists

The petition, filed on October 12, places the alleged incidents within a sequence of protests, police restrictions and judicial interventions in Delhi during October 2026. It records allegations of journalists being detained despite displaying press identification, physically dragged or pushed, transported away from reporting locations and, in some instances, prevented from documenting police action.

The immediate context includes demonstrations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. According to the petition, restrictions imposed around the protests affected journalists’ access to the sites, their ability to observe police operations and their capacity to transmit contemporaneous reports, photographs and recordings.

The petition refers to reports concerning journalists associated with Scroll, Newslaundry, Reuters, Business Standard, BOOMLive, The Quint, The News Minute, The Indian Express and other media organisations. It also recounts allegations that journalists were detained at locations removed from the protest site, notwithstanding their professional identification, and that some were transported to police facilities before being released.

These accounts form the factual basis of the petitioner’s case; they are allegations and reported incidents that require examination and verification. The constitutional question raised, however, is not confined to whether a particular detention was justified. It concerns the standards that must govern police conduct towards journalists when public-order measures are being implemented and the press is attempting to document those very measures.

The petition argues that the distinction between a protester and a journalist cannot be erased merely because both are present in the same public space. A journalist’s proximity to a demonstration may be necessary to observe, record and verify events. Treating that proximity as sufficient grounds for detention or forcible removal, it contends, risks converting the act of reporting into a basis for coercive State action.

Women journalists and the question of bodily integrity

The petition places particular emphasis on allegations involving women journalists, including physical handling, dragging, detention and confinement while they were performing their professional duties. It refers to complaints made by three women journalists alleging sexual harassment by Delhi Police personnel during demonstrations near Jantar Mantar on October 3. According to the petition, Delhi Police acknowledged receipt of the complaints and referred them to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The National Human Rights Commission subsequently took suo-motu cognisance of the reported allegations and sought a detailed report from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

The NWMI argues that these incidents must be considered alongside subsequent reports of women journalists being physically handled or detained while covering protests on October 10 and 11. It contends that the treatment of women journalists raises concerns not only about press freedom but also about bodily integrity, dignity, personal liberty and their equal ability to participate in the profession.

The petition’s emphasis on women journalists is not merely a request for a gender-specific administrative precaution. It places their safety within the constitutional framework of equality and dignity. Physical coercion, intimidation or arbitrary confinement, the petitioner argues, can impair a journalist’s ability to work on equal terms and create a particular chilling effect on women reporting from public spaces.

The reliefs sought therefore extend beyond a general prohibition on interference with journalists. NWMI seeks specific safeguards against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal of women journalists engaged in bona fide newsgathering, including where their presence at or proximity to a protest is the only apparent basis for the action.

Supreme Court’s earlier direction and allegations of continued interference

A central feature of the petition is the Supreme Court’s order dated October 11, passed in connected proceedings concerning restrictions and alleged illegal detentions during the protests. According to NWMI, the Court recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General that journalists, lawyers and other professionals would not be impeded in discharging their professional duties.

Paragraph 16(f) of the order states: “Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”

The petition argues that this direction must operate as an effective safeguard on the ground, rather than remain confined to an assurance given before the Court. It alleges that journalists continued to face detention, coercive removal and obstruction despite the direction, including incidents in which reporters displayed press identification but were nevertheless placed in police vehicles or taken away from reporting locations.

The petitioner’s case is that the continuation of such incidents exposes the limits of a general judicial direction when it is not accompanied by a clear operational framework. Without defined procedures, accountability mechanisms and preservation of evidence, the petition contends, compliance may depend on the discretion of individual officers rather than an enforceable institutional obligation.

This is also the basis on which NWMI distinguishes its petition from the existing proceedings concerning restrictions on transport, alleged illegal detention and contempt. It argues that those proceedings do not comprehensively settle the standards governing police interaction with journalists or provide forward-looking safeguards against a recurrence of the alleged conduct.

The petition consequently asks the Court to move beyond reiterating the general principle that journalists must not be obstructed and to establish a framework that specifies how that protection is to be implemented, monitored and enforced.

Article 19(1)(a): Press freedom begins before publication

The principal constitutional argument concerns Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. NWMI contends that this freedom cannot be confined to the final act of publishing a report. It must also protect the processes through which information is obtained, observed, documented, verified and communicated.

The argument is significant because reporting on protests and police action depends upon access to the places where events unfold. If journalists are prevented from witnessing detentions, dispersals or crowd-control operations, their ability to report on the exercise of public power is impaired before a story can even be written or published. The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s press-freedom jurisprudence, including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Sakal Papers v. Union of India, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India and Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. It also invokes Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh in support of its broader constitutional submissions.

Drawing on this line of authority, NWMI argues that freedom of the press encompasses the ability to gather and disseminate information concerning matters of public importance, alongside the public’s corresponding interest in receiving that information. The petition’s central proposition is that a journalist cannot report what the State prevents her from witnessing. Where police action obstructs newsgathering, the resulting injury is not limited to the reporter’s professional inconvenience; it may also deprive the public of information necessary to scrutinise the conduct of public authorities.

The petitioner accordingly argues that observation cannot be equated with participation. The mere presence of a journalist near protesters, possession of recording equipment, questioning of officials or documentation of police action cannot, by itself, justify detention or forcible removal.

Articles 14 and 21: Arbitrariness, liberty and dignity

NWMI also invokes Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Under Article 14, the petition challenges the alleged indiscriminate treatment of journalists and protesters as interchangeable categories, without an individualised assessment of the circumstances or the legal basis for restricting a journalist’s movement. It contends that coercive action unsupported by a specific legal justification, recorded necessity or proportionate response is arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

The Article 21 challenge addresses the consequences of physical handling, assault, intimidation, detention and confinement. The petition argues that these actions implicate bodily integrity, dignity and personal liberty, particularly where women journalists are concerned.

Article 19(1)(d), which protects the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, forms another part of the challenge. NWMI contends that transporting journalists away from reporting locations or preventing them from accessing public spaces can interfere with their freedom of movement as well as their ability to carry out professional duties.

Read together, the four constitutional guarantees form the foundation of the petition’s case: police action against journalists must have a lawful basis, must not be arbitrary or disproportionate, and must not needlessly impair their ability to report on matters of public importance. The petition does not claim that journalists are exempt from generally applicable laws or lawful crowd-control measures. Rather, it seeks to prevent their professional activity from being treated, without more, as grounds for coercive action.

An independent inquiry and preservation of police records

Among the petition’s most consequential prayers is a request for an independent, time-bound mechanism to investigate allegations of detention, physical violence, injury, coercive removal, intimidation and obstruction of journalists. NWMI seeks identification of the personnel involved, examination of individual and supervisory responsibility, and recommendations for disciplinary or other action in accordance with law. It also asks that the mechanism consider appropriate compensation and remedial measures.

The petition stresses that an inquiry cannot be effective if the evidence necessary to reconstruct the incidents is not preserved. It seeks strict and demonstrable compliance with the Supreme Court’s October 11 direction, including preservation and disclosure of records relating to incidents involving journalists from October 10 onwards.

The records specifically identified include CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police videography, wireless communications, duty rosters, deployment records, vehicle logs, detention records and medical records. The requested disclosure is intended to establish not merely whether a journalist was detained or injured, but also the circumstances in which the action occurred: who authorised it, which personnel participated, what directions were issued, what legal grounds were recorded, where the journalist was taken and whether any recording equipment or journalistic data was interfered with.

This demand for evidence preservation is central to the petition’s accountability argument. Where the alleged wrongdoers are public officials acting during crowd-control operations, an inquiry that does not independently establish the chain of events and responsibility may leave critical questions unanswered. NWMI therefore seeks a process capable of examining both the conduct of individual officers and the supervisory structure within which the alleged actions occurred.

Binding guidelines sought for police interaction with journalists

The petition asks the Supreme Court to frame, or direct the framing of, binding guidelines governing the interaction between police and media professionals during protests, public assemblies, crowd-control operations and other events of public importance. The proposed framework is intended to address the practical circumstances in which journalists encounter police personnel and to reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions at the scene.

Among the safeguards sought are:

  • Identification of police personnel: Visible identification to enable officers involved in an incident to be identified and held accountable.
  • Recognition of journalists: Recognition of press credentials without making formal accreditation the sole test of whether a person is engaged in bona fide journalistic activity.
  • Standards governing force: Clear thresholds regulating the use of force against journalists performing professional duties.
  • Recorded reasons for detention or removal: A requirement that coercive action be supported by specific, recorded and proportionate grounds.
  • Access to assistance: Immediate access to legal counsel and the journalist’s editorial organisation.
  • Medical assistance: Appropriate medical attention where injury or physical force is involved.
  • Protection of equipment and data: Safeguards against interference with journalistic devices, recordings and other professional material.
  • Evidence preservation: Retention of contemporaneous records necessary to investigate complaints and establish responsibility.
  • Gender-specific safeguards: Protection of women journalists against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal while engaged in bona fide newsgathering.

The petition also seeks interim protection pending its final disposal, asking the Court to ensure that journalists are not assaulted, threatened, detained, transported, removed or otherwise obstructed except under authority of law and on a specific, recorded and proportionate basis.

The proposed safeguards would, if granted, address both immediate protection and the institutional procedures governing police conduct. They would also provide a framework against which future allegations could be assessed.

The constitutional question before the Court

The proceedings raise a question that extends beyond the immediate allegations arising from the Delhi protests: what practical protection does press freedom provide when journalists are attempting to document the actions of the authorities themselves?

The power to regulate assemblies and maintain public order does not, by itself, resolve the distinct question of how journalists may be treated while reporting on those measures. The NWMI petition argues that the exercise of such powers must remain subject to constitutional standards and that restrictions on journalists cannot rest merely on their presence near a protest or their attempt to record events.

Its demand is therefore both preventive and remedial. The petitioner seeks investigation into the incidents already reported, preservation of evidence, identification of those responsible and a binding framework intended to prevent similar allegations from recurring.

Detailed reports on the anti-EC protest 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 Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Bombay High Court orders Maharashtra DGP to review arrest forms, flags failure to communicate grounds of arrest https://sabrangindia.in/bombay-high-court-orders-maharashtra-dgp-to-review-arrest-forms-flags-failure-to-communicate-grounds-of-arrest/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 08:57:34 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49637 Ruling in a murder case, the Court orders Shingare’s release over non-compliance with Article 22(1), states signed arrest notice cannot cure failure to communicate factual grounds of arrest

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

]]> The Bombay High Court has held that merely mentioning a crime number, statutory provisions and the fact that an accused is being arrested for investigation does not satisfy the constitutional requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest. Emphasising that the safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires a factual explanation of why a particular person is being deprived of liberty, the Court ruled that a signed arrest notice cannot cure the absence of an intelligible factual accusation.

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:

Download PDF

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.

]]> SIR West Bengal: Most Form 7 requests lead to deletions; Form 6 additions remain low https://sabrangindia.in/sir-west-bengal-most-form-7-requests-lead-to-deletions-form-6-additions-remain-low/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:17:20 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49631 Election Commission data shows that 89.56% of Form 7 requests resulted in deletions, while 20.73% of Form 6 applications resulted in additions. Separately, voters challenging their removal face pending tribunal appeals and reported problems with notices, documents and access to orders.

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

]]> Election Commission’s data shows a clear gap between requests to delete names from West Bengal’s electoral rolls and applications to add them. Most Form 7 deletion requests resulted in removal, while a much smaller share of Form 6 applications resulted in inclusion. Separately, many voters appealing against their deletion continue to await decisions, with tribunal judges reporting problems in issuing notices, obtaining documents and providing copies of orders.

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.

]]> ‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal https://sabrangindia.in/chalo-delhi-thousand-march-to-supreme-court-against-vote-chori-demand-gyanesh-kumars-removal/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:11:33 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49626 Led by the INDIA bloc, the October 12 march brought opposition parties, lawyers, student organisations and civil society onto Delhi’s streets, demanding a halt to the SIR process and accountability for alleged electoral manipulation

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

]]> Thousands of people poured onto the streets of central Delhi on Monday, October 12, as opposition parties, lawyers, students and civil society groups joined the INDIA bloc’s ‘Chalo Delhi – March for Democracy’, demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, an immediate halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and an end to police repression against democratic dissent.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.”

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.”

 

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.

 

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.

]]> When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta https://sabrangindia.in/when-a-student-dies-who-questions-the-institution-sahil-wakodes-parent-seek-justice-teesta/ Tue, 13 Oct 2026 06:49:58 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49623 Sahil Wakode was 22. He had dreams of becoming an engineer and, one day, an IAS officer. 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 […]

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

]]> Sahil Wakode was 22. He had dreams of becoming an engineer and, one day, an IAS officer.

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.

]]> Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation https://sabrangindia.in/caged-in-police-vans-beaten-in-custody-journalists-attacked-delhis-crackdown-on-anti-cec-protests-draws-un-condemnation/ Mon, 12 Oct 2026 11:48:07 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49613 Protesters allege custodial violence, journalists are detained despite press credentials, and lawyers face obstruction as thousands are rounded up across Delhi. The United Nations and Amnesty International condemn restrictions on peaceful assembly

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.

]]> Protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar were met with mass detentions, alleged custodial violence, restrictions on communications and the use of police vehicles fitted with cage-like compartments as demonstrations continued across the national capital on October 10 and 11. Journalists covering the protests were also detained and allegedly assaulted, while lawyers attempting to reach detainees reported being turned away. The crackdown has drawn criticism from the United Nations, Amnesty International, journalists’ organisations and civil liberties groups.

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.

Image: Salman Ali/PTI

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

]]> Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security https://sabrangindia.in/vote-for-democracy-seeks-answers-from-eci-and-tcs-on-ecis-electoral-database-access-and-security/ Mon, 12 Oct 2026 07:44:43 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49606 In a 16-question statement, VFD seeks transparency on database access controls, changes to electoral registration procedures, security audits and the Election Commission’s oversight of its digital infrastructure

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

]]> Vote for Democracy (VFD) has sought clarity from both the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) over their respective roles, and their nexus, in managing the country’s electoral software infrastructure, raising questions about database access, voter data security and safeguards against unauthorised changes to electoral rolls.

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:

Download PDF

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.

]]>