Widely reported investigations by The Hindu, both in Delhi and Karnataka have raised another serious question: who can or should initiate the process for deletion of voters, on what basis, and how effectively are such deletion processes being checked?

Incidentally, the obduracy within the existing Election Commission of India (ECI) –despite the reported “dissent” from two Commissioners, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu –is evident from the September 26 “clarificatory press note” issues by the Commission. This followed the sensational and important expose by The Indian Express on September 23. Even after the storm of protests that followed, the ECI continued to “allow” as many as 50 deletions per BLA (Booth Level Agent) of political parties, which is a misnomer for motivated mass deletions!

In Delhi’s Mustafabad Assembly constituency, hundreds of Form 7 applications seeking the deletion of Muslim voters have been linked to BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs), many of whom have reportedly denied filing or signing them. One BLA, however, claimed to have filed more than 500 such applications despite the Election Commission later imposing restrictions on the number of Form 7 applications an individual could file.

#Watch | An investigation has uncovered major questions surrounding voter deletion applications filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi’s Mustafabad. Public records show hundreds of Form 7 applications were filed in the names of BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs). However, many of those individuals told The Hindu that they never submitted the applications or were unaware that forms had been filed using their names.

Reports: @suruchiarchives
Script: @Shikhaaaakarn
Edit: Mojan Raj E
https://t.co/xtenDPQzjS

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) November 6, 2026

Meanwhile, in Karnataka, where SIR was also meant to identify and remove duplicate or ineligible entries, the final electoral rolls have continued to show serious errors. The Hindu found that in Mahadevapura Assembly constituency alone, 803 voter IDs were linked to just 397 people. There were also cases involving the same EPIC number appearing in two different constituencies and hundreds of instances of individuals having multiple voter IDs.

Together, the two developments raise serious questions about the claim that the SIR process is meant to ensure cleaner and more reliable electoral rolls.

What the Election Commission held on September 26

The Election Commission’s Press Note issued after its meeting on September 26, 2026 dealt directly with some of the concerns arising during the ongoing SIR process.

The September 26 Press Note does not alter or restrict the existing role of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) in relation to objections or applications for deletion through Form 7. Its directions primarily concern the handling of notices issued during the SIR and the facilitation of inclusion of persons whose names were left out. The Press Note does not address the powers or role of BLAs in filing or pursuing Form 7 objections against entries in the electoral roll, leaving that underlying process unaffected.

ECI caps individual Form 7 applications

In October, the ECI capped the number of Form 7 applications that an individual elector can file at 10 during the claims and objections period and five per month during continuous updation of electoral rolls. The Commission said bulk objections filed on unsubstantiated grounds could inconvenience the elector whose name is challenged and increase the workload of field-level officials. The limits apply to both online and physical submissions, while recognised political parties’ BLAs remain governed by separately prescribed limits.

Form 7: the route through which names can be challenged

Form 7 is used to seek the deletion of an existing elector’s name from the electoral roll or to object to the inclusion of a name.

During the continuing SIR process in Delhi, The Hindu reported that 1,021 deletion applications had been filed in Mustafabad. Of these, 787 applications — or about 77% of the total — named 20 BJP-appointed BLAs as the objectors.

All 787 applications were directed against Muslim electors.

The scale becomes even more significant when third-party applications alone are considered. According to the publicly available list of Form 7 applications on the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer’s website, 787 of the 837 deletion applications filed by third parties — around 94% — were linked to these 20 BJP BLAs. But when contacted by The Hindu, 16 of the 20 BLAs denied filing or signing the applications attributed to them. Many reportedly said they had no knowledge that forms had been submitted using their names.

The controversy is therefore not merely about whether deletion applications should ultimately succeed. It raises a prior and fundamental question: who actually filed the applications seeking the removal of these voters?

Applications allegedly filed in other people’s names

One of the BLAs named as an objector in 32 Form 7 applications, Ankit Yadav, reportedly denied filing any of them. According to The Hindu’s report, he said he discovered that his details had allegedly been used to seek the deletion of Muslim voters living in his own neighbourhood. He subsequently submitted a complaint and formally resigned as a BLA to party representatives.

The newspaper reported that, with the assistance of the local Booth Level Officer, the electors concerned were found living at their registered addresses.

The BLO also reportedly said that he had not received physical copies of the relevant Form 7 applications.

Another person, Nitin Kumar, was named as an objector in applications relating to an area which, according to him, was not even his area. He too denied filing the forms, although he had received messages relating to their verification. The report also identified several other BJP BLAs who were named as objectors in dozens of deletion applications but denied filing them. The forms reportedly cited reasons such as “absent/permanently shifted”, “already enrolled” and “death” for seeking the deletion of names. The question is therefore not simply whether a voter ultimately remains on or is removed from the roll. The controversy concerns the ability of applications for deletion to enter the official system in the first place, including allegations that individuals’ names and details may have been used without their knowledge.

One BLA says he filed ‘over 500’ applications

Among the 20 BLAs named in the applications, one person stood apart.

BJP BLA Robin Singh Dhama, named as an objector in 57 cases in the publicly available records cited by The Hindu, acknowledged filing Form 7 applications and claimed that he had submitted “500 of those”. His claim became particularly significant because the Election Commission had introduced restrictions on the number of Form 7 applications that could be filed by an individual elector.

On October 9, 2026, the ECI imposed a cap of 10 Form 7 applications from an individual elector during the entire claims and objections period.

BLAs are permitted to submit applications in bulk under a separate procedure, but this involves applications filled by other electors and submitted along with the prescribed undertaking.

Senior ECI officials had earlier told The Hindu that a BLA filing Form 7 applications in his own name as an objector, without the prescribed undertaking for bulk submissions, would be covered by the restriction. The newspaper further reported that the forms naming the 20 BLAs as objectors had been filed without the prescribed BLA undertaking or the prescribed format for such submissions.

The Delhi District Election Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer and the ECI did not respond to questions from The Hindu, according to the report. Earlier, the District Election Officer had stated that deletion claims would be physically verified by the BLO and the ERO or Assistant ERO, and that action would be taken against applications found to be false or “mischievous”.

What September 26 did not change

The September 26 order laid down procedures for voters who had received notices during SIR because they were “unmapped” or had “logical discrepancies”, and for those left out of the rolls. It provided for BLO visits, collection and uploading of documents, and routes for inclusion through continuous updation and a special enrolment drive.

However, it did not remove the wider statutory and administrative process through which objections to existing voters can be raised and deletion proceedings initiated. The Mustafabad controversy demonstrates why this remains significant: where hundreds of deletion applications are generated and persons named as objectors deny filing them, serious questions arise about the integrity, traceability and safeguards of the deletion mechanism.

SIR removes voters, yet duplicate entries remain

The developments in Delhi come alongside findings from Karnataka that raise a different question about the effectiveness of SIR. In Mahadevapura Assembly constituency, The Hindu found that 803 voter IDs were linked to just 397 people after the exercise, including cases of individuals having multiple voter IDs and the same EPIC number appearing in different constituencies.

The report also identified more than 500 cases of persons having multiple voter IDs within polling stations and around 300 cases across different polling stations. These findings are significant because SIR has been justified as a means of removing duplicate and ineligible entries and improving the accuracy of electoral rolls. Yet serious duplication and inconsistencies reportedly remained even after the process.

The problem is not only duplication — it is exclusion

These developments point to a larger contradiction. In Delhi, hundreds of voters could simultaneously become the subject of deletion proceedings, while in Karnataka, an intensive revision intended to improve accuracy still left substantial duplication and other errors in the rolls.

The issue, therefore, cannot be addressed only by providing procedures after voters receive notices or are left out of the rolls. A system that subjects existing voters to large-scale scrutiny and potential deletion must also demonstrate that it can prevent erroneous exclusion and ensure accuracy. Once a genuine voter is deleted, the burden of discovering the deletion and seeking restoration can fall on the voter.

Why the demands from the Online Assembly remain relevant

The continuing controversies surrounding SIR, Form 7 applications and errors in revised electoral rolls reinforce the demands adopted in the resolution of the Online Assembly.

The concerns raised across States show that the issues with SIR are not isolated errors but raise wider questions about scrutiny, exclusion and verification. The demand to scrap SIR therefore remains central.

The resolution also calls for institutional accountability, including disbanding the present Election Commission and repealing the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, to protect the independence and credibility of the electoral process.

Finally, it calls for reverting to the 2024 electoral rolls while ensuring the inclusion of all genuinely eligible new voters through a public audit process as is mandated. Electoral revision should expand participation and facilitate inclusion—not place existing voters at risk of exclusion or make the process of restoring their names unnecessarily difficult.

Related:

Public Hearing on Sewer Workers – Hearing the victims and their families

Does the ECI’s Nov 6 communication signal a step-back on re-enrolment in the ASSD list?

The post SIR: Form 7 controversies raise fresh questions about the continued power to delete voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India, a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar examined the scope of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which requires every arrested and detained person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding only the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.

The judgment is significant not only for clarifying when this constitutional deadline begins, but also for reinforcing the role of judicial oversight in preventing arbitrary detention and custodial abuse. It rejects the creation of an intermediate category of detention in which a person is deprived of their liberty but is not treated as arrested for the purpose of constitutional protection. The Court has also clarified that compliance with the 24-hour ceiling does not, by itself, make detention lawful: the period of detention must also be reasonable in the circumstances.

“the magistrate shall also examine at the time of production whether the detention of the person produced, though is within the time frame of 24 hours, has exceeded the period which can be construed to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he is satisfied that detention in custody has been for a longer period than what is reasonable, he may decline remand” (Para 69 (vii))

The case: Detained on September 29, formally arrested the following day

The case arose from an NDPS investigation in Tripura. On September 29, 2025, officers of the Customs Division intercepted a truck travelling towards Agartala on the basis of information that it was carrying narcotic substances concealed in a consignment of ginger. The persons travelling in the vehicle were intercepted at approximately 2 pm at Shanitala Noabadi.

The search resulted in the recovery of narcotic substances. It continued at the Customs Division office in Agartala, where further contraband was recovered from trolley bags concealed beneath the ginger consignment. The total quantity seized was 60.79 kg. The search and seizure procedure was completed at approximately 5 pm on September 29.

However, the appellants were formally shown as arrested only on September 30, at 11 am and 11.15 am. They were produced before a Judicial Magistrate at 4.45 pm that day and remanded to judicial custody.

Their bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge and subsequently by the Tripura High Court. The High Court relied, among other considerations, on Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in specified NDPS cases.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised a separate and fundamental constitutional objection. They argued that their liberty had been curtailed when they were intercepted and brought under the control of the investigating team at 2 pm on September 29. If that was the point from which the 24-hour period began, they should have been produced before a Magistrate by 2 pm on September 30. Their production at 4.45 pm was therefore beyond the constitutionally permitted period.

The investigating agency disputed this interpretation. It maintained that the appellants had merely been intercepted on September 29 and were not detained until their formal arrests the following morning. It argued that the intervening period was required to complete the procedures prescribed under the NDPS Act, including search and seizure, weighing and testing the seized substances, preparing seizure documents and carrying out other investigative formalities.

The agency also relied on Rule 3(4) of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which prescribes procedures for the classification, weighing, packaging and numbering of seized substances in the presence of witnesses and the person from whose possession they were recovered.

The Supreme Court directed the investigating officer to explain the period between the interception, completion of the search and seizure, formal arrest and production before the Magistrate. The central question was whether the investigating agency could treat the period during which the appellants were under its control as something other than detention for the purposes of Article 22(2).

The constitutional meaning of arrest cannot depend on the investigating agency’s paperwork

The Court approached the question by examining the language and purpose of Article 22(2). It noted that the provision refers to a person who is “arrested and detained in custody”. The expressions are used conjunctively, and the Court rejected the attempt to treat them as two separate events so that the constitutional deadline could be postponed until formal arrest.

It held that the Constitution does not recognise detention dehors arrest. In other words, a person cannot be deprived of their liberty and kept under the control of investigating authorities while being placed in a legally indeterminate category of detention that falls outside the protection of Article 22(2).

“ Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ would dilute or negate the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution under clause (2) of Article 22. Such an endeavour should be avoided. We must adopt that interpretation which enhances and furthers the constitutional objective.” (Para 58)

The Court explained that the relevant consideration is whether the person has been deprived of their personal liberty and is no longer free to leave. It referred to its earlier decisions, including Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, to examine the meaning of arrest and custody. These decisions recognise that the question of custody depends on the actual restraint imposed on an individual, rather than merely the terminology used by the authorities.

Applying this understanding, the Court held that the 24-hour period begins when a person is taken under the control of an investigating authority and their liberty is effectively curtailed. The formal arrest memo cannot determine the commencement of the constitutional deadline.

The Court also rejected the proposition that statutory procedures under the NDPS Act could justify a period of detention outside Article 22(2). It acknowledged the requirements governing search and seizure but held that these procedures cannot be used to postpone constitutional safeguards. Once a person’s liberty has been curtailed, the time spent on investigative or administrative procedures cannot be excluded from the 24-hour calculation. The only period that can be excluded is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court, as expressly provided under Article 22(2).

“Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for enquiry and investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Article 22(2) does not sanction creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigating purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such buffer zone is unconstitutional.” (Para 43)

In reaching this conclusion, the Bench disapproved the approach adopted by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattnayak, the Madras High Court in Kannan and the Kerala High Court in Arun K. Thomas. These decisions had drawn a distinction between detention during investigation and formal arrest. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation adopted by the High Courts was inconsistent with the constitutional protection of personal liberty.

The judgment is therefore an important clarification for investigations conducted under special statutes. It establishes that the existence of statutory powers to search, seize or question a person does not create an exception to the constitutional requirement of timely production before a Magistrate.

“Therefore, the declaration that the period of 24 hours for the purposes of Article 22(2) commences from the completion of such search and seizure and only from the time of arrest recorded by the arresting authority is not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional.” (Para 43)

The 24-hour limit is not an automatic licence to detain

A further important aspect of the judgment concerns Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court identified two distinct safeguards under Section 58. First, a person cannot be detained by the police without a warrant for more than 24 hours, excluding the necessary journey time, without being produced before a Magistrate. Second, even within that period, detention must not exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The second requirement is particularly significant. The Court clarified that the 24-hour period should not be understood as an automatic entitlement for investigating agencies to detain a person for the entire duration. A person may be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours and yet have been detained for longer than was reasonable.

In such circumstances, the Magistrate is not required to authorise further detention merely because the outer time limit has not been breached. The Magistrate must independently examine the circumstances and may decline to authorise remand if the detention was unreasonable.

“Therefore, Section 57 CrPC (58 BNSS) mandates two limitations: firstly, the constitutional limitation of 24 hours; and secondly, within that 24 hours, the detention should not exceed what is considered to be a reasonable period in the facts of that case. This additional but salutary limitation should be borne in mind not only by the detaining authorities but also by the magistrates considering remand. In a given case, even though technically there may not be any breach of the 24 hours timeline, yet if the magistrate is satisfied that detention was for a period longer than what was reasonable, he or she may decline remand.” (Para 60)

The Court also placed a specific responsibility on Magistrates to ascertain and record the actual date and time at which the person’s liberty was curtailed. They cannot mechanically rely on the time of formal arrest recorded by the investigating agency. They must examine when the person was actually brought under official control, calculate the 24-hour period from that point and assess whether the detention was reasonable.

This direction strengthens the remand process as a substantive safeguard against arbitrary detention, rather than allowing it to become a procedural exercise in which the investigating agency’s account is accepted without scrutiny.

Connecting delayed formal arrest with the risk of custodial violence

The Court’s reasoning is rooted in the wider constitutional concern surrounding custodial violence and the abuse of investigative powers. It referred to earlier decisions, including Khatri v. State of Bihar, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljeet Singh, to underline the importance of timely judicial oversight and safeguards against custodial abuse.

The Court recognised that the period between the actual deprivation of liberty and the formal recording of arrest can be particularly vulnerable to misuse. If investigating agencies are permitted to postpone the formal recording of arrest, individuals may remain under their control without the immediate protection that Article 22(2) is intended to provide. The judgment thus treats the 24-hour requirement as more than a procedural deadline. It is a constitutional mechanism intended to ensure that executive power over an individual’s liberty is brought under judicial scrutiny at the earliest opportunity.

This is particularly relevant in the Indian context, where allegations of custodial violence, coercive interrogation and unlawful detention have repeatedly raised concerns about the exercise of police and investigative powers. The ruling strengthens the legal basis for challenging practices in which a person’s actual detention is obscured by the terminology of questioning, enquiry or investigative custody.

Article 21 cannot be lightly subordinated to restrictive provisions under special laws

The judgment also contains important observations on the relationship between fundamental rights under Article 21 and the restrictive bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Tripura High Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026), which considered the relationship between the right to speedy trial and the restrictions imposed by Section 37. In that case, the Supreme Court had set aside a grant of bail where the High Court had not recorded satisfaction regarding the statutory twin conditions.

In Sujit Das, the Bench expressed reservations about the observations in Sukhwinder Singh suggesting that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot, solely on the ground of delay, override that provision.

The Court reiterated that Article 21 protects fundamental rights that lie at the core of constitutional jurisprudence and cannot be lightly restricted, even under special statutes. It referred to decisions including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ankur Chadha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, among others, to support the proposition that violations of Article 21 may require the rigours of Section 37 or comparable statutory restrictions to give way.

The Bench noted that it could be argued that the relevant observations in Sukhwinder Singh were per incuriam in view of the three-Judge Bench decision in K.A. Najeeb. However, it expressly refrained from making a final pronouncement because Sukhwinder Singh was also a decision of a coordinate Bench. It further clarified that Article 22(2) had not been an issue before the Bench in that case.

“We have our reservation on the aforesaid observations made by the Bench. First and foremost, the rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India are not only constitutional rights. These are fundamental rights. Right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 are at the core of our constitutional jurisprudence. These fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under the special statutes.” (Para 49)

These observations are important for future litigation concerning prolonged pre-trial detention and restrictive bail provisions. However, they should not be read as overruling Sukhwinder Singh or as finally settling the relationship between Article 21 and Section 37. The Court’s binding ruling in Sujit Das concerns the commencement of the 24-hour period under Article 22(2), the reasonableness of detention under Section 58 BNSS and the responsibility of Magistrates to scrutinise the actual period of custody.

A significant safeguard, but its enforcement will depend on judicial scrutiny

The human rights significance of the judgment lies in its recognition that constitutional protection must follow the actual experience of deprivation of liberty. A person cannot be kept under the control of the state while the state decides when to formally acknowledge that person’s arrest.

This approach is important for people detained during investigations under special legislation, where extensive powers of search, seizure and interrogation can create situations in which the distinction between questioning and custody becomes contested. By focusing on the actual restriction of liberty, the Court has provided a basis for challenging informal detention and attempts to delay judicial oversight.

The ruling also strengthens the role of Magistrates. Its insistence that they record the actual time of detention and independently assess reasonableness can help prevent routine remand orders from legitimising detention that has already violated constitutional or statutory safeguards.

At the same time, the judgment’s practical impact will depend on how these requirements are implemented. Determining the exact moment at which liberty was curtailed may involve factual disputes. Investigating agencies may contend that a person was merely asked to cooperate, was present voluntarily or was not prevented from leaving. The Court’s test will therefore require Magistrates to examine the surrounding circumstances rather than rely on labels or formal records.

Similarly, the requirement that detention be reasonable within 24 hours leaves room for fact-specific judicial assessment. The judgment establishes the principle, but its effectiveness will depend on Magistrates recording reasons and scrutinising the circumstances of detention instead of treating the 24-hour limit as a routine period available to investigating agencies.

Implications for future litigation and human rights advocacy

The ruling provides an important basis for challenging unlawful detention, delayed formal arrests and remand orders that fail to account for the actual period during which an individual was under state control. In bail proceedings, particularly those arising under the NDPS Act, defence lawyers can rely on the judgment where the available facts indicate that an accused person was intercepted, restrained or otherwise prevented from leaving before the formal arrest was recorded. The relevant records may include interception and seizure documents, CCTV footage, station or office registers, statements of witnesses, interrogation records and the arrest memo itself. These can help establish the point at which liberty was effectively curtailed and whether production before the Magistrate took place within the constitutionally permitted period.

The judgment may also be relevant in habeas corpus petitions and proceedings challenging unlawful detention, particularly where investigating authorities deny that a person has been arrested despite exercising effective control over their movements. Its reasoning can be invoked to argue that constitutional safeguards cannot be postponed through the use of alternative descriptions such as questioning, enquiry or temporary investigative detention.

For Magistrates, the judgment provides a clear direction to examine the actual circumstances of detention at the remand stage. For lawyers and human rights organisations, it offers a basis to seek greater transparency in arrest records, challenge unexplained gaps between interception and formal arrest, and demand accountability where individuals are kept in custody without timely judicial scrutiny.

It may also inform advocacy for stronger institutional safeguards against custodial violence, including effective implementation of existing arrest and detention requirements, preservation of relevant records and meaningful compliance with judicial directions concerning custodial accountability.

The Supreme Court’s directions

Applying its interpretation to the facts, the Court found that the appellants’ liberty had been curtailed when they were intercepted at approximately 2 pm on September 29, 2025. They were therefore required to be produced before a Magistrate by 2 pm on September 30, excluding only the necessary journey time. Their production at 4.45 pm on September 30 meant that they had been produced 2 hours and 45 minutes beyond the constitutional deadline. The Court held that their continued detention beyond 2 pm on September 30 was illegal and unconstitutional.

The Court also found the unexplained interval of approximately 18 hours between the completion of the search and seizure at 5 pm on September 29 and the formal recording of arrest the following morning to be unreasonable under Section 58 of the BNSS.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Tripura High Court’s order dated April 29, 2026. It directed that the appellants be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within a maximum period of seven days from the date of the judgment, after which they were to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special Court considered appropriate. The Court also directed that the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, the Registrars General of the High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

SC: Article 142, Mass Amnesties, and the Panchayatisation of the Rule of Law

Goa SIR: Bombay High Court orders ECI to restore names of six voters deleted from final electoral roll

After 22 years under suspicion, Assam’s Kashem Ali declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal

From treating Adivasi communities to being branded an instigator: Odisha jails doctor Randall Sequeira

2020 Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court upholds seven-year sentence for five men in 22-year old Muslim migrant worker’s death

Bombay High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation for man illegally arrested, slams police-developer collusion

The post Supreme Court rejects ‘informal detention’, strengthens safeguards against arbitrary arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report, which examines deletions across all 288 Assembly constituencies and 36 districts, also reveals that the overwhelming majority of those whose names were placed on the ASDD — absent, shifted, dead and duplicate — lists were not recorded as dead.

It also finds substantial variations between Mumbai and the rest of Maharashtra, between urban and less urban districts, and among different categories of electors. The report cautions that it is preliminary and concerns the names left off the draft roll. Some affected persons may have reapplied and could subsequently appear on the final electoral roll. It also stresses that “correlation is not causation.”

It is on the Diwali weekend that the Sabar Institute made these public on X.

“Maharashtra’s Special Intensive Revision has left 2,06,88,421 names off the draft electoral roll. That is 1 in 5 electors (21.1 per cent). We analysed every single name, across all 288 constituencies,” the institute said in a post on X. Analysing the ECI’s constituency-wise data, the report found that deaths accounted for only 16.8% of the deletions. The remaining 83% were recorded under other categories, including “untraceable/absent” (37.5%), “permanently shifted” (37.1%) and “already enrolled” (8.5%).

Most of those removed are alive

One of the report’s central findings is that deaths accounted for only 16.8 per cent of the total deletions. According to the report, 17,206,190 people — or 83 per cent of all deletions — were marked as permanently shifted, untraceable or absent, or already enrolled elsewhere.

The report notes that 46 per cent of these living voters were below the age of 40. State-wide, the largest recorded category was “untraceable / absent” at 37.5 per cent, closely followed by “permanently shifted” at 37.1 per cent. Another 8.5 per cent were marked as “already enrolled”. The report notes that death becomes the dominant recorded reason primarily among older age groups, while among voters below 40, the overwhelming majority were placed in non-death categories.

Mumbai and its satellite cities carry the heaviest losses

The report identifies Mumbai and the surrounding urban belt as the area with the highest concentration of deletions.

According to the findings, Mumbai’s 36 constituencies account for 11 per cent of Maharashtra’s electors but 17 per cent of all deletions.

The report states that Mumbai lost 34.7 per cent of its electorate, compared with 19.5 per cent elsewhere in the state.

Thane district recorded particularly high losses. The report says 35.4 per cent of its electorate was affected by non-death deletions, placing it at the top of the district-level list. Other districts with high levels of non-death deletions included Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Pune, Nagpur and Palghar.

At the other end of the scale, Hingoli and Gadchiroli recorded the lowest levels of non-death deletions, at about 6.6 per cent, according to the report.

Colaba saw more deletions than votes cast in 2024

The report highlights the scale of deletions in some individual Assembly constituencies by comparing them with voting figures from the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election. Its most striking example is Colaba, where 119,606 names were deleted, while 118,499 votes had been cast in the constituency in the 2024 election. The report describes Colaba as the only seat where deletions exceeded the total number of votes cast in 2024, with deletions amounting to 1.01 times the number of votes cast.

It further says that 22 other seats in Mumbai, Thane, Palghar and Pune recorded deletions equivalent to between 75 and 100 per cent of the votes cast in 2024.

The stakes are electoral

The report also compares non-death deletions with the winning margins in the 2024 Assembly election. It finds that non-death deletions exceeded the 2024 winning margin in 190 of Maharashtra’s 288 Assembly constituencies.

In 95 constituencies, the report says, the “untraceable / absent” category alone exceeded the winning margin. The report does not claim that these deletions changed election results. Rather, the comparison is used to show the scale of the deletions relative to the margins by which seats were won.

The report’s summary states: “In two out of three seats, more living voters were removed than the number of votes that decided the 2024 winner.”

No evidence of an alliance pattern after controls

One of the report’s political findings is that it found no statistically significant alliance pattern once other factors were taken into account. At a simple state-wide level, seats won by the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) recorded higher non-death deletions than those won by the Mahayuti. However, the report says this difference was substantially linked to the geographical concentration of MVA seats in Mumbai.

Outside Mumbai, the pattern changed. After controlling for Mumbai, region, reservation status, urbanisation and electorate size, the report found that the difference between MVA-held and Mahayuti-held seats was −0.27 percentage points, with a p-value of 0.82.

The report therefore concludes: “No alliance pattern survives Mumbai and urbanisation.”

Where turnout was lower, deletions were higher

The report identifies low voter turnout in the 2024 Assembly election as the strongest predictor of higher non-death deletions. It reports a Spearman correlation of −0.81 state-wide, and −0.74 outside Mumbai According to the report, constituencies in the lowest fifth of turnout recorded 34.9 per cent non-death deletions, while those in the highest fifth recorded 7.7 per cent.

The report says each percentage point of lower turnout was associated with 0.83 percentage points more non-death deletions. It interprets this relationship as being consistent with the possibility of stale electoral rolls, while presenting it as an association rather than proof of causation.

Two young women marked ‘shifted’ for every young man outside Mumbai

The report identifies a significant gender pattern among young voters marked as “permanently shifted”. Outside Mumbai, among electors aged 18 to 29, 822,798 women and 379,991 men were recorded as permanently shifted.

This amounts to approximately 2.2 women for every man. The report says this pattern is consistent with women moving to their husband’s residence after marriage and subsequently needing to enrol at a new address. Mumbai showed a different pattern, with young male deletions exceeding young female deletions. The report says this is consistent with the role of migration and male migrant workers in the city.

Overall, however, women and men were deleted at nearly identical rates — 21.4 per cent of women and 21.2 per cent of men on the 2024 roll. The difference became more visible after deaths were excluded. Outside Mumbai, 51.2 per cent of living voters removed were women, compared with 43.4 per cent in Mumbai.

More than half of third-gender electors were deleted

The report identifies third-gender electors as the group with the highest deletion rate.

According to its findings, 3,250 of Maharashtra’s 6,101 third-gender electors on the 2024 roll were placed on the ASD list. This represents 53.3 per cent of the third-gender electorate — more than two and a half times the overall state deletion rate of 21.1 per cent. The report says that 54.9 per cent of third-gender deletions were recorded as “untraceable / absent”, compared with 37.5 per cent among women and men.

Only 3.7 per cent of third-gender deletions were recorded as deaths. The report also notes that 75 per cent of the third-gender electors removed were below the age of 40. At the constituency level, it records particularly high deletion shares in several seats. In Bhiwandi West, 151 of 158 third-gender electors were deleted, while in Malad West, 313 of 345 were removed, according to the report.

Muslim-named electors account for 14.6% of deletions

The report estimates religious patterns through a name-based classification system, and explicitly states that this is a statistical estimate rather than an Election Commission record of an elector’s religion. According to this classification, 3,020,173 Muslim-named electors accounted for 14.6 per cent of all deletions.

The report compares this with a Census 2011 expectation of approximately 12.1 per cent, while also noting that the composition of deletions varies substantially across districts. The report says the Muslim-named share of deletions was 21.3 per cent in Mumbai and 13.2 per cent elsewhere.

It also emphasises the limits of name-based classification and says that its classifier was re-tested specifically on Maharashtra names.

Already enrolled” gap remains after comparing voters of the same age and seat

The report finds a difference in the recorded reasons for deletion when comparing Muslim-named electors with other electors. According to the findings, 12.3 per cent of Muslim-named deletions were marked “already enrolled”, compared with 7.9 per cent of other deletions.

Because deaths are more common among older populations, the report says it conducted comparisons between people of the same age group and in the same constituency.

After this adjustment, it found that the odds of a Muslim-named elector being recorded as “already enrolled” rather than dead were 2.07 times those of other electors of the same age in the same seat. For the “untraceable / absent” category, the corresponding odds ratio was 1.40, while the odds ratio for “permanently shifted” was 1.13.

However, the report expressly cautions against treating these findings as proof that any group was deliberately targeted.

It states: “None of this proves that any group was targeted. It shows where an audit of individual duplicate deletions would be best placed.”

Urbanisation, rather than community composition, explains much of the district pattern

At the district level, the report says that urbanisation is the strongest factor associated with higher levels of non-death deletions.

Outside Mumbai, it finds that districts with a larger urban population tended to have substantially higher deletion rates.

The report says that the relationship between urbanisation and non-death deletions was stronger than the relationship with the district’s Scheduled Caste, Muslim or Buddhist population shares. It cautions that these are area-level associations and should not be used to infer that individual members of a particular community were necessarily more or less likely to be deleted.

The report’s conclusion on this issue is that “urbanisation, not community share, drives the district pattern.”

The report’s broader warning: consequences may extend beyond voting

In its conclusion, the Sabar Institute says the implications of electoral-roll exclusion may extend beyond the right to vote.

The report notes that electoral-roll status can become connected with access to documentation and government services. It refers to difficulties involving passport renewal, the Public Distribution System, domicile and residence certificates, education, land transactions and vehicle registration.

It says prolonged uncertainty over electoral status can also create financial stress, psychological distress and disruption to family life. The report further raises concerns about delays in adjudication and appeals, arguing that a formal right to appeal may have limited value where people cannot easily obtain legal assistance, understand procedures, secure documents or afford repeated visits to administrative offices.

It identifies migrant workers, women changing residence after marriage, students, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, third-gender electors and people without continuous documentary records as groups that may face greater difficulty in documentation-heavy verification systems.

Demand for transparency, review and a countrywide study

The report calls for greater transparency around the use of algorithms, automated tools and logical discrepancy filters, saying these require independent examination and meaningful human review.

It also calls for sustained media coverage, civil society engagement and greater democratic oversight, including discussion in Parliament. Finally, the report says an independent countrywide study of the SIR is urgently required. Such a study, it says, should examine deletions and restorations, appeals and adjudication delays, demographic and regional patterns, documentary requirements, the use of algorithms and the social and economic consequences of exclusion.

Its concluding position is that maintaining accurate electoral rolls is necessary, but that “accuracy must be accompanied by transparency, accountability, accessible appeals, legal aid and protection against wrongful exclusion.”

The full report can be accessed from here.

Related

SIR: ECI “removes Form 6 declaration” but serious questions on legality of procedure remain

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

The post Maharashtra SIR: Over 2 crore names left off draft rolls; report finds uneven burden across regions and groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the September 23 media disclosures, the dissent reportedly raised (in earlier months) by the two other Election Commissioners over the inclusion of the declaration in a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, figured prominently.

According to a subsequent November 4, 2026 investigation by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had separately questioned the change. The online form had required applicants to answer an additional SIR-related declaration before proceeding. The declaration was placed between Sections J and K of Form 6 as an annexure.

Applicants were required to choose between three statements. They had to state whether their name appeared in the electoral roll during the last SIR held in the early 2000s, whether the name of a parent or grandparent appeared in that roll, or whether neither their name nor the name of a parent appeared. An applicant could not proceed without answering the question.

What is crucial for all Indians to understand is that, all three options —in fact the procedure itself was self-concocted by the Gyanesh Kumar-headed ECI; the original decision to include the declaration, and the now, subsequent one to ‘remove’ it are both unauthorised procedures amounting to sacrilege upon sacrilege. Form 6 is only for registration of new, first-time voters. For re-instatement of voters deleted due to intended or otherwise deletions (mass or single) by the ECI, the ECI may only exercise its powers under Rule 18 of the Electors Rules 1960 that allows for restoration of deleted names by public hearing without any application or any form being filled.

If according to the recorded objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, a major one was that given the fact that Form 6 is not simply an ordinary, administrative document but a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, any changes to it could only happen through a legal amendment, which means going to Parliament. (It was on noting’s of May 16 and August 13 that EC, Vivek Joshi had first recorded this objection and thereafter his colleague EC Sandhu had described it as “unauthorised and illegal”, stating it should be removed. Despite these internal objections, Indian Express had reported that the additional (false) declaration continued to appear on the online version of the form during the SIR process. Only after the second media disclosure has this been separated.

The Commission changed its position more than once

The latest move is significant because it is not the first position taken by the ECI on the issue. When the controversy first came into public focus (September 2026) , the Commission defended its actions and maintained that its decisions had been taken in accordance with law. In a subsequent position—declared in the press release signed by all three Commissioners on September 26, 2026 — the Commission said that the SIR declaration would remain attached to the online Form 6 during the SIR period, while the ordinary statutory form would be used outside that period.

The position has now changed again. The ECI has separated the SIR declaration from Form 6 altogether. The Commission’s affidavit before the Supreme Court states that its Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21 that the online application should be in two parts: the statutory Form 6 and the separate SIR declaration.

According to the affidavit referred to by The Indian Express, the original reason for putting the declaration together with Form 6 was “administrative convenience.” The Commission said that combining the two would allow the applicant to generate a single OTP and a single e-signature instead of having to complete two separate digital processes.

However, the affidavit also acknowledges an important concern. It states that issues arose because the manner in which the declaration was displayed on the online system could be understood as though Form 6 itself had been amended. The affidavit further accepts that Form 6 can only be amended by the Central Government. This is the central issue in the controversy.

The question was not merely whether an additional question could be displayed on an online portal. The question was whether a statutory form prescribed under law could effectively be changed in its implementation through an additional mandatory declaration unilaterally, without a legally ensured amendment. The ECI has now removed the declaration from within Form 6. But the wider dispute over the use of the form remains.

A statutory form and the question of procedure

Form 6 has a specific legal purpose. The electoral registration system contains different forms and procedures for different situations. A person seeking inclusion as a new elector is not necessarily in the same position as a person whose name was already included in an electoral roll and was subsequently removed. This distinction has become increasingly important during the SIR process.

Large numbers of voters have raised concerns after names were excluded from draft electoral rolls. In some cases, the question has arisen whether these voters should be required to seek inclusion again by filing Form 6. The issue is not simply one of filling out an online application.

A statutory form requires a person to make particular declarations. Those declarations are based on the legal and factual position of the applicant. If a person is genuinely seeking registration for the first time, the form may be appropriate.

But if a person was already an elector, had previously appeared on the electoral roll and was subsequently deleted, the circumstances are different. The reason for deletion becomes relevant. The procedure through which restoration is sought also becomes relevant.

The controversy over Form 6 has therefore raised a wider question: when a voter is deleted from an electoral roll, should the person automatically be required to start again as a new applicant, or should there be a clear and lawful procedure to examine the deletion and restore the name where the exclusion was wrongful? No. The Electoral Rolls 1960 provide a route, the question is why is this method not being followed? For re-instatement of voters deleted due to intended or otherwise deletions (mass or single) by the ECI, the ECI may only exercise its powers under Rule 18 of the Electors Rules 1960 that allows for restoration of deleted names by public hearing without any application or any form being filled

Bombay High Court and the problem of false declarations

A recent decision of the Bombay High Court has added another legal dimension to the debate over the use of Form 6. As reported by LiveLaw, the Court considered the position of voters who had shifted their residence.

The question was whether such voters could be required to use Form 6 or an SIR-related enumeration process requiring declarations that did not accurately reflect their actual position.

The Court distinguished between a genuinely new voter and a person who was already registered but had shifted residence. According to the LiveLaw report, the Court observed:

“Having considered the specific declarations that are to be made by a new voter in contrast to those that are required to be made by a voter who is applying for shifting of residence, it would be quite obvious that if a voter shifting residence as in the case of the present Petitioners, had filed an application in Form 6, they would not only be making a false declaration in their application for inclusion in an Electoral Roll for the first time, but would also be falsely declaring that their name was not included in any Assembly Constituency or Parliamentary Constituency in the past.”

The observation is important because it focuses on the truthfulness of the declaration itself. A voter cannot be expected to make a factually incorrect declaration merely because a particular administrative form is prescribed. As reported by LiveLaw, the Court also noted that false declarations may have consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Though the Bombay High Court matter concerned voters who had shifted residence, the principle has wider relevance to the Form 6 controversy. A first-time applicant, a voter who has shifted residence, and a voter whose name was wrongly deleted are in different factual situations. The procedure must recognise these distinctions, particularly when declarations in a statutory form carry legal consequences.

Deleted voters and the Delhi SIR dispute

The issue is now before the Supreme Court in relation to Delhi’s SIR process. The ECI’s November 3 clarification allowed persons missing from the draft roll, including previously registered voters, to seek inclusion through Form 6. Petitioners argue that voters who were already enrolled should be restored rather than treated as fresh applicants.

The ECI has said that, in specified circumstances, such applicants would not face action for a false declaration. But this itself raises a question: if special protection is needed for previously registered voters using Form 6, should the same form be used for fundamentally different categories of voters at all? The issue remains connected with the Supreme Court proceedings.

What the October 3 Online Assembly resolution says

The wider concerns over SIR and electoral-roll exclusions were also addressed in a resolution adopted at the Public Online National Assembly held on October 3, 2026. This assembly called by Vote for Democracy (VFD) included over 100 experts, professionals and activists from across India.

The resolution calls for the removal or resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, the complete scrapping of SIR and a return to the 2024 electoral rolls, with lawful revisions for additions and deletions. It also seeks the disbanding of the existing ECI, repeal of the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, and a new broad-based and accountable appointment process.

The resolution further demands greater transparency in electoral data and software, including public access to electoral information in machine-readable form and disclosure of source code used in systems such as ECINet and ERONet.

It also raises concerns about Forms 6 and 7, software-driven exclusions, pending appeals and the denial of effective opportunities for verification and hearing.

Public notice, verification and the right to object

One of the important parts of the October 3 resolution concerns the process of deletion from electoral rolls. The resolution calls for a public social audit of electoral rolls and for greater participation by citizens and local communities in examining exclusions. It states that every proposed deletion should be publicly disclosed. This is in line with established ECI procedures: For re-instatement of voters deleted due to intended or otherwise deletions (mass or single) by the ECI, the ECI may only exercise its powers under Rule 18 of the Electors Rules 1960 that allows for restoration of deleted names by public hearing without any application or any form being filled

A voter should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the deletion and seek restoration where the exclusion is wrongful. The resolution also says there should be transparency about who sought the deletion, the grounds on which it was sought and what verification was carried out. Most importantly, it states:

No electoral-roll change should be affected without public notice, verification and an effective opportunity to object.

This principle is central to the present controversy.

If a voter has been wrongly deleted, the process should not simply end with an instruction that the person must submit a new form. The circumstances of the deletion must matter. The voter should have an effective opportunity to challenge the exclusion. The electoral authorities should have a procedure to examine the case and restore the name where the deletion was wrongful. The resolution also calls for documentation of wrongful deletions, pending claims and objections, Forms 6 and 7 and procedural violations across SIR-affected states.

The larger question remains

The ECI has removed the SIR declaration from within Form 6, addressing the immediate concern that the online presentation could create the impression that a statutory form had been amended. But the central question remains: should previously enrolled voters whose names have been deleted be required to seek inclusion again through Form 6?

The Bombay High Court has highlighted the difficulty of requiring voters to make declarations that do not correctly reflect their factual position. The issue is now also before the Supreme Court in relation to Delhi.

Removing the additional declaration from Form 6 may address one part of the controversy. It does not, however, settle the question of whether Form 6 is the appropriate procedure for restoring voters who were already enrolled and were subsequently deleted nor the inherently unlawful exercise being conducted presently –which is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Related:

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

Does the ECI’s Nov 6 communication signal a step-back on re-enrolment in the ASSD list?

The post SIR: ECI “removes Form 6 declaration” but serious questions on legality of procedure remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The seizure of 19,250 live cartridges from Koilawar police thane near the Kulhadiya Toll Plaza has drawn strong political reactions with Tejasvi Yadav, leader of the opposition raising serious questions over the accused’s alleged involvement with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The Lokmat News reported this seizure even as the incident erupted into a political controversy with questions on motives behind the possession and transportation of thousands and thousands of such live cartridges and dangerous explosives over the Diwali weekend arose.

बिहार में 𝐑𝐒𝐒 से जुड़े चंदन तिवारी, अभिषेक तिवारी, लालटू कुमार और सरस कुमार से 𝟒𝟒,𝟎𝟎𝟎 जिंदा कारतूस पकड़े गए है। ये लोग गोला-बारूद के अंतरराज्यीय तस्करी के एक खतरनाक नेटवर्क से जुड़े है। क्या 𝐑𝐒𝐒 के ये आतंकवादी देशभर में धमाके करने की साज़िश रच रहे थे?

𝐑𝐒𝐒 से जुड़े तस्करी नेटवर्क के तीन लोगों से ही 𝟒𝟒,𝟎𝟎𝟎 ज़िंदा कारतूस पकड़े जाने के बाद भी क्या 𝐑𝐒𝐒 को आतंकवादी संगठन घोषित नहीं कर देना चाहिए?

— Tejashwi Yadav (@yadavtejashwi) November 5, 2026

So far, nothing in the publicly disclosed official accounts reveal any such clear organisational link.

In fact, it is on November 2, when a joint task force of the Bihar STF and the Bhojpur District police apprehended and stopped an SUV at the Toll Plaza, and on searching it unearthed these 19,250 live cartridges and one “desi” pistol. Three persons have been arrested in this connection, and they reportedly hail from Muzaffarpur: Laltu Kumar (38), Saras Kumar (27) and Chandan Tiwari (26) from Siwan and are part of an international arms ammunition network. Sections of the BNSS and Arms act have been added in the charges against them. The connection or alleged connection with the RSS surfaced later, according to Lokmat News, their older photographs in the RSS’ uniform started circulating. It is through this seizure and investigation that 25,000 live cartridge seizure by the Haryana STF near Jhajjar was unearthed.

Meanwhile, a team of Haryana police special task force (STF) seized a consignment of 25000 live cartridges that was being smuggled to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and arrested five suspects from two cars near Rohad toll plaza on Bahadurgarh-Rohtak highway in Jhajjar on Tuesday. The arrested suspects were Afifuddin alias Munna Khan, 49, Asim Rais, 33, Sablu Khan, 32, Arbaz Ali, 27 and Zeenat, 33. All five are residents of different localities in Uttar Pradesh’s Budaun. Eight mobile phones and two cars were also seized from them, STF officials said.

In the third weekend incident involving seizure of explosives, Uttar Pradesh Police have arrested two men and seized nearly 199 kg of gelatin explosives, 100 fuses, seven bundles of red wire and 2.945 kg of powder from a fleeing Bolero vehicle in Chitrakoot district, according reports in Dainik Bhaskar and Amar Ujala published on November 5. News reports published over the weekend and today, Monday November 9 have reported that a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and his close associate have been arrested in Uttar Pradesh’s Chitrakoot district after local police allegedly recovered nearly 200 kg of explosive material from their vehicle near the Madhya Pradesh border. The arrest has resulted in a storm within political circles; however, predictably, the BJP itself has so far maintained a stony silence over the incident. Hari Gopal Mishra is the BJP leader who was arrested while his associate is Pappu Tiwari. Both men are residents of Bhouri village under the Raipura police station area of Chitrakoot.

The reported political background of Hari Gopal Mishra has drawn attention following the seizure. According to Amar Ujala, he had contested a Zila Panchayat election with BJP backing.

In the highway seizure in Jajjhar, Haryana authorities have revealed to the media that Munna owns an ancestral Badaun Gun House in the Civil Lines area of Badaun and had procured the consignment from Vijay Goel, who runs Mehak Gun House in Sirsa, Haryana, which he has been running since 1999.  The Haryana STF said Vijay has also been arrested and was quizzed to ascertain his role in the interstate smuggling network, which is suspected to be running for the last three years.

Waseem Akram, superintendent of police, Haryana STF, said that 24400 cartridges of 7.65mm (.32 bore) used in regular small handguns and .315 bore used in rifles were seized from a Tata Harrier, while another batch of 600 cartridges (.315 bore) were seized from a Hyundai Aura.

“The 7.65mm cartridges are used in illegal country-made pistols manufactured in Bihar’s Munger, West Bengal and Eastern UP, while the rifle bore cartridges are used in breach-load illegal pistols manufactured in these areas for which the smuggling was taking place,” Akram said.

Akram said Munna was the kingpin of the smuggling racket running due to continuous cartridge stock pilferage from the gun houses in Haryana, UP and other places. Shamsher Dahiya, deputy superintendent of police, STF, said the entire consignment was manufactured in an ammunition factory in Pune’s Khadki, as the marking ‘KF’ was engraved on all the cartridges. “The two cars were intercepted near a roadside eatery, Triveni Dhaba, which is located right opposite the toll plaza after we had received a tip-off from Bihar police STF,” he added. Some controversy has erupted over a photograph showing the accused posing in uniforms of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Photographs showing Bihar-based accused Chandan Tiwari and his brother Abhishek Tiwari wearing the uniform of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were reported in a section of the digital media. Another image reportedly showing them posing with a local MLA from Muzaffarpur has also surfaced. The photographs have prompted questions about the alleged political and organisational associations of the accused. However, the images alone do not establish that the RSS, as an organisation, was involved in the arms smuggling network.

Questions over Ammunition manufactured in government factories

Another aspect of the investigation concerns reports that some of the seized cartridges were manufactured in government-owned ordnance factories. If confirmed, the reported origin of the ammunition raises questions about how it entered the alleged illegal supply chain and whether it was diverted through licensed dealers or other intermediaries.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has reportedly joined the investigation. It is expected to examine the origin of the ammunition, the supply chain and the possible involvement of other individuals. According to media reports, the investigation has also brought renewed attention to the name of Jalan Shop, which reportedly surfaced in an earlier arms smuggling case in Bihar. Reports in that case alleged that an individual associated with the shop supplied nearly 100 pistols to different parts of Bihar using forged arms licences. The accused was reportedly wanted by the NIA and remains absconding.

Investigators have yet to establish whether the current ammunition network has any connection with that case or other previously investigated arms trafficking operations. The agencies are now attempting to trace the intended recipients of the seized cartridges and identify the ultimate buyers. They are also examining whether the ammunition was meant for organised criminal groups or other illegal networks.

Explosives seized in Chitrakoot

There are differing accounts regarding the intended use of the seized materials from the third incident.

According to reports, the accused told investigators that the explosives were being transported from Majhgawan in Madhya Pradesh for digging a well in a rocky area. Police reportedly said the materials were of the type used for breaking rocks in stone quarries.

However, another Amar Ujala report stated that the accused had told police that the materials were intended for making firecrackers. Investigators are examining the source, destination and intended use of the explosives. Police have registered a case against the two accused under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Bolero used to transport the materials has also been seized.  Following the recovery, police took both men into custody and informed Chitrakoot Superintendent of Police Arun Kumar Singh, who subsequently reached the spot. The accused, along with the seized explosives, were taken to the police station for questioning. Both men were produced before a court and sent to judicial custody.

Investigators are examining the supply chain, the source of the explosives in Madhya Pradesh, their intended recipients and whether other individuals were involved in the transportation or distribution of the materials.

It was while the police from the Markundi police station were conducting a routine checking operation in their jurisdiction on the night of November 3 when they spotted a Bolero approaching. However, suspiciously, when the police signalled the Bolero vehicle to stop, its occupants allegedly attempted to flee. Thereafter, the police intercepted the vehicle after cordoning off the area.

When police personnel asked the two occupants to step out and allow the vehicle to be searched, Mishra reportedly identified himself as a BJP leader and attempted to use his political influence to avoid the search. However, the police proceeded with the inspection and recovered a large quantity of explosive material from the vehicle.

The seized material included 199 kg of gelatin sticks, 100 red-coloured fuses, seven bundles of red wire and 2.945 kg of explosive powder. It was on November 4, Superintendent of Police Arun Kumar Singh held a press conference and presented the two arrested men before journalists, as reported by Dainik Bhaskar and Amar Ujala.

The SP confirmed that Hari Gopal Mishra was associated with the BJP and had contested the Zila Panchayat member election on the party’s ticket. He had also served as a Zila Panchayat member. The second accused, Pappu Tiwari, was identified as his associate.

According to the SP, the two men were apprehended near the Uttar Pradesh–Madhya Pradesh border with approximately two quintals of explosive material. The police are investigating where the explosives were procured, where they were being transported and what they were intended to be used for. Investigators are also examining whether other individuals or organised groups were involved in the case.

The police are further probing the possible purchase and sale of the explosives; the network of people associated with their supply and whether the accused possessed the mandatory licences and documents for storing and transporting such material.

The SP said that the complete details would emerge only after the investigation was concluded. He also observed that the recovery of such a large quantity of explosives raised serious concerns, as the material could potentially have been used to carry out a major incident.

BJP silent, yet to respond

The arrest of a person identified by the police as a former BJP-backed Zila Panchayat member, along with the recovery of such a huge quantity of explosives, has caused considerable embarrassment for the party. The BJP has not issued any public statement on the matter so far.

The incident has also triggered political questions about the source, illegal procurement and intended use of the explosives. However, the allegations concerning any wider political or organisational involvement remain unsubstantiated and will have to be established through the police investigation.

Related:

Seven Explosives Recovered from Temple, Possible Links with RSS Management

The post UP & Bihar: Tranches of arms & explosives recovered over the Diwali weekend appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

The communication states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The letter states that,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hindu, November 5, 2026 (page 4)

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

A copy of the judgement is not yet available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forum for Social Harmony calls arrest an attack on democratic rights

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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