The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls—a mandated verification drive by the Election Commission of India (ECI)—has left a trail of devastation across the states, turning the routine bureaucratic exercise of updating voter lists into a lethal trap for civil servants.

While the Election Commission insists the drive is necessary to “purify” voter lists and ensure the integrity of the electoral process, the teachers, Anganwadi workers, and clerical staff forced to execute the order on the ground are collapsing. They are buckling under what they describe as “inhuman” pressure, squeezed between an unforgiving digital system, aggressive supervisors, and an impoverished public. From suicide notes addressed to orphaned children in Tamil Nadu to teachers collapsing in classrooms in Gujarat, the narrative is no longer about updating rolls; it is about the ultimate cost of a vote.

The tragedy is not just in the statistics, though the rising frequency of suicides is terrifying; it is in the methodology of the despair. In less than three weeks, a harrowing pattern has emerged, a deadline is set, a threat of suspension is issued, a worker begs for relief, the relief is denied, and a family is left to mourn. The “Deadly Deadline” has become a silent killer, stalking the corridors of government schools and block offices across the nation.

Gujarat

On Friday, November 21, 2025, a government teacher in Gujarat named Arvind committed suicide in Gir Somnath. He was serving as a Booth Level Officer (BLO) for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His death immediately highlighted the severe pressure faced by the teaching community. The extreme workload to meet enumeration targets had become overwhelming. Arvind did not die silently, leaving a brief suicide note that explained his final act. The note, as reported by the New Indian Express, carried the harrowing message: “I can’t do this SIR work anymore…”

Tragic incident in #Gujarat : A teacher involved in the SIR process has died by suicide in Gir Somnath. A note was reportedly found near teacher Arvind. Family members allege he had been under severe stress due to his duties as a BLO.@NewIndianXpress @jayanthjacob @santwana99 pic.twitter.com/Xcrg12F0DU

— Dilip Kshatriya (@Kshatriyadilip) November 21, 2025

This single sentence stripped away the bureaucratic jargon of “efficiency” and “targets,” exposing the human fragility underneath.

After Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, and Kerala, now Gujarat. Under the disastrous pressure of SIR, a BLO has died by suicide in Modi-Shah’s Gujarat.

Gujarat BLO Arvind Vadher wrote in his suicide note, “I can no longer carry out SIR work.”
Not just in Bengal, even in other states,… pic.twitter.com/2iGfgUqnse

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) November 22, 2025

The crisis in Vadodara further highlighted that this “deadly deadline” causes not just psychological snaps, but physical collapse. On November 22, Ushaben, an Assistant BLO and ITI employee, died while on duty at a school.

According to The Wire Hindi, Ushaben collapsed and died on the spot. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that her family had already raised red flags about her health. Her husband, Indra Singh Solanki, stated that the family had “already warned officials” about her deteriorating health, pleading for her exemption. Yet, the machine required a cog, and she was deployed for SIR duty regardless.

“Ushaben was deployed on BLO duty despite poor health,” the family had alerted the authorities

A pall of concern has descended following the suspicious death of yet another Booth Level Officer (BLO), Dinkal, a 26-year-old technical assistant with the Surat Municipal Corporation. Dinkal was discovered unconscious in her bathroom and, despite efforts to save her, was later pronounced dead at a private hospital.

#Gujarat
One More BLO Dies Under Suspicious Circumstances, A 26-year-old BLO and Surat Municipal Corporation technical assistant, Dinkal was found unconscious in her bathroom and later declared dead at a private hospital.@NewIndianXpress @santwana99 @jayanthjacob pic.twitter.com/vPGGZ2R1vp

— Dilip Kshatriya (@Kshatriyadilip) November 24, 2025

These incidents raise serious questions about the lack of medical consideration for the staff forced into these high-intensity field roles, where they must walk kilometres in the heat, face hostile voters, and then return home to perform hours of data entry.

West Bengal

The West Bengal continues to see the highest concentration of fatalities. The death toll among BLOs in the state continues to climb, with new incidents reported in the Nadia district, bringing the total in the state to five within this short window.

On November 19, a 48-year-old Anganwadi worker, Shantimoni Ekka was found hanging in the courtyard of her home. Her death revealed the systemic cruelty of the process; she was a Hindi speaker in a Bengali administrative zone, tasked with processing complex legal forms she could not understand.

Deeply shocked and saddened.

Today again, we lost a Booth Level Officer in Mal, Jalpaiguri — Smt Shanti Muni Ekka, a tribal lady, an anganwadi worker who took her own life under the unbearable pressure of the ongoing SIR work.

28 people have already lost their lives since SIR…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 19, 2025

Similarly, on November 21, Rinku Tarafdar, a para-teacher assigned to BLO duty, allegedly died by suicide due to similar work pressure. The gravity of the situation forced the Election Commission to seek a report from the District Magistrate regarding her death. In the Chapra constituency, a 52-year-old BLO was found dead, with The Hindu reporting her family’s assertion that she was “under immense mental duress regarding the filing of enumeration forms.”

The relentless accumulation of bodies has turned the SIR exercise into a political flashpoint in Bengal. The ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) has lashed out at the Election Commission, describing the deaths as a result of “inhuman workload,” echoing the sentiment of workers who feel they are “left with no choice but death.”

Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal, expressed on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) that “Profoundly shocked to know of the death of yet another BLO, a lady para- teacher, who has committed suicide at Krishnanagar today. BLO of part number 201 of AC 82 Chapra, Smt. Rinku Tarafdar, has blamed ECI in her suicide note (copy is attached herewith) before committing suicide at her residence today.

How many more lives will be lost?

How many more need to die for this SIR?

How many more dead bodies shall we see for this process? This has become truly alarming now!!”

Profoundly shocked to know of the death of yet another BLO, a lady para- teacher,who has committed suicide at Krishnanagar today . BLO of part number 201 of AC 82 Chapra, Smt Rinku Tarafdar, has blamed ECI in her suicide note ( copy is attached herewith) before committing… pic.twitter.com/xG0TyD4VNy

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 22, 2025

Uttar Pradesh

In Gonda, the deadline claimed the life of Vipin Yadav, a dedicated teacher and BLO. The timeline of his death is a testament to the inescapable nature of the pressure. On a recent Tuesday morning, at around 7:30 am—a time when most are preparing for the day—Yadav fell critically ill after reportedly consuming a poisonous substance. Local medical facilities were helpless against the toxicity, prompting a desperate rush to Lucknow’s King George’s Medical University (KGMU) Trauma Centre.

यूपी – गोंडा जिले के BLO विपिन यादव इस दुनिया में नहीं रहे। उन्होंने जहर खा लिया था। लखनऊ में मौत हो गई है।

मरने से पहले BLO ने कहा– “SDM, BDO, लेखपाल के दबाव के कारण जहर खाया” pic.twitter.com/vw3CKBBa4G

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) November 25, 2025

By 3:15 pm, as confirmed by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) of Gonda Sadar, Yadav was dead.

Similarly. In Fatehpur, where the administrative machinery showed a complete lack of humanity. Sudhir Kumar Kori, a 25-year-old revenue clerk (lekhpal), committed suicide just one day before his scheduled wedding.

Sudhir was young, employed, and about to start a new chapter of his life with Kajal, a resident of a nearby village. The Haldi and Mehendi ceremonies had already begun; relatives had gathered, and the house was filled with the sounds of celebration. However, hanging over Sudhir was the shadow of the SIR campaign. He had been assigned as a supervisor for the Jahanabad Assembly constituency.

According to his shattered family, Sudhir had been repeatedly requesting leave for his own wedding. It is a request that, in any humane system, would be granted automatically. Instead, the kanungo (revenue inspector) allegedly refused to approve it. Worse, the refusal came with a threat. He was reportedly threatened with suspension for prioritising his marriage over the election commission’s targets, and eventually, he was suspended on Monday.

यूपी के फतेहपुर में SIR सुपरवाइजर सुधीर कुमार ने अपनी शादी से एक दिन पहले फांसी लगाकर जान दे दी।

सुधीर के परिजनों ने बताया कि 26 नवंबर को सुधीर की शादी थी। इसीलिए सुधीर ने छुट्टी के लिए एप्लीकेशन दी थी, लेकिन उन्हें छुट्टी नहीं दी गई।

शादी के कार्यक्रम के चलते जब सुधीर SIR के… pic.twitter.com/RI5OTACDnm

— MP Youth Congress (@IYCMadhya) November 25, 2025

Caught between the shame of suspension and the pressure of his duties, Sudhir took his own life. The festivities turned into a funeral. While the district administration has promised a “thorough investigation,” for Sudhir’s family, the inquiry is meaningless. The timeline of the SIR drive did not just claim a worker, it destroyed two families before a marriage could even be solemnised.

In Allahabad (Prayagraj) district, Booth-Level Officers (BLOs) are actively refusing or avoiding their duties for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, despite facing penalties like salary cuts and an FIR.

The refusal stems from public anger and resistance against accepting the SIR forms, particularly in rural areas like Phaphamau, where BLOs, often local residents, feel vulnerable. Unlike voters in other regions, voters in Uttar Pradesh reportedly do not fear being delisted and believe they can bypass the exercise, with some also being listed at multiple polling booths.

The resistance is significantly impacting the SIR work, with only 1.5 lakh of the 46.92 lakh voters covered so far, making it unlikely to meet the December 9 target. Authorities have taken action against several BLOs and supervisors for non-compliance, but the officers maintain that the extra work is causing severe stress and public backlash, as the Observer Post reported

Tamil Nadu

In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the distress has permeated the Anganwadi sector, where workers—already chronically underpaid and overworked—are being drafted for SIR duties. These women, who are responsible for the health and nutrition of the state’s poorest children, are now being broken by the election machinery.

On November 18, Chitra, a 59-year-old anganwadi worker and Booth Level Officer (BLO) in Kumbakonam, Thanjavur, attempted suicide. Fellow workers stated that Chitra, a widow, had consumed pills after being subjected to “immense pressure” and allegedly threatened with suspension by superiors if she failed to digitally upload a large number of SIR entries by a stringent deadline. Her colleagues, who staged a protest demanding action against the officials responsible, claimed that age-related struggles and the stress of unreasonable targets had pushed her to the extreme step.

Chitra was rushed to a government hospital and is reported to be stable, but the incident drew immediate attention to the mental toll the rushed SIR process is taking on frontline employees.

In a similar incident, on November 20, a Booth-Level Officer (BLO) named Jahitha Begum in Kallakurichi district tragically died by suicide due to an alleged excessive workload and pressure related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

According to the Times of India, her husband, Mubarak, and colleagues stated that she was being pressurised by senior officials and political party representatives to expedite the work. Mubarak recounted that his wife, who had a target of 800 SIR forms, was struggling due to poor internet connectivity at the Tirukoilur centre, managing to digitise only 35 forms and collect 80 filled-in forms. After returning home, she reportedly committed suicide by hanging herself.

Her colleagues corroborated the stress, stating that officials were forcing them to collect the filled-in forms from electors within a single day after distribution. The Tirukoilur police have registered a case of suspicious death and are currently investigating the matter, including the husband’s statement.

Collateral damage: the citizen’s panic

The deadly deadline affects not only those holding the pen but those whose names are on the list. In West Bengal, the SIR exercise—which involves verifying old records—has inadvertently triggered deep-seated trauma related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

In North 24 Parganas, this fear nearly killed Ashok Sardar. The 63-year-old rickshaw puller threw himself onto railway tracks, resulting in the amputation of a limb. His crime? He could not find his name in the 2002 voter list.

“For days, father kept saying he had no documents,” his daughter Chaitali explained. “He feared he might be thrown out of the country.” The bureaucratic rigor demanded of the BLOs translates into terror for the poor, creating a feedback loop of anxiety that is claiming lives on both sides of the clipboard.

A systemic failure: the “Bihar Model” goes wrong

The root of this crisis seems to be the imposition of the “Bihar Model” of SIR onto other states without considering local realities. Officials claimed the model was a success in Bihar, but its replication is proving lethal across the diverse administrative landscapes of the rest of India. The exercise, which traditionally spans months, has been compressed into a tight window, ignoring the logistical nightmares of different topographies and languages.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner on November 24, noted that the process suffers from “critical gaps in training, lack of clarity on mandatory documentation and the near-impossibility of meeting voters in the midst of their livelihood schedules.”

Sharing herewith my today’s letter to the Chief Election Commissioner, articulating my serious concerns in respect of two latest and disturbing developments. pic.twitter.com/JhkFkF6RWs

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 24, 2025

The system assumes a level of digitisation and manpower that simply does not exist on the ground. It relies on the unpaid labour of Anganwadi workers and the coerced labour of teachers, assuming their resilience is infinite. The last three weeks have proven it is not. The digital infrastructure, meant to streamline the process, has instead become a bottleneck, with servers crashing and data vanishing, forcing BLOs to redo work they have already completed, often late into the night.

SIR is no reform; it’s an imposed tyranny: Rahul Gandhi

The mounting death toll has drawn sharp criticism from the highest echelons of the opposition. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, termed the SIR exercise an “imposed oppression.” In a statement, Gandhi slammed the Centre and the Election Commission, alleging that the chaotic implementation of SIR is a “conspiracy to sacrifice democracy” at the cost of civil servants’ lives.

“SIR is an ‘imposed oppression’… causing chaos in the country,” Gandhi stated.

SIR के नाम पर देश भर में अफ़रा-तफ़री मचा रखी है – नतीजा? तीन हफ्तों में 16 BLO की जान चली गई। हार्ट अटैक, तनाव, आत्महत्या – SIR कोई सुधार नहीं, थोपा गया ज़ुल्म है।

ECI ने ऐसा सिस्टम बनाया है जिसमें नागरिकों को खुद को तलाशने के लिए 22 साल पुरानी मतदाता सूची के हज़ारों स्कैन पन्ने… pic.twitter.com/oHdabs0kHe

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 23, 2025

Despite these high-profile interventions, the grinding pace of the SIR continues. The Election Commission maintains its deadline. The supervisors continue to issue threats of suspension. In addition, in the homes of Shantimoni Ekka, Mukesh Jangid, Aneesh George, Arvind, Ushaben, Vipin Yadav, and Sudhir Kumar Kori, there is only silence.

The “Deadly Deadline” remains in place, and millions of government employees remain caught between a directive from ECI and the limits of human endurance, wondering who among them will be next to fall. The SIR drive, as ECI claims intended to strengthen the foundation of Indian democracy, is currently being built on the broken backs of the very people tasked with upholding it.

Related:

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

The post The Deadly Deadline: “I Can’t Do This Anymore”—India’s electoral revision turns into a graveyard for BLOs/teachers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute   India into a      SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

RSS demanded Manu Smruti as the Constitution

The two underlined ideals merely formally added in 1977, ‘Socialist and Secular’, only strengthened the resolve of the Constitution of India would apply to a non-sectarian polity with only the people of India, all of its people, sovereign. How many Indians however know that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that has today affected a stranglehold on Indian politics and democracy, through its political appendage, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had, at the time, mourned the birth (coming into effect) of the Indian Constitution? Outraged when the Indian Constituent Assembly (CA) adopted a democratic- Secular Constitution under the supervision of Dr. BR Ambedkar, their organs protested.

We know that when the Constituent Assembly of India passed the Constitution on November 26, 1949, the RSS organ Organizer came out with an editorial on November 30, 1949 titled ‘Constitution’ declaring its firm rejection of Constitutional Values:

“The worst about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bhartiya about it…There is no trace of ancient Bhartiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclatures and phraseology in it…Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

How fundamentally, the RSS denigrates the Constitution of India can be gleaned through the following statement of the most prominent ideologue of the RSS, Golwalkar:

“Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions of the Western countries. It has absolutely nothing which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No!”

[MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 238.]

By demanding Manusmriti as “constitution of India”, RSS, in fact was following the belief of its darling Hindutva icon, VD Savarkar who had declared long back:

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law”.

[VD Savarkar, ‘Women in Manusmriti‘ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi), vol. 4, Prabhat, Delhi, p. 416.]

The faith of RSS brass in Manusmriti, naturally, leads them to believe in Casteism too which gave birth to the debased practice of Untouchability. For RSS Casteism is the essence of Hindu Nationalism. Golwalkar did not mince words in declaring that Casteism was synonymous with the Hindu Nation. According to him, the Hindu people are no one but,

“The Hindu People, they said, is the Virat Purusha, the Almighty manifesting Himself. Though they did not use the word „Hindu‟, it is clear from the following description of the Almighty in Purusha-Sukta [in the 10th book of Rig Ved] wherein it is stated that the sun & the moon are His eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi [navel] and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. [Italics as in the original text] This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is [sic] our God. This supreme vision of Godhead is the very core of our concept of „nation‟ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.”

[Golwalkar, M. S., Bunch of Thoughts, collection of writings/speeches of Golwalkar published by RSS, p.36-37.]

What kind of a Hindutva civilization the RSS wants to build by enforcing the laws of Manu, can be known by having a glimpse of the laws prescribed by Manu for the lower castes, Untouchables and women. Some of these dehumanizing and degenerated laws, which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

A selection of Laws of Manu denigrating Dalits/Untouchables

1. For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet. (I/31)
2. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes. (I/91)
3. Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of ‘low origin’. (VIII/270)
4. If he mentions the names and castes (jati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. (VIII/271)
5. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. (VIII/272)
6. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. (VIII/280)
7. A ‘low-caste’ man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. (VIII/281)

As per the Manu Code if Sudras are to be given most stringent punishments for even petty violations/actions, the same Code of Manu is very lenient towards Brahmins. Shloka 380 in Chapter VIII bestowing profound love on Brahmins decrees:

“Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he has committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.”

A selection of Laws of Manu demeaning Hindu women

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (IX/2)
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), (It is enough that) he is a man, ‟ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
4. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)
5. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)

[The above selection of Manu’s Codes is from F. Max Muller, Laws of Manu, LP Publications, Delhi, 1996; first published in 1886. The bracket after each code incorporates number of chapter/number of code according to the above edition.]

The reproduced parts of the Manu Code above need no further elaboration and commentary. They are too glaringly venomous, fascist and derogatory of marginalized sections, the Untouchables who are referred to as Sudras by Manu. Perhaps this was the reason that the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche who contributed immensely to the growth of totalitarian ideas in Europe in the 20th century, fell in love with this work.

It is to be noted here that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during the historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927. Dr Ambedkar called upon Dalits to commemorate each December 25 as the Manusmriti Dehen Diwas (Manusmriti burning day) in future. In fact, Brahmanism as basis of the RSS world-view is the original Fascism in the history of human civilization.

[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/manusmriti-dahan-divas-protest-staged-at-collectorate/article30396588.ece]

RSS’ deep hatred for democracy

It is true that when RSS faced the wrath of the Indian State when Sardar Patel was the home minister of India it criticised the detention laws without trial. In an editorial in Organizer it wrote:

“Section 21 and 22 providing for detention without trial reduce all the wordy assurances about liberty, equality and fraternity to just near meaningless verbiage.”[Organizer, November 30, 1949]

But once in power the RSS-BJP rulers led by the present leadership have returned to Hindutva’s Fascist and Nazi heritage. They have converted Indian democratic-secular polity into a totalitarian Hindutva oligarchy where any kind of dissent is treated as anti-national and anti-Hindu. It is the continuation of hatred for democracy as decreed by Golwalkar as early as 1940. Golwalkar while addressing the 1350 top level cadres of the RSS declared:

“RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology are lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.”

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd., volume 1, p. 11.]

November 26, 2025

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

Related:

Sectarian nationalism and god men: Sri Sri Ravishankar attends the 75th Birthday of the RSS chief

Emergency regime and the role of RSS

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Blast: A scene of carnage and social shock

The factual background of the case is harrowing. On April 27, 1996, a UP Roadways bus from the Roorkee depot departed from Delhi ISBT at 3:55 PM with more than fifty passengers. It halted at Mohan Nagar Check Post, where fourteen more boarded. As the bus crossed the Modinagar Police Station in Ghaziabad around 5 PM, a violent explosion tore through its front portion. The driver died on the spot, along with nine passengers. Nearly everyone on board suffered injuries ranging from severe to critical. Post-mortem reports described multiple metal fragments embedded in the victims’ bodies; doctors confirmed that death was caused by “shock and haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding.” Forensic examination established that RDX mixed with carbon had been placed beneath the driver’s seat and detonated using a remote trigger. The blast was quickly categorised as an act of terrorism, and investigative agencies rushed to construct a narrative of conspiracy. Public anger and panic were immediate. The community demanded answers, accountability, and closure. Yet, as the High Court judgment reveals, those demands were never truly met—not for the families, not for the injured, and not for the accused.

The Prosecution’s Theory: Conspiracy, foreign links and a confession

In its case before the trial court, the prosecution framed the blast as part of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by Harkat-ul-Ansar. The State alleged that Abdul Mateen @ Iqbal, a Pakistani national, served as a “District Commander” of the organisation and had collaborated with Ilyas, who, according to prosecution claims, was indoctrinated during his travels to Jammu & Kashmir. It was further alleged that the appellant facilitated travel for operatives, participated in planning meetings, and assisted in procuring or planting the explosive. However, this theory rested heavily on a single fragile pillar: a confession allegedly made by Ilyas before a Senior Police Officer of the CB-CID, recorded on an audio cassette in the presence of his father and brother. This confession became the backbone of the prosecution’s case. Without it, the surrounding circumstantial links—two railway tickets, a diary, and speculative associations—were plainly inadequate. Yet the prosecution attempted to stretch these tenuous threads into a conspiracy narrative, despite the fact that one co-accused, Tasleem, had been acquitted by the trial court itself for complete lack of evidence. The State did not appeal Tasleem’s acquittal, nor was there any record suggesting that Mateen ever filed a challenge. As such, by the time the matter reached the High Court, only Ilyas was left defending himself against the weight of the allegations—while confined in prison.

The High Court’s Evaluation of Evidence: A prosecution in disarray

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 2063 of 2013 is one of the starkest examples of the justice system confronting the collapse of a terror-investigation while simultaneously acknowledging the moral burden of acquitting an accused in a case involving mass casualties. The Bench’s analysis is structured around three pillars: (1) the complete absence of legally admissible evidence against Ilyas; (2) the statutory bar on using police-recorded confessions; and (3) the total failure of the prosecution to produce any independent incriminating material.

The Court’s reasoning is unusually candid. It acknowledges the horrific nature of the 1996 Modinagar bus blast—describing it as “diabolic”, “dastardly”, and a “terrorist act”—yet still concludes that there is no legal basis to uphold the conviction. The Bench ultimately declares: “We are recording acquittal in this case with heavy heart as the case is of such propensity that it shock the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their life in the terrorist plot”.

Below is a structured analysis of what the Court actually held, how it evaluated each category of evidence, and how it applied statutory and doctrinal principles.

I. The court’s construction of the factual matrix

The judgment begins by firmly establishing the factual horror of the blast. Relying on eyewitnesses, inquest officers, and medical professionals, the Bench holds that the explosion was undoubtedly caused by a planted high-intensity device. Post-mortem reports and FSL findings were decisive. Ten people died on the spot; more died during treatment; and 48 were injured.

The Court notes in the judgment that:

“In the postmortem report of the deceased persons, pieces of metal were found, and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding.” (Para 18)

“In report of FSL dated 30.04.1996, it is concluded that in the bus registration No. UP15A6693, mixture of RDX and carbon was kept, which resulted in explosion. It was kept in the front portion of the bus, above bonut or its left side.” (Para 7)

The device was placed before the bus left Delhi; therefore, no onboard passenger could have seen the planting. By laying this foundation, the Court underscores that the factum of the terrorist act is unquestionably proved—thus shifting the entire analytical burden to whether the prosecution proved who executed it.

II. Collapse of Witness Testimony: No Direct Evidence Linking Ilyas

Hostile witnesses and the rejection of the alleged extra-judicial confessions: The prosecution relied heavily on two witnesses—PW-6 Subrati and PW-9 Ahsan—as recipients of an alleged extra-judicial confession by Ilyas and co-accused Mateen and Tasleem.

But both turned hostile, they merely admitted they knew Ilyas socially. The Court notes:

“None of the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution to establish complicity of the appellant in the offence have supported the prosecution version. The witnesses PW 6-Subrati, PW 9-Ahsan are key witnesses of prosecution who were produced to prove alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and co-accused regarding their complicity in the offence but they have outrightly disowned their statements recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC and have given exculpatory evidence against the appellant with regard to the present offence.” (Para 77)

Regarding rejection of PW-6 statement:

“Subrati, a witness of extra-judicial confession made by the accused, has also not supported prosecution version. His evidence is also not of significance for the purpose of present case. Even if his examination-in-chief during separate trial of acquitted accused Tasleem is taken on its face value, the same cannot be read against present appellant as the appellant was not present at the time of recording of this evidence. In the Session Trial No. 1663 of 2000 the same witness i.e., Subrati has not given any statement against the appellant or any co-accused. Thus, the witness has given two statements in respect of the same offence regarding the role played by the accused persons and legally no credence can be given on his testimony in respect of present appellant.” (Para 74)

The Court stresses that even in Tasleem’s earlier trial, the same witnesses had not supported the prosecution. The Bench treats this as a fatal flaw: there is simply no living testimony pointing to Ilyas.

No eyewitness saw any accused place the bomb: The blast occurred under the driver’s seat. Passengers boarded a bus that was already primed. The Court affirms that no witness was capable of identifying the planter, making the State’s evidentiary burden even heavier.

III. The Confessional Statement: Completely Inadmissible Under Sections 24–26 Evidence Act

The prosecution’s case ultimately hinged on a single piece of evidence: a police-recorded confession of Ilyas, supposedly captured on an audio-cassette by PW-11, a Sector Officer, CB-CID.

The Court annihilates this evidence.

Absolute bar under Section 25 Evidence Act: The heart of the High Court’s judgment lies in its extensive treatment of the confession recorded by the police. Section 25 of the Evidence Act is absolute: “no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused.” This statutory prohibition is a foundational safeguard against coercion, torture, or manipulation—protections that cannot be diluted even in cases of terrorism. The prosecution attempted an extraordinary argument: that the confession should be admissible under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which permits confessions to be recorded by senior police officers. But the Bench dismissed this submission outright, noting that TADA had lapsed in 1995 and the blast occurred in April 1996. As the Court put it, “the special exception provided under Section 15 of TADA, which allowed police confessions to be used as evidence, was not applicable to this case.” More damningly, the prosecution did not even produce the tape recorder as a material exhibit. The judges emphasised this flaw repeatedly, stating that “the device by which the alleged confessional statement was recorded… was not produced before the court,” making the recording unreliable and legally worthless. Once the confession was excluded—a mandatory consequence of Section 25—the entire structure of the prosecution’s case collapsed instantly, leaving behind no evidence capable of sustaining guilt.

The Bench quotes Section 25’s mandatory language and concludes:

“Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars any confession obtained by any inducement, threat or promise. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates an absolute bar on confessions made to a police officer.” (Para 81)

Regarding the tape recorder not being produced, the Court notes:

“It is noteworthy that the device by which alleged confessional statement of appellant Muhammad Ilyas was recorded in an audio cassette i.e. tape recorder was not produced before the court as a material exhibit. Therefore, even otherwise, it may be held that the confessional statement of Muhammad Ilyas recorded by and before the police is not duly proved and could not be proved in view of legal bar created by Section 25 of Evidence Act.” (Para 78)

Even the cassette itself, though produced, is useless in the absence of the device, certification, or proof of integrity.

The Statement Was Not Reproduced in Testimony: PW-11, the very officer who allegedly recorded the confession, did not reproduce the confession in his sworn deposition.

The Court remarks:

“Inasmuch as confessional statement of the accused-appellant Muhammad Ilyas are not reproduced during sworn testimony of PW11 who is main Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of accused-appellant.” (Para 79)

Thus, even if Section 25 did not exist, the confession is legally unproved.

IV. No recovery, no discovery, no circumstantial evidence

Items recovered from Ilyas (diary + railway tickets) are dismissed as legally irrelevant:

• Travel from Muzaffarnagar to Jammu Tawi or Ludhiana “cannot form the basis that he was involved in the present offence.”
• The diary entry naming Salim Kari is “hardly sufficient to connect the appellant.”

The Court then underscores that there is no discovery under Section 27 Evidence Act:

“No discovery has been made in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on pointing information divulged by the appellant-Mohammad Ilyas. Thus, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which creates an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not applicable.” (Para 81)

Importantly, the Court stresses that nothing incriminating was recovered even when Ilyas was in police custody under remand:

“Consequently, after excluding the confessional statement of the appellant recorded by PW11-Sector Officer, CBCID who is the main investigating officer of the case due to the embargo created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no incriminating material appears against the appellant which could prove his complicity in the offence. Therefore, the trial court’s findings against the appellant for the charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B 121-A, 124-A IPC and Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act are not found to be sustainable and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond resonable doubt due to want of legally admissible evidence against him. Thus, no chain of circumstances survives.” (Para 83)

V. The court’s assessment of conspiracy doctrine

The Bench reproduces extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence on conspiracies—including Kehar Singh, Som Nath Thapa, Paramhans Yadav—acknowledging that conspiracies are usually proved through circumstantial evidence. After excluding the barred confession, the judgment observes that no incriminating material appears, therefore prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this case is distinguishable from TADA-era judgments because there is nothing left to constitute even a circumstantial chain.

“…after excluding the confessional statement of the appellant recorded by PW11-Sector Officer, CBCID who is the main investigating officer of the case due to the embargo created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no incriminating material appears against the appellant which could prove his complicity in the offence. Therefore, the trial court’s findings against the appellant for the charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B 121-A, 124-A IPC and Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act are not found to be sustainable and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to want of legally admissible evidence against him” (Para 83)

VI. The application of the “benefit of doubt” doctrine

The Court cites Gurbachan Singh, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Inder Singh, and even Viscount Simon’s classic admonition—but only to underscore that this is not a case of fanciful doubt.

The Court is explicit: it is not indulging technicalities; rather, there exists no admissible evidence at all.

The Court states unequivocally:

“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges that the appellant conspired to plant a bomb along with co-accused to create a bomb explosion in the bus which resulted in large number of loss of lives and injuries to the passengers and damage to public property i.e., this bus. The findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the sentence awarded to the appellant are accordingly liable to be set aside”. (Para 85)

VII. The Final Outcome: Acquittal WITH HEAVY HEART

The Bench ends with one of the most emotionally direct conclusions in recent criminal jurisprudence:

“We are recording acquittal in this case with heavy heart as the case is of such propensity that it shocks the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their life in the terrorist plot”. (Para 84)

It orders:

• Immediate release of Ilyas after nearly three decades in custody.
• Cancellation of the trial court’s conviction under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B, 121-A, 124-A IPC and Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act.
• Compliance reports from the trial court.

The Court is painfully aware that acquittal is the only legally permissible outcome.

28 Years in Prison: A human tragedy the court could not ignore

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment is its recognition of the human cost of prolonged incarceration. Mohammad Ilyas had been in prison continuously throughout the pendency of his appeal. Nearly thirty years passed between the blast and the High Court’s verdict—years in which the world changed technologically, socially, and politically, while Ilyas remained confined within the walls of a prison on the basis of evidence now held legally inadmissible. The judgment does not dwell sentimentally on this suffering, but it does not hide from it either. The Bench notes, almost with quiet sorrow, that “the appellant has remained in custody throughout,” an observation that resonates with the fundamental principle that justice delayed is justice denied. The tragedy is twofold: an accused lost the prime decades of his life to a prosecution that could not prove its case; and the families of the victims, who lost loved ones in the blast, were denied justice because the investigation and prosecution failed to meet the minimal standards required for a terrorism trial. Both sides—accused and victims—stand abandoned by a system that neither punished the guilty nor protected the innocent.

“The appellant is acquitted of aforesaid charges. He has been in jail custody during pendency of the appeal, therefore, a release order will be issued by the trial Court in pursuance of the present judgment immediately, to secure his release from jail custody, if he is not wanted in any other case.” (Para 87)

The Court’s Final Word: A heavy-hearted acquittal

The judgment culminates in a conclusion that is both legally inevitable and emotionally fraught. The Court states plainly that “no incriminating evidence remains on the record,” and therefore the conviction “is accordingly liable to be set aside.” At the same time, the judges acknowledge the moral weight of letting an accused walk free in a case involving eighteen deaths. With these words, the Bench affirmed the constitutional duty of courts to uphold due process, even when the consequences emotionally burden the institution itself. The Court ordered Ilyas’s immediate release, subject only to his execution of a personal bond and sureties under Section 437-A CrPC.

Conclusion: A case that demands national reflection

The acquittal of Mohammad Ilyas forces India to confront a painful truth: that in the pursuit of justice for terror victims, the criminal justice system must not commit injustices of its own. When investigations are shoddy, when evidence is not collected properly, when confessions are relied upon instead of hard proof, the guilty escape and the innocent are condemned. In this case, the victims’ families have been left without closure, and an accused man has spent nearly thirty years in prison without legally admissible evidence against him. The Modinagar–Ghaziabad blast remains one of the region’s darkest moments—but the judicial aftermath has become a second tragedy, one marked by investigative failure, prosecutorial negligence, and systemic decay. The High Court’s decision restores legality, but cannot restore time. It upholds the law, but cannot undo the suffering. It acquits with heavy heart—and it leaves behind questions India must answer.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

The Architecture of Polarisation: A structural analysis of communal hate speech as a core electoral strategy in India (2024–2025)

Court Acts on Misinformation: FIR against channels for wrongly branding teacher a terrorist

Is targeting Muslims, calling them terrorists a common norm in colleges now?

State’s use of Anti-terror Laws against Dissenters also a form of Terrorism

The post A Terror Case Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court’s ‘heavy heart’ acquittal After 28 Years appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The news of an Indian Air Force Tejas falling silent during an aerobatic display at the Dubai Air Show breaks something deeper than headlines can capture.

Aerobatics are poetry written in vapour trails at the far edge of physics—where skill becomes prayer, courage becomes offering, and precision exists in margins thinner than breath.

These are not performances for cameras; they are testimonies of human mastery, flown by souls who accept the unforgiving contract between gravity and grace in service of a flag they would die defending.

To the Indian Air Force, to the family now navigating an ocean of absence:

I offer what words can never carry—condolence wrapped in understanding that only those who’ve worn wings can truly know. A pilot has not merely fallen. A guardian of impossible altitudes has been summoned home. Somewhere tonight, a uniform hangs unworn. Somewhere, a child asks when father returns. Somewhere, the sky itself feels emptier.

But what wounds me beyond the crash, beyond the loss, is the poison of mockery seeping from voices on our side of a border that should never divide the brotherhood of those who fly.

This is not patriotism—it is the bankruptcy of the soul. One may question doctrines, challenge strategies, even condemn policies with righteous fury—but never, not in a universe governed by honour, does one mock the courage of a warrior doing his duty in the cathedral of sky.

He flew not for applause but for love of country, just as our finest do. That demands reverence, not ridicule wrapped in nationalist pride gone rancid.

I too have watched brothers vanish into silence— Sherdil Leader Flt Lt Alamdar and Sqn Ldr Hasnat—men who lived at altitudes where angels hold their breath, men who understood that the sky demands everything and promises nothing.

In the moment an aircraft goes quiet, there are no nationalities, no anthems, and no flags. There is only the terrible democracy of loss, and families left clutching photographs of men who once touched clouds.

A true professional recognises another professional across any divide.

A true warrior—one worthy of the title—salutes courage even when it wears the wrong uniform, flies the wrong colours, speaks the wrong tongue.

Anything less diminishes not them, but us. Our mockery stains our own wings, dishonours our own fallen, makes hollow our claims to valour.

Let me speak clearly: courage knows no passport. Sacrifice acknowledges no border. The pilot who pushes his machine to its screaming limits in service of national pride deserves honour—whether he flies under saffron, white and green, or under green and white alone.

May the departed aviator find eternal skies beyond all turbulence, where machines never fail and horizons stretch forever.

May his family discover strength in places language cannot reach, in the knowledge that their loss illuminates something sacred about human courage.

And may we—on both sides of lines drawn in sand and blood—find the maturity to honour what deserves honouring, to mourn what deserves mourning, and to remember that before we are citizens of nations, we are citizens of sky—all of us temporary, all of us mortal, all of us trying to touch something infinite before gravity reclaims us.

The sky grieves without borders.

Let us do the same.

Air Commodore Pervez Akhtar Khan

فضاؤں کے پار ایک سلام

دبئی ایئر شو میں بھارتی فضائیہ کے طیارے تیجس کے المناک حادثے کی خبر وہ درد ہے جو سرخیوں سے بڑا ہے۔ ایروبیاٹکس محض کرتب نہیں—یہ بخارات کی لکیروں میں لکھی گئی شاعری ہے، طبیعیات کی آخری حد پر، جہاں مہارت دعا بن جاتی ہے، جرات قربانی بن جاتی ہے، اور درستگی سانس سے باریک حاشیوں میں قید ہوتی ہے۔ یہ کیمروں کے لیے نمائش نہیں—یہ انسانی کمال کی گواہی ہے، ان روحوں کی اُڑان ہے جو کشش ثقل اور وقار کے درمیان بے رحم معاہدہ قبول کرتے ہیں، اس جھنڈے کی خاطر جس کے لیے وہ مر مٹنے کو تیار رہتے ہیں۔

بھارتی فضائیہ کو، اس خاندان کو جو اب غم کے سمندر میں ڈوبا ہے: میری تعزیت وہ ہے جو الفاظ کبھی ادا نہیں کر سکتے—صرف وہ سمجھ سکتے ہیں جنہوں نے پر باندھے ہیں۔ صرف ایک پائلٹ نہیں گرا۔ ناممکن بلندیوں کا ایک محافظ واپس بلایا گیا ہے۔ آج کہیں ایک وردی بے استعمال لٹکی ہے۔ کہیں ایک بچہ پوچھتا ہے کہ ابّا کب آئیں گے۔ کہیں آسمان خود کو خالی محسوس کرتا ہے۔

لیکن جو مجھے حادثے سے بھی زیادہ زخمی کرتا ہے، نقصان سے بھی زیادہ تکلیف دیتا ہے، وہ ہے ہماری سرحد کے اس طرف سے اٹھنے والی تمسخر کی آوازیں۔ یہ حب الوطنی نہیں—یہ روح کا دیوالیہ پن ہے۔ کوئی نظریات پر سوال اٹھا سکتا ہے، حکمت عملیوں کو چیلنج کر سکتا ہے، یہاں تک کہ پالیسیوں کی مذمت کر سکتا ہے—لیکن کبھی نہیں، عزت کے قوانین میں کبھی نہیں، کوئی اس جنگجو کی جرات کا مذاق نہیں اڑاتا جو آسمان کی عبادت گاہ میں اپنا فرض ادا کر رہا تھا۔ وہ تالیوں کے لیے نہیں بلکہ وطن کی محبت کے لیے اُڑا، بالکل جیسے ہمارے بہترین پرواز کرتے ہیں۔ یہ احترام کا مستحق ہے، نہ کہ قومی غرور میں سڑے ہوئے طعنوں کا۔

میں نے بھی بھائیوں کو خاموشی میں غائب ہوتے دیکھا ہے—شیردل لیڈر فلائٹ لیفٹیننٹ علمدار اور اسکواڈرن لیڈر حشناط—وہ مرد جو ان بلندیوں پر رہتے تھے جہاں فرشتے بھی سانس روک لیتے ہیں، جو سمجھتے تھے کہ آسمان سب کچھ مانگتا ہے اور کچھ وعدہ نہیں کرتا۔ جب طیارہ خاموش ہوتا ہے تو قومیتیں نہیں ہوتیں، ترانے نہیں ہوتے، جھنڈے نہیں ہوتے۔ صرف نقصان کی خوفناک برابری ہوتی ہے، اور خاندان جو ان مردوں کی تصویریں تھامے رہ جاتے ہیں جو کبھی بادلوں کو چھوتے تھے۔

سچا پیشہ ور کسی بھی تقسیم کے پار دوسرے پیشہ ور کو پہچانتا ہے۔ سچا جنگجو—جو اس لقب کا حقدار ہو—جرات کو سلام کرتا ہے چاہے وہ غلط وردی میں ہو، غلط رنگوں میں اُڑے، غلط زبان بولے۔ اس سے کم کچھ بھی انہیں نہیں بلکہ ہمیں چھوٹا کرتا ہے۔ ہمارا مذاق ہمارے اپنے پروں کو داغدار کرتا ہے، ہمارے اپنے شہیدوں کی بے عزتی کرتا ہے، ہمارے بہادری کے دعووں کو کھوکھلا بناتا ہے۔

میں صاف کہوں: جرات کا کوئی پاسپورٹ نہیں ہوتا۔ قربانی کوئی سرحد نہیں مانتی۔ وہ پائلٹ جو اپنی مشین کو قومی فخر کی خدمت میں اس کی چیخ کی حدوں تک لے جاتا ہے، عزت کا مستحق ہے—چاہے وہ زعفرانی، سفید اور سبز کے نیچے اُڑے، یا صرف سبز اور سفید کے نیچے۔

اللہ مرحوم ہوا باز کو ابدی آسمان عطا فرمائے جہاں ہنگامے نہیں، جہاں مشینیں کبھی ناکام نہیں ہوتیں اور افق ہمیشہ پھیلتے رہتے ہیں۔

اللہ ان کے اہلِ خانہ کو ان جگہوں پر طاقت عطا فرمائے جہاں زبان نہیں پہنچ سکتی، اس علم میں کہ ان کا نقصان انسانی جرات کے بارے میں کچھ مقدس روشن کرتا ہے۔

اور اللہ ہمیں—ریت اور خون میں کھینچی گئی لکیروں کے دونوں طرف—یہ سمجھ عطا فرمائے کہ ہم جو عزت کا مستحق ہے اس کی عزت کریں، جو ماتم کا مستحق ہے اس کا ماتم کریں، اور یاد رکھیں کہ قوموں کے شہری بننے سے پہلے، ہم آسمان کے شہری ہیں—ہم سب عارضی، ہم سب فانی، ہم سب کوشش کر رہے ہیں کہ کشش ثقل ہمیں واپس بلانے سے پہلے کچھ لامحدود کو چھو لیں۔

آسمان سرحدوں کے بغیر غم کرتا ہے۔

ہم بھی ایسا ہی کریں۔..

The post A Salute across the skies, from Air Commodore Pervez Akhtar Khan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the heart of the Reference were 14 questions touching upon the options available to Governors when presented with Bills, the limits of executive discretion, the permissibility of judicial timelines, the concept of “deemed assent,” and the extent of judicial review over the President and Governor when acting under Articles 200 and 201.

The Court insisted that the issues raised by the President “strike at the root of the continuation of our republican and democratic way, and the Constitution’s federal character.” This reference, the Court said, concerns a “functional” constitutional problem, namely: persistent deadlock between elected State governments and Governors over legislative assent.

I.  Re-Reading Article 200: No power of indefinite withholding

The Court unequivocally held that Article 200 does not permit a Governor to withhold assent simpliciter. Withholding, the Court emphasised, is inextricably linked with the obligation to return the Bill to the Legislature with comments. Treating “withhold assent” as a standalone power would allow the Governor to effectively veto legislation by inaction — a result the Court described as antithetical to federalism.

The bench foregrounded the text of the first proviso to Article 200, observing that it explicitly curtails only one of the three options available to the Governor — the option to withhold assent — once a Bill is repassed by the House:

“The text of the first proviso to Article 200 through its phrasing “shall not withhold assent therefrom” clearly indicates that what was sought to be curtailed among the three options, was only the option to ‘withhold’. We have already held that the first proviso conditions the verb ‘withhold’, to mean withhold and return to the Legislature. The first proviso cannot be read in a manner so as to condition the option of the Governor to reserve the Bill for President’s consideration as well.” (Para 99)

This reading is transformative. It anchors the proviso as a constitutional safeguard ensuring meaningful legislative–executive dialogue, not an additional, fourth option. The Court rejected the Union Government’s contention that returning the Bill is an independent option, insisting instead that withholding and returning are a composite act.

Money bills and constitutional logic

A particularly incisive part of the reasoning is the Court’s rejection of the Union’s argument on the Governor’s independent power to withhold. The Court explained that if a “simpliciter” power to withhold existed, it would extend even to Money Bills, which the Governor is constitutionally prohibited from returning. This, the bench held, would “defy constitutional logic.”

The opinion stressed that the choice must favour a “dialogic process,” which encourages institutional comity and deliberation, rather than an interpretation that enables “obstructionism” by the Governor.

II. The Governor’s Discretion: Limited but real

While affirming that the Governor normally acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Court held that Article 200 constitutes an exception. The presence of the phrase “in his opinion” in the second proviso creates a narrow zone of discretion for returning or reserving Bills.

Yet, the Court sharply differentiated this discretion from unreviewable political authority. The discretion must operate within constitutional boundaries, guided by the structure of cooperative federalism.

III.  Reservation After Re-Passage: Governor retains the option

Rejecting the contrary position taken in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, the 5-judge bench held that a Governor may reserve a Bill even after it has been re-passed by the Legislature following its initial return. This becomes critical where the Legislature modifies the Bill in ways that implicate federal or inter-State concerns.

The Court articulated this function as one of constitutional vigilance:

“Since it is the Governor who considers the Bill in its amended form, and is able to compare it to the earlier version passed by the Legislature, it is his constitutional function to decide whether the Bill ought to be assented to, or if its amended form affects such inter-state, or federal aspect of the country, requiring the attention of the President.” (Para 100)

This reasoning defends cooperative federalism against strategic legislative manoeuvres while preventing governor obstruction of ordinary legislative processes.

IV.  Judicial review, inaction, and the limits of Article 361

The Court provided a nuanced delineation of the scope of judicial review over the Governor’s actions.

The bar on merit review vs. exception for inaction

The general rule is that the discharge of the Governor’s functions under Article 200 is not justiciable; the Court cannot enter into a “merit-review” of the decision itself (e.g., why the Bill was returned).

However, the Court carved out a limited exception for cases of “glaring circumstance of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite.” In such instances, the Court can exercise judicial review to issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to discharge his functions within a reasonable time, without commenting on the outcome (assent or reservation).

Article 361 and the office of the governor

Addressing the scope of Article 361 (Protection of President and Governors), the Court clarified that while the Article provides an absolute bar against judicial proceedings concerning the Governor’s personal acts; it cannot entirely immunize the office of the Governor from constitutional oversight.

“Article 361 of the Constitution is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. It is clarified that while the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.” (Para 165.4)

Non-justiciability of bills

The Court reiterated the established principle that the decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable at a stage anterior (before) the law comes into force. The contents of a Bill cannot be adjudicated by the courts until the legislative process is complete and the Bill becomes an Act.

V.  No judicial timelines, no “deemed assent”

The Opinion delivered a firm constitutional check on the Judiciary’s power to intrude into the executive and legislative domains by rejecting the idea of prescribing time limits.

Upholding constitutional elasticity

The bench held that the absence of a time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a feature of the Constitution, not a bug. It provides a necessary “sense of elasticity” for constitutional authorities to navigate complex legislative matters in a diverse federal country.

“The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves.” (Para 115)

For this reason, the Court held that it is inappropriate to judicially prescribe a timeline for the Governor or the President, thereby protecting the operational space of the executive branch.

The unconstitutionality of ‘deemed assent’

The most potent argument against judicial overreach was the definitive rejection of the doctrine of ‘deemed assent,’ which was a major point of confusion post-the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Court explicitly stated that declaring a Bill law simply because a timeline was breached is a violation of the Separation of Powers and an abuse of Article 142.

“We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution.” (Para 128)

The Court confirmed that a State law cannot be in force without the Governor’s assent, and the Governor’s legislative role “cannot be supplanted by another Constitutional authority.”

VI.  Article 201: Presidential discretion mirrors governor discretion

Applying similar reasoning to Article 201, the Court held:

• Presidential discretion under Article 201 is non-justiciable.
• No timelines may be imposed on the President.
• The President is not required to seek judicial opinion each time a Bill is reserved.
• The President may, in cases of uncertainty, invoke Article 143 — but this is not mandatory.

The Court thus restored symmetry in the constitutional design of executive assent.

VII.  Maintainability of the reference and the Tamil Nadu judgment

The States argued that the Reference was an “appeal in disguise” against the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Court rejected this argument. It underscored:

1. Article 143 is a constitutional safety valve, allowing the President to seek clarity where judicial decisions create systemic uncertainty.
2. Some conclusions in the Tamil Nadu judgment were in “variance with earlier decisions,” creating a state of doubt about foundational constitutional processes.
3. The reference concerns day-to-day functioning of constitutional authorities, unlike previous references.

Invoking In re Special Courts Bill and the 2G Reference, the Court reiterated that responding to a reference may include clarifying, explaining, or even overruling precedent if necessary for constitutional coherence.

VIII.  Dialogic constitutionalism as a structural principle

Perhaps the most significant part of the opinion is the Court’s articulation of dialogic constitutionalism as the governing principle under Articles 200 and 201. The Court rejected a mechanical “checks-and-balances” model in favour of an iterative, conversational relationship between the Legislature, Governor, and Union.

In its opinion, the Court observed:

“A dialogic process, which has the potential to understand and reflect on conflicting or opposing perspectives, to reconcile and to move forward in a constructive manner, is an equally potent check-and-balance system that the Constitution has prescribed. Once this perspective is grasped, the persons who occupy various constitutional offices or institutions will also do well to ingrain in themselves that dialogue, reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism is the essence of constitutionalism that we practice in this Republic.” (Para 64)

This articulation transforms how we conceptualise federal dynamics. The emphasis is not on vetoes but on structured interaction, mutual accountability, and constitutional good faith.

Summary of answers to presidential queries

The 14 queries posed by the President under Article 143 were addressed as follows:

Where the opinion falls short

While the Supreme Court’s opinion undeniably brings clarity to the constitutional scheme of assent, it is not immune from critique. In fact, several aspects of the opinion raise serious concerns about practical enforceability, institutional realism, and the Court’s own conception of constitutional federalism.

1.  The court’s rejection of timelines leaves a real vacuum

The Court’s insistence that timelines cannot be judicially prescribed because Articles 200 and 201 contemplate “elasticity” may be doctrinally defensible, but it leaves a pressing institutional problem unresolved.

In recent years, several Governors have delayed Bills for 12–18 months, creating deliberate legislative paralysis. The Court recognises this reality — it even describes such conduct as capable of “frustrating the legislative process” — but then offers only a limited mandamus, a remedy whose effectiveness depends on judicial willingness to intervene case by case.

This raises the question: Is elastic constitutional design being used to justify an increasingly inflexible political obstruction?

The Court’s refusal to articulate even outer constitutional boundaries (e.g., “reasonable time” standards, structured guidelines, presumptive limits) risks normalising governor delay as a political weapon.

2. The decision overestimates the governor’s neutrality

The opinion rests heavily on the idea that the Governor engages in a “constitutional conversation” with the Legislature. This idealised model presumes constitutional good faith — an assumption that does not align with contemporary political realities.

Governors today often act:

• as agents of the Union Government,
• as political veto points,
• with partisan motivations rather than deliberative ones.

By retaining wide discretion after re-passage (including the power to reserve), the Court may have inadvertently reinforced avenues of political interference rather than constrained them.

3.  The court rejects deemed assent but offers no functional alternative

The Court is doctrinally correct that deemed assent couldn’t be judicially manufactured.
But rejecting deemed assent without creating:

• temporal guardrails,
• presumptive timelines,
• structured standards for delay, or
• constitutional consequences for non-action means the status quo of indefinite executive stalling may remain substantially unchanged.

The Court’s solution — a “limited mandamus” in cases of “prolonged and unexplained inaction” — is conceptually elegant but practically weak. Governors can simply supply some explanation for delay to forestall judicial review.

4.  The Opinion Avoids Confronting the Hard Question: What happens if the governor still does not act?

Even after a mandamus directing the Governor to “decide within a reasonable period,” the Court does not address:

• What if the Governor still does not act?
• Can the Court enforce compliance?
• Can non-compliance itself trigger constitutional consequences?

By stopping short of answering these questions, the Court leaves open the possibility that constitutional commands may remain judicially unenforceable.

5.  The court’s “dialogic federalism” is normatively attractive, but descriptively unrealistic

The opinion’s philosophical turn toward “dialogue, reconciliation and balance” is attractive and intellectually sophisticated. However, Indian federalism today is marked by:

• partisan conflict,
• aggressive centralisation,
• Governors acting as political brakes on opposition-ruled States,
• selective obstruction of specific policy agendas.

In such an environment, dialogic federalism risks becoming constitutional romanticism, a theoretical model with limited grounding in empirical governance.

6.  The decision leaves the legislature ultimately dependent on executive grace

Even after clarifying the options, the Court affirms that:

• the Governor has discretion to reserve Bills (even after repassage),
• the President’s discretion under Article 201 is non-justiciable,
• and no timelines apply at either level.

This means a State law may still be caught in executive limbo between Raj Bhavan and Rashtrapati Bhavan for months or years, with no remedy except discretionary judicial nudges.

The structure therefore remains executive-heavy and legislature-vulnerable.

Conclusion

The Court’s opinion is doctrinally coherent, textually grounded, and institutionally respectful of separation of powers. It restores structural clarity and corrects errors in the Tamil Nadu Governor decision. Its articulation of dialogic federalism is aspirational and constitutionally rich.

However, the opinion also reflects a profound judicial reluctance to discipline constitutional actors who act in bad faith. By declining to set timelines, refusing to articulate enforceable standards, and preserving a broad zone of discretion for Governors and the President, the Court leaves significant room for political misuse of constitutional offices.

In effect, the opinion clarifies the law but does not fully address the practical crisis of governor obstruction that sparked the reference itself. It upholds constitutional ideals but leaves unresolved the very dysfunction that compelled the President to invoke Article 143.

The opinion thus represents a structural clarification without structural correction — a doctrinal victory, but an incomplete solution to a deepening constitutional tension between democratic mandates and executive gatekeeping.

The complete opinion may be read below.

Related:

Tamil Nadu Governor delivers another googly, refers the ten re-adopted bills to the President, state calls it a “Hit on the Constitution”

Supreme Court questions Kerala Governor: “Why was the governor sitting on bills for 2 years?”

By holding up bills, are Governors undermining democracy? 

Governor, a bridge between centre & state, overstep is overreach: review of judicial decisions

The post Clarity Without Cure: The Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of Articles 200 and 201 and the future of federal governance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Election Commission of India (ECI) claims that it is to update and purify the voter lists, the methodology being employed on the ground has come under intense scrutiny following the deaths of government employees and citizens.

The exercise, which involves rigorous door-to-door verification, data collection, and digitisation of voter records, has been compressed into a tight schedule. Political leaders and employee unions allege that a process that traditionally spans years has been forced into a two-month window, creating unrealistic targets. This issue has reportedly resulted in “inhuman” work pressure for the foot soldiers of the process—the Booth Level Officers (BLOs)—and ignited fears of disenfranchisement among the poor, reminiscent of the anxieties surrounding the National Register of Citizens (NRC), as per a report in Livemint.

This report details the unfolding tragedy across three states—West Bengal, Rajasthan, and Kerala—documenting the specific incidents of suicide, the allegations of harassment by supervisors, and the systemic failures that have left families in mourning.

West Bengal

West Bengal has reported the highest intensity of distress-related incidents since the enumeration exercise began. The state has witnessed fatalities among officials tasked with the work, as well as suicide attempts by citizens panicked by the sudden demand for documentation.

The suicide of Shantimoni Ekka

In the Rangamati Panchayat of Malbazar, the SIR process claimed the life of Shantimoni Ekka. A 48-year-old Anganwadi worker, Ekka had been conscripted into election duty as a BLO. On November 19, her family’s routine was shattered when they found her body hanging in the courtyard of their home.

The circumstances leading to her death reveal a systemic failure to support ground-level staff. Her family states that she was the sole BLO for her booth and was buckling under the pressure of distributing and collecting forms door-to-door.

According to the Indian Express, her son, Bishu Ekka, spoke to the media about his mother’s deteriorating mental state. He explained that the sheer volume of forms was overwhelming, and a critical language barrier made the task impossible.

“She was very disturbed mentally,” Bishu said.

“She had tremendous work pressure. There was the work pressure of the ICDS (Integrated Child Development Service) and then this BLO duty. There were too many forms, and the forms were in Bengali, and no one was able to help us” as reported

According to the report, this linguistic disconnect was corroborated by her husband, Soko Ekka. He pointed out that while the forms provided by the administration were in Bengali, their area is predominantly Hindi-speaking. This mismatch caused confusion among residents, who were unable to understand the forms or filled them out incorrectly. The burden of rectifying these errors fell entirely on Shantimoni.

“Many are not understanding and filling in wrongly,” Soko said.

He further added that “She was under tremendous pressure; she used to tell me that with the BLO work, she was unable to do any other work”

Most damning is the revelation that Shantimoni had attempted to exit the process before taking her life. Her husband revealed that she had approached officials to resign from her BLO duties. However, her request was summarily rejected. The officer in charge reportedly told her that since her name was already in the system, it could not be cancelled. Feeling trapped between an unyielding administration and an unmanageable workload, she took the extreme step.

“We thought that she had gone to cook in the morning but later, we saw her hanging,” her husband said

Previous fatalities and medical emergencies

Shantimoni Ekka’s death was not an isolated event in the state. Just days prior, on November 9, another BLO named Namita Hansdar died in Purba Bardhaman. Hansdar, who was responsible for booth number 278 in Chowk Balrampur, Memari, suffered a fatal brain stroke. Her family has alleged that the stroke was the direct result of exhaustion, stating she had been forced to work “day and night” to meet the SIR deadlines.

Citizen panic and the shadow of NRC

While officials face administrative pressure, the common citizens of West Bengal are facing a different kind of terror as the fear of statelessness. The SIR exercise involves verifying old records, a process that has inadvertently triggered trauma related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

As per a report in Bhaskar English, in North 24 Parganas this fear nearly killed Ashok Sardar. The 63-year-old rickshaw puller from Prafullanagar Low Land, under Kamarhati Municipality, jumped onto the railway tracks near the CCR Bridge at Belgharia. He survived the impact but sustained critical injuries, leading to the amputation of one of his limbs. He remains in a serious condition at RG Kar Hospital.

The police and his family confirmed that his suicide attempt was driven by anxiety over the SIR process. Sardar had recently discovered that he and his wife were unable to locate their names in the 2002 voters’ list. In the current political climate, where documentation is often conflated with citizenship status, this discrepancy caused him to panic.

His daughter, Chaitali Sarkar, explained his mindset that “For days, father kept saying he had no documents. He feared he might be thrown out of the country. That fear may have driven him to do this.”

According to police sources, Sardar had been living in “persistent fear” after hearing about the distribution of forms and the document requirements mandated by the SIR exercise.

Political confrontation

The rising death toll has led to a sharp confrontation between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee took to social media platform X to express her shock, stating that “28 people have already lost their lives since SIR began.”

She categorised these deaths as a result of fear, uncertainty, stress, and overload.

Deeply shocked and saddened.

Today again, we lost a Booth Level Officer in Mal, Jalpaiguri — Smt Shanti Muni Ekka, a tribal lady, an anganwadi worker who took her own life under the unbearable pressure of the ongoing SIR work.

28 people have already lost their lives since SIR…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 19, 2025

Banerjee followed this public statement with a formal letter to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. In the letter, she called for an immediate halt to the SIR drive, describing it as “unplanned, chaotic, and dangerous.”

“I am compelled to write to you as the situation surrounding the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has reached a deeply alarming stage,” Banerjee wrote.

CM Banerjee said that “The manner in which this exercise is being forced upon officials and citizens is not only unplanned and chaotic, but also dangerous… A process that earlier took 3 years is now being forced into 2 months on the eve of elections to please political masters, putting inhuman pressure on BLOs.”

“Unrealistic workloads, impossible timelines and inadequate support with online data.. BLOs are operating beyond human limits…and fearful of punitive action .. at the peak of the paddy harvest season the timing of this exercise is indefensible..I request you to halt this… pic.twitter.com/i0zkSMVKxm

— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) November 20, 2025

She urged the ECI to “act with conscience” and stop the drive before more lives were lost.

In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition in the Bengal Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, defended the Election Commission. He attributed the issues to local administrative mismanagement rather than the central directive. Speaking to the media, Adhikari said, “I have found out the reason is the joint BDO. The EC has no role. The TMC was to destroy the SIR, but we are happy that the SIR has begun in Bengal.”

A Strong Rebuttal to Mamata Banerjee’s desperate attempt to sabotage the Voter List Purification Drive.

I have sent a detailed letter to Hon’ble Chief Election Commissioner; Shri Gyanesh Kumar, completely exposing the politically motivated and factually bogus letter written by… pic.twitter.com/TXngNmFhTT

— Suvendu Adhikari (@SuvenduWB) November 20, 2025

He claimed that in other states where SIR is ongoing, “nothing is happening,” and that the crisis was specific to TMC-ruled Bengal.

Rajasthan

The crisis is not limited to Bengal, reports from Rajasthan indicate similar distress among government employees. In Jaipur, the pressure of the SIR exercise resulted in the suicide of a government school teacher, Mukesh Chand Jangid.

The death of Mukesh Chand Jangid

Jangid, who was serving as a BLO, died by suicide on November 16, by jumping in front of a train. Unlike the cases in Bengal where general pressure was blamed, Jangid left behind specific evidence of harassment. A suicide note recovered from his pocket accused his supervisor, Sitaram Bunkar, of mental harassment and repeated threats of suspension.

पश्चिम बंगाल के जलपाईगुड़ी में BLO शांति मुनि जी ने खुदकुशी कर ली। ये बेहद दुखद और चिंताजनक है।

इससे पहले राजस्थान, मध्य प्रदेश, केरल और तमिलनाडु से भी BLO के आत्महत्या से जुड़ी खबरें आई थीं।

ऐसे हर मामले में ये बात सामने आ रही है कि SIR के दबाव की वजह से BLO आत्महत्या कर रहे… pic.twitter.com/sjstmDOuuY

— Congress (@INCIndia) November 19, 2025

The timeline of his death, reconstructed by his family, paints a picture of a dedicated officer pushed to the brink. His younger brother, Gajanan, revealed that the suicide note was dated November 13—three days before his death. This suggests Jangid had been carrying the note while continuing to perform his duties.

According to Dainik Bhaskar, on the evening of November 15, Jangid received a long phone call from his supervisor. Following the call, at 9:30 PM, he handed a thick bundle of voter forms to his younger brother, asking him to paste passport-sized photographs on them, indicating he was still trying to complete the work.

The next morning, at 4:45 AM, he left his home in Dharampura (Kalwar) in his home clothes. At 6:45 AM, the family received a call from the Bindayka police station asking them to identify his body on the railway tracks.

Technical failures and “digital” pressure

Jangid’s son, 10-year-old Revanshu, provided insight into the technical struggles his father faced. As part of the modernisation of the electoral rolls, BLOs are required to collect data offline and then upload it to a central server. This process was reportedly fraught with glitches.

Revanshu said that his father working late into the night, struggling with the upload process, and often seeking help from colleagues who were equally helpless. When the child asked when the work would finish, Jangid replied that he did not know when it would end.

Family’s allegations of cover-up

The aftermath of Jangid’s death has been marked by conflict between the family and the police. Mukesh’s uncle, Bhanwarlal Jangid, stated that the police have refused to hand over copies of the suicide note or the FIR to the family. The investigating officer reportedly only read the note aloud to them. The family has expressed deep dissatisfaction with the investigation, though CI Vinod Kumar has assured that those named in the note will be questioned.

The tragedy has devastated the family’s future. Jangid is survived by his wife, Meena Devi, and two daughters, Annu (23) and Jyoti (21). Both daughters are engaged to be married next year. Instead of wedding preparations, the household is now in mourning, as reported

Kerala

In Kerala, the suicide of a BLO has sparked a massive mobilisation of state government employees, leading to strikes and boycotts.

The death of Aneesh George

Aneesh George, a 44-year-old BLO in the Payyannur Assembly constituency of Kannur, was found hanging in his house on a Sunday. His family immediately attributed his death to the intense pressure to complete the SIR enumeration process by the December 4 deadline.

#WATCH | Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala | BLOs across the state boycotted work in protest over the suicide of a BLO in Kannur. They marched to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer
In other districts, protests were held at the District Collectorates. The protest was jointly… pic.twitter.com/i7vhS7VEsc

— ANI (@ANI) November 17, 2025

The political reaction in Kerala mirrored the polarisation seen in other states. According to the Telegraph India, leader of the opposition V.D. Satheesan alleged that George had faced threats from CPM workers after a Congress booth-level agent accompanied him for enumeration. The CPM, however, rejected these claims, with Kannur district secretary K.K. Ragesh stating that George’s death was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern seen in Rajasthan and Bengal due to ECI targets.

Leaked audio and “dire consequences”

The allegations of coercion gained credibility when local television channels aired a leaked audio message from an electoral registration officer in Pathanamthitta district. In the recording, the officer is heard warning BLOs of “dire consequences” if they failed to meet the strict targets set for the revision process. This audio confirmed the fears of many employees that their jobs were on the line if they could not keep up with the accelerated pace, as reported

SIR में ड्यूटी करने वाले कई BLO अत्यधिक दबाव के चलते आत्महत्या कर चुके हैं.

SIR कर्मचारी इतना ज़्यादा दबाव में क्यों काम कर रहे हैं?

सरकार इतनी जल्दी में क्यों है? #BLOSuicide #SIR pic.twitter.com/1MjLuNLKfl

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) November 20, 2025

Mass boycott

In response to the suicide and the threats, the trade unions of Kerala mobilised. On November 17, approximately 35,000 BLOs across the state boycotted SIR work. Under the banner of various state government employee unions, they held protests outside the Chief Electoral Office in Thiruvananthapuram and at district collectorates.

The protesting employees demanded that the authorities refrain from exerting excessive pressure and called for a postponement of the SIR process, citing the upcoming local body elections in December as a reason for the unbearable workload.

A systemic crisis

The events in West Bengal, Rajasthan, and Kerala highlight a fundamental disconnect between the claims of the Election Commission and the human capacity of its workforce.

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee in her letter to the CEC noted that the process suffers from “critical gaps in training, lack of clarity on mandatory documentation and the near-impossibility of meeting voters in the midst of their livelihood schedules.” The shift from a multi-year timeline to a two-month sprint has removed the necessary buffer for error correction and stress management.

In a shameless attempt to serve the @BJP4India’s political greed, the @ECISVEEP has recklessly rushed the SIR process, and is now driving people to their deaths. A BLO has died by suicide after being crushed under inhuman workloads. Will the Election Commission finally admit its… pic.twitter.com/q7zUs60fcF

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) November 20, 2025

Furthermore, the legal context remains complicated. The SIR process was challenged in the Supreme Court after it was launched in Bihar, and the matter remains pending. While the Court has issued directions regarding the use of Aadhaar cards for identity verification, the implementation on the ground remains chaotic.

While officials have noted that the SIR exercise concluded without such fatalities in Bihar, the rising body count in other states suggests that the “Bihar model” is not seamlessly replicable. Whether it is the language barrier in Malbazar, the digital divide in Jaipur, or the political volatility in Kannur, the “one size fits all” approach is failing.

The human cost of documentation

The climate of fear produced by the SIR drive is inseparable from the shadows cast by earlier citizenship exercises such as the NRC and the CAA. The recent death of 57-year-old Pradip Kar from Agarpara in North 24 Parganas is the latest tragic reminder of how deeply these anxieties have penetrated everyday life in Bengal. On October 28, 2025, Kar was found hanging in his home, leaving behind a note that read “NRC is responsible for my death.”

According to Sabrang India, Kar’s family said he had grown visibly distressed after the Election Commission announced the SIR across 12 states, including West Bengal—a move widely feared in the state as a precursor to an NRC-like process. Barrackpore Police Commissioner Murlidhar Sharma confirmed that while no foul play was detected, the suicide note made an explicit reference to the NRC. “The family told us he was deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports. After the SIR announcement, he appeared anxious, but they assumed it was illness,” Sharma said. Kar’s sister added that he repeatedly told the family, “They will take me away in the name of NRC.”

Kar’s death mirrored the earlier tragedy of 31-year-old Debashish Sengupta from Kolkata, who died by suicide in March 2024 after being consumed by fears induced by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As reported by Sabrang India, Sengupta—who was visiting his grandparents in South 24 Parganas—was found hanging after confiding that his ailing father, a migrant from Bangladesh, could be denied citizenship due to inadequate documents. His family said he was “consumed by dread” that the newly notified CAA rules would render many stateless.

These deaths are no longer isolated cases as they are symptomatic of a broader psychological crisis in which bureaucratic exercises intended to update records instead evoke existential fears of erasure. Across Bengal, whispers that “NRC is coming through the backdoor” have gained the weight of lived experience. For vulnerable citizens, the acceleration of documentation requirements—whether through SIR, NRC, or CAA—has become indistinguishable from a threat to their very belonging.

Related:

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

The post SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision did more than meet Kaushik’s claims for compensation. It issued far-reaching institutional directions: the creation of a committee headed by retired Justice Asha Menon to propose a model Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) for transgender persons, and then, further ordered that the policy, following the guidelines, would be binding on all establishments, public and private, until the Union Government delivered its own. Through this action, the Court bridged the historic gap between recognition and implementation of equality, making it move from being an aspiration into an enforceable mechanism.

A Case that Became a Constitutional Reckoning

Unfortunately, Jane’s experience is not unique. After revealing her gender identity, she was forced to turn in her resignation after only eight days on the job at a school in Uttar Pradesh; a school in Gujarat later rescinded her job offer on similar grounds. She subsequently filed with the Supreme Court, under Article 32, arguing that these actions were violations of her constitutional rights and of the 2019 Act that prohibits discrimination “in any matter relating to employment.”

The court agreed. The Bench noted that discrimination on the part of private employers that is gender identity-based “strikes at the heart of the constitutional guarantee of dignity and equality” and explained that by not doing something about such exclusions by private entities state was making an “omissive discrimination.” The judges reminded the government, in the end, that the TG Act and its 2020 Rules were not too long ago, “brutally reduced to dead letters” by the government’s bureaucratic apathy.

While acknowledging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the 2020 Rules, the Court regretted that they “have been brutally rendered dead letters” (para 35, p. 29). It further criticized the “grossly indifferent approach to the transgender community,” noting that this inaction “cannot in any way be fairly regarded as inadvertent or accidental; it is deliberate and is undoubtedly rooted in societal stigma, compounded by a lack of bureaucratic will” (para 35, p. 29). This scathing indictment of bureaucratic failure was coupled with a clear finding that the petitioner’s termination constituted a violation of her dignity, livelihood, and equality.

In asserting both direct and indirect discrimination, the Court put the question of gender identity discrimination into a framework of systemic injustice, and not simply a personal grievance. The damages awarded to Kaushik were symbolic, but profound: declaring through the judiciary that dignity is not contingent on conformity.

The Constitutional Arc: From NALSA to Kaushik

The judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India is not disconnected from a trajectory of equality jurisprudence over the last decade or so. Its reasoning is founded upon three separate but constitutional landmark decisions — National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 438], Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1], and Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India (Ministry of Law and Justice) [(2018) 10 SCC 1] — each of which represented a point in India’s constitutional journey from recognition to dignity.

In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), the Supreme Court expressly recognized transgender individuals as “the third gender,” indicating that Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 recognize the right to equality and dignity for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity. The judgment stated, “Gender identity is inherent to the concept of personhood…one of the most fundamental elements of dignity, self-determination, and freedom.” The Court also mandated that the state governments recognize self-identification and take proactive measures relating to education and employment. The Kaushik Bench cited NALSA to reaffirm that, “Articles 15 and 16 must be read in a manner that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity” (para 30, p. 26), but importantly extended this reasoning into the employment context, stating that neither public nor private employers may deny employment based on gender identity.

Three years later, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, a nine-judge Bench recognized that the right to privacy under Article 21 includes bodily integrity, decisional autonomy, and the right to express one’s identity. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote that “privacy protects individual autonomy and recognizes the right to make vital personal choices.” Kaushik recognizes this principle and extends autonomy to the workplace, contending that the right to live with dignity includes the right to livelihood without stigma.

Finally, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Section 377 of the IPC was invalidated, decriminalizing relations between persons of the same sex, and holding that equality is grounded in constitutional morality rather than public morality. With NALSA, Puttaswamy, and Navtej all providing a philosophical basis for the holding in Kaushik, they enforce those rights in the workplace. From recognition of identity, to protection of autonomy, to the enforcement of economic dignity, Jane Kaushik marks an evolution in India’s constitutional journey to not only a right to exist but to a right to thrive.

Equality Beyond Formalism: The Court’s Expansive Interpretation

One particularly notable aspect of the Kaushik case is its recognition of substantive equality, an embodied notion of equality that requires not just that all people be treated the same, but that normative structural barriers are eliminated so that certain groups can realize their rights.

Citing Articles 14 through 16 of the Indian Constitution, the Court validated that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of discrimination based on sex. The Court also connected this idea to the right to a dignified life and to live under Article 21 of the Constitution by stating that refusing employment based on gender identity results in “economic and social death” to an individual. The judgment invoked something called constitutional morality and reminded employers, both public and private, that the obligation of equality is not discretionary; it is a part of being a democratic citizen.

This point is significant because, as observed by CJP in its report about transgender rights in 2023, a lot of the discrimination experienced by the transgender community is not a result of outright bad intentions but rather due to inertia and ignorance by the institutional structure. The Court’s reasoning captured that in its justification by holding that to omit, or not act, can itself be a form of discrimination.

By recognizing “omissive discrimination,” the Bench also expanded and layered the idea of state obligations. As the Bench explained, equality means positive obligations. The State must ensure that the rights of transgender persons are not merely enshrined in law, but that they are realized and effective.

Strengthening Employment Protection

The first sphere of impact of the judgment for the transgender community is with respect to employment security.  The Court found expressly that the protections available under the TG Act apply equally to public and private employment, which makes it unlawful for any establishment to deny employment, promotion, or continuance for reasons relating to gender identity.

This means that where previously, major alterations to workplaces across India were difficult to put in place properly (at a general level, but increasingly across specific employment compartments governed by individual laws, such as recognition also in respect of ‘male and female’), this is now a seismic shift in practice and the obligation on employers. Employers must now make reasonable accommodation, whether borrowing the term from disability rights jurisprudence or applying the principle from the Court in respect of substantive equality, on any decision or treatment, covering everything that applies to transgender persons: recruitment forms, uniforms, leave policy, goodwill policy, and grievance procedures, also all included.

Having also ordered a compensation award to Kaushik, the Court now presents a precedent in respect of damages in fear to workplace discrimination, making it clear that discrimination is not only a negative ethic but an illicit treatment too. As earlier argued in CJP’s “The Discordant Symphony”, the work for transgender rights in India is not only about legal recognition, but within the real act, one of accessing responsible means of livelihood. This judgment helps stitch the gap between legal and lived rights responsibly, moving now toward enforceable law work.

Mandating an Equal Opportunity Policy

Arguably, one of the most progressive components of the ruling is the instruction to draft a template Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) for transgender persons. The Court observed that Rule 12 of the 2020 Rules already imposes an obligation on every establishment to implement an EOP, designate a complaint officer, and create an environment free of discrimination, but noted that few, if any, establishments had done so.

The newly constituted Justice Asha Menon Committee is to produce a uniform EOP to be used by all establishments. Until it is formally adopted by the Union Government, the Court ruled that the guidelines of the committee will have a binding effect.

This shifts the responsibility of inclusion from a moral goal to a legal duty. The Court effectively constitutionalizes workplace inclusivity as an obligation of employers. Employers, schools, corporations, etc., now have an ongoing obligation to have trans-inclusive policies, grievance policies, and sensitization regimes.

As CJP’s earlier analysis in “From Judgments to Handbook: India’s Transformative Journey towards LGBTQIA Equality” pointed out, systemic inclusion cannot be left to goodwill; it has to be planned design. The Supreme Court has now offered precisely that design.

Ripple Effects: Recruitment Norms and Affirmative Action

Jane Kaushik’s implications transcend a single case. For the public sector, the judgment reopens discussion around reservation and affirmative action for transgender persons. Only a handful of states, including Karnataka, which offered a 1 % horizontal reservation, and Odisha, which instructed departments last month to incorporate “transgender” as a category of gender separately on forms, have taken action on inclusive hiring policies.

By calling out inaction by the state, the Supreme Court has signalled that governments cannot sit idly. Departments will have to insist on representation, reasonable relaxations, and non-discriminatory criteria in recruiting and promoting.

The implications for the private sector are equally significant. Employment discrimination based on gender identity now not only carries reputational risk, but legal risk as well. The binding EOP means private institutions will now need to modify their recruiting advertisements, the recruiting application forms, and internal HR policies to ensure inclusion. Selection committees and the Board of Directors will require mandatory sensitivity training, and failure to comply could result in judicial assessment.

In that regard, the judgement extends the ethos of equality into India’s economic systems, making sure that the transformative promise of the Constitution governs behaviour not only by the State, but the marketplace as well.

Constitutional Morality Meets the Workplace

Through Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has issued one of its most important equality decisions since Navtej Johar. It extends the Constitution into dimensions of society where discrimination can often continue without intervention. It does this by asserting the need to implement a national Equal Opportunity Policy and assigning significant responsibility to the State to respond to “omissive discrimination”, therefore transforming equality from a right to a collective responsibility of every institution.

For India’s transgender citizens, this decision substantively transforms symbolic recognition into meaningful participation – from simply existing to being able to be employed, from invisibility to the possibility of inclusion. True progress is not identified merely in laws or decisions but in the security of dignity in everyday life.

The next test is whether this landmark ruling is remembered, not as a judicial victory but as when workplaces, all over India, began to embody the values of the Constitution itself.

The judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India can be read here:

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related

Reflecting on Transgender Rights in 2023: Have Legal Recognition and Advocacy Efforts Broken the Cycle of Discrimination and Ostracism?

The discordant symphony: where does the transgender community go from here?

From Judgments to Handbook: India’s Transformative Journey towards LGBTQIA+ Equality

Can pride be apolitical? Perspectives from queer and trans* community

Mapping Gender-Based Violence in India: Trends, determinants, and institutional frameworks

MAT highlights state’s duty under Transgender Act 2019 for Trans inclusion

The post Beyond mere Recognition: The Jane Kaushik judgment and the next frontier of transgender equality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its scathing critique, the AIKS has said that the Draft Seeds Bill 2025 is poised to increase the cost of cultivation by allowing corporates to indulge in unchecked pricing of seeds; besides the all-India farmers organisation said that bringing in this law is a move to corporatise India’s seed sector and concede seed sovereignty

Elaborating further, SKM leaders said the draft Seed Bill surrendered the seed sovereignty of India and it was aimed at predatory pricing by the corporate monopolies. They have asked that the Centre should withdraw the Bill. The SKM also warned against “conceding on harmful clauses” in the summit to be held in Lima, Peru from November 24 to 29 on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).

Federalism, Federal rights

The campaign pitch to be launched will be all-encompassing. The leaders said the SKM would launch a national campaign with the slogan of “Strong States for Strong India” to safeguard the federal rights of States demanding increase of State share in the divisive pool (including cess and surcharge) from the current 31% to 60%. The SKM would also demand that the Goods and Services Tax Act must be amended to reinstate taxation power of States. “Financial autonomy of the States is necessary to realise minimum support price and minimum wage through augmenting public investment to modernise agriculture, build agro-industries and share the surplus out of processing, value addition and trade on all crops, thus to end agrarian crisis, peasant suicides and distress migration,” the SKM said.

The leaders said November 26, 2025 marked the fifth year of the beginning of the farmers’ struggle on the Delhi borders. “Sacrificing the lives of 736 martyrs, the protracted struggle of 380 days forced the BJP-led NDA union government to repeal the three pro-corporate and anti-people farm laws. Though five years have passed, Prime Minister Narendra Modi just formed a committee, but yet to implement the written assurances on MSP at the rate of C2+50% (as per M.S. Swaminathan Committee report), debt relief and privatisation of electricity given to SKM on December 9, 2021,” they said. The SKM would organise meetings, rallies and conventions to support its demands on November 26.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) in its condemnation of the proposed law has termed it “anti-farmer and part of the larger political project of the RSS-BJP to dispossess the small farmers and surrender India’s seed sovereignty to a handful of multinational and domestic monopolies.”

AIKS has also pointed out in a statement issued by office bearers Ashok Dhawale and Vijoo Krishnan that the RSS-BJP-led NDA government is pushing this extremely pro-corporate bill at a time when the agrarian crisis is deepening in India. Several scientific studies have established that the increasing corporate control on agriculture would intensify the agrarian crisis and farm suicides. The draft Bill has the necessary ingredients to accelerate the squeezing and looting of Indian farmers. For instance, this law would create a conducive atmosphere for monopolies to indulge in an unchecked pricing of seeds.

Besides, expanding its criticism further the AIKS ha stated that any new legislation regarding seeds — such as the draft Seeds Bill 2025 — must actively complement, not conflict with, the progressive legal safeguards already established under the PPVFR (Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right) Act 2001, and India’s international commitments under the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and the ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). These national and international commitments collectively uphold national sovereignty over genetic resources and protect indigenous varieties. They thus recognize farmers as breeders, conservers and rightful custodians of biodiversity with guaranteed rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds.

In contrast, the draft Seeds Bill 2025 introduces a heavily centralised (and corporatized) regulatory system that risks weakening farmer-centred protection and diluting India’s legal architecture for biodiversity conservation and farmers’ rights. The draft appears to favour market control and stringent formalization of seed systems, potentially marginalizing indigenous varieties, public institutions and national/international seed networks. To be precise, the new draft of the Seeds Bill 2025 deviates India’s regulatory architecture on seeds substantially away from the provisions of the PPVFR Act 2001 and actively shifts the balance in the seed sector in favour of big corporate players.

The weeks and months ahead are likely to see campaigns and agitations against this draft law build up nationally.

Related:

Protest decision of Union Government to Scrap 11% Import Duty on Raw Cotton: AIKS

Unseasonal Rains: Over 80 Dead, Huge Damage to Crops, Orchards; AIKS Demands Ex-Gratia

AIKS, Karshaka Sangham and rubber farmers take on tyre cartel; file Intervention Application (IA) in Supreme Court

The post Draft Seeds Bill must be withdrawn: SKM, AIKS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Going further it reminds the public of how, in the recent past, Rahul Gandhi of the Congress provided evidence-based public exposures of deficiencies and manipulations of the electoral rolls in previous elections in Maharashtra, Karnataka and then in Haryana. This clearly required that the ECI make itself publicly accountable to explaining these discrepancies and otherwise investigate to identify the circumstances in which such frauds took place. As an independent body, it is the ECI’s responsibility to do so and certainly not that of the Central or state governments.

However, the ECI, currently headed by Gyanesh Kumar, has simply dismissed all these exposures, in effect refusing to make the ECI accountable, as it should and must be, to the Indian public. Even a former Election Commissioner, Ashok Lavasa, has criticised the current ECI on this count. No surprise then that there is the very widespread view that precisely such electoral manipulation has played a major role in determining the outcome of the Bihar assembly polls. Moreover, the ECI has failed at another level also. It has ignored a blatant violation by the Modi-led NDA of the Model Code of Conduct for parties during elections.

Towards the end of September, Modi launched a state government scheme to make bank transfers of Rs. 10,000 to women to start self-employment ventures with one instalment transferred on the date elections were announced and others made during the election process itself! More than a crore of women in different households benefitted from this. The total voter turnout, male and female, was a little over 5 crores. Previous such pre-poll cash handouts by governments have been halted by the ECI but not this time in Bihar.

This lure to women voters turned out to be particularly important for Nitish Kumar and the JD (U). The female voter turnout at around 72% was almost 10% higher than the male voter turnout and was a key factor in raising the JD (U) vote share by 4% from the last assembly elections in 2020 and enabling a seat tally increase of 42 seats to 85 in all. The BJP had roughly the same vote share at around 20% as in 2020 but increased its seat tally this time by 50 to 89 in all. Among the NDA’s other partners, the new Chirag Paswan led party the LJP, with its vote base among Dalits, got a vote share of around 4% and 19 seats. The Congress with double the LJP’s vote share dropped 13 seats from 2020 to achieve only 6 this time. The RJD got the same vote share as in the last assembly election of 23%, higher than any other party did. However, it’s seat tally dropped by 50 from 75 to 25 this time. The CPI(ML)-Liberation fell from 12 seats to 2.

Finally the statement asks, what then are the lessons to be drawn from all this? First, that in all likelihood there was significant manipulation of rolls favouring the NDA. Second, voters faced with promises of jobs and freebies of all kinds will prefer to have a bird in hand than two in the bush, i.e., a state party backed by the Central government that has already delivered a handout and is in a better position to give more, will definitely have the edge. Third, all parties share a consensus that SC Reservations must be preserved even as it may be extended to other sections. So why should Dalits prefer opposition parties to the BJP and its political allies. The material problems of lower castes remain but a small and rising Dalit elite that provides leadership is attracted to where power already lies. Moreover, in lieu of serious material improvement, the Sangh’s Hindutva ideology offers a form of cultural compensation to lower castes in recognising them and their religious deities and practices as part of a wider Hindu fold that is being seen as the natural heir of Indian-Hindu nationalism. Fourth, the Mahagathbandan (MGB) whether in Bihar or elsewhere pursues a soft Hindutva, does not directly challenge the BJP’s Islamophobia and itself reduces the number of Muslim candidates put up.

So, says the statement, it should not be surprising that in Seemanchal, where there is a higher concentration of Muslim voters, they would have preferred Owaisi’s AIMIM than to, say, the Congress. This is disturbing because it enhances religious polarisation. However, this can only change if supposedly secular parties are prepared to act in a genuinely secular manner. Fifth, apart from anti-BJPism, what does the MGB have in common? There is not and cannot be any genuine programmatic unity since apart from the Congress and the Left, the other regional parties do not have any Pan-India, let alone any international, vision or perspective.

Sixth, always a factor in the importance of cadre-based capacity of the RSS and its affiliates to entrench themselves within the pores of civil society as a matter of daily routine and not just for the purposes of periodic mass mobilisation which of course is also greatly facilitated by having this cadre base. The lesson here is for the Left and not for the other opposition parties that do not possess an ideologically committed and disciplined cadre base but have activists as part of more traditional patron-client linkages and networks that can also more easily shift their political loyalties. The Indian parliamentary left has a cadre base but one that is much smaller and more ideologically uncertain than in the past. Even for it to achieve electoral successes, the extra-electoral terrain is where the forces of the Sangh must be confronted through sustained struggles on various fronts.

Building a newer left that is internally more democratic and that sheds the shibboleths of Stalinism and Maoism for its cadres, is vital. Such a broader united front of the Left must not be sectarian within, and it must prioritise linkages with progressive movements of all kinds that continue to exist in our continental-sized country rather than with opposition bourgeois parliamentary parties. The latter are not capable of, and will never move in the direction of forging an anti-capitalist, truly democratic and deeply egalitarian society. This should be the goal of such a Left united front that is allied with a range of progressive movements. Forging a programme and practice of left populism as an intermediate stage in pursuit of that much longer-term goal is our shorter-term need.

The statement was released today.

Related:

Civil society warns, Election Commission is “Undermining Democracy”

From Welfare to Expulsion: Bihar’s MCC period rhetoric turns citizenship into a campaign weapon

Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire

The post Radical socialist statement on Bihar Election results appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the heart of the controversy is the Special Intensive Revision –SIR — a revised method of updating electoral rolls first deployed in Bihar, suddenly since June 2025. In a sharply worded joint statement, activists allege that SIR is not an administrative exercise but a tool that has disenfranchised lakhs of legitimate voters, fundamentally altering electoral outcomes. Political Economist and husband of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman, Mr Parkala Prabhakar said speaking to TNIE said, `The SIR process “bears no resemblance” to the voter-roll revision system introduced in 2003. This statement by these NGOs from across the nation points out that additions and deletions were made to the voter list with “focused intent,” possibly manipulation engineered to benefit ruling-party candidates.” In a rare show of solidarity with state-level grievances, the groups declared, “We stand with the People of Bihar in rejecting the election results.”

Earlier in August 2025, the Vote for Democracy had released its preliminary analysis of discrepancies in the Bihar SIR. This may be viewed below.

This time, these groups have also directed criticism at Opposition parties, accusing them of participating in elections conducted under the SIR framework even as they protested against it. The statement argues that by doing so, Opposition parties have inadvertently lent credibility to what the groups call a “fraudulently elected government.” It further notes that despite large-scale mobilisation during movements such as the Voter Adhikar Yatra, the Opposition has failed to build durable alliances with grassroots civil society networks. The Election Commission has come under its most severe civil society criticism in recent years. The statement accuses the Commission of: firstly, “disregarding its constitutional mandate,” secondly, becoming “an assaulter, not a protector, of electoral integrity,” and thirdly of “losing its legitimacy under its current leadership.”

The signatories pledged to push for a non-partisan and transparent Commission, indicating that an organised campaign may be in the works. Civil society groups have warned that the SIR process is now slated for rollout in 12 more states, raising fears of further large-scale voter disenfranchisement. Their slogan — “No rightful voter left behind” — is emerging as a rallying point for activists preparing for legal, political and public mobilisation.

The statement has drawn support from a broad cross-section of society, including retired judges, senior civil servants, economists, farmers’ organisations, teachers’ groups, technologists, Jesuit institutions, artists and student networks. Prominent signatories include: Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (Retd., Supreme Court), Devasahayam M.G. (Retd. IAS), Dr Parakala Prabhakar, Political Economist, Tushar Gandhi, Activist, Meena Gupta (Retd. IAS), Thomas Franco, Voters Rights Movement, Justice Shankar K.G.,K. Ramachandra Murthy, Former Editor, Their combined presence signals an emerging nationwide civil society front preparing to challenge the SIR’s expansion. Senior IAS retired MG Devasahayam speaking to TNIE said, “How can we call this Bihar election fair by any stretch of imagination.”

As the ECI fends off unprecedented scrutiny, the Opposition faces questions about its strategy, and civil society groups mount coordinated pressure campaigns, India appears headed for a high-stakes confrontation over electoral integrity. The statement ends with a stark warning — and a pledge:

Related:

Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process

Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process

The post Civil society warns, Election Commission is “Undermining Democracy” appeared first on SabrangIndia.