The attacks, reported by The Indian Express, took place under Chandrakona police station limits on October 18, 19 and 20, amid allegations that the families had faced sustained harassment for embracing Christianity. The assailants allegedly threatened to kill them, burn their homes and force them to renounce their faith. Despite the families approaching the police, the intimidation continued for three days before a formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered on October 20.

Thirteen people have been named in the FIR. As reported by The Indian Express on October 23, no arrests had been made at the time of publication, although police personnel had been deployed near the families’ homes.

Women assaulted, clothes torn; families threatened over their faith

Lakshmi Mondal, one of the victims, told The Wire that the harassment intensified on October 16, when a group allegedly threatened the Christian families with consequences unless they abandoned their religion. Two days later, the threats escalated into physical violence.

Recounting the assault, Lakshmi said she was struck below her ear by Ranjit Dolui and lost consciousness. When she partially regained consciousness, she could feel people removing her sari and tearing her blouse. She subsequently learnt that Dolui, Pocha Patra and Bapi Mondal had allegedly stripped and assaulted her.

The attackers allegedly splashed water on her face to revive her before pouring water over her body in front of onlookers, chanting “Jai Shri Ram” and declaring that she had been purified. Lakshmi said she was left lying on the floor of her home in that condition. The group also allegedly took away a Bible kept in the house.

The violence was accompanied by explicit threats against her family. According to Lakshmi’s account to The Wire, the assailants threatened to rape her Class X daughter and burn the family alive if they refused to abandon Christianity and return to Hinduism. The group allegedly attacked the homes of two other Christian families, including that of Saraswati Mondal and her husband, Ashok Mondal. Saraswati’s 15-year-old daughter was allegedly subjected to an attempt to strangle her, according to the family.

The account provided by a 40-year-old victim to The Indian Express corroborated the allegations of assault and forced religious purification. She said that on October 18, a group dragged her and her husband out of their home, beat them and tore her clothes before making her consume Tulsi and Bel leaves and pouring water over her as a purification ritual.

The allegations point to more than physical violence. The victims describe being publicly humiliated and subjected to rituals intended to undermine their religious identity, in an apparent attempt to force them to abandon a faith they say they had adopted voluntarily.

Forced to offer anjali at Durga Puja pandal

The attacks allegedly continued on October 19, when members of the group forced the families to participate in Hindu religious rituals. Lakshmi told The Wire that Madan Manna and Bappaditya Chatterjee, who were allegedly part of the previous day’s assault, took her and her husband, Tapan Mondal, along with Saraswati and her husband, Gopal Mondal, to a Durga Puja pandal in Dangal.

“They took us there against our will and forced us to offer anjali,” she alleged.

The families said they were made to participate in the ritual in front of others despite having been assaulted the previous day. The incident, as described by the victims, illustrates how religious rituals were allegedly used as instruments of coercion rather than voluntary expressions of faith.

On October 20, the intimidation allegedly continued. Lakshmi said that Manna and his associates took the men of the affected families to an isolated location and threatened to kill them if they did not renounce their belief in Jesus Christ. According to the complaint, the accused also abused and threatened Lakshmi and other family members and confined her inside her house. The families said they were too frightened to leave their homes and sent three minor girls to stay with relatives for their safety. Lakshmi eventually approached the police station again and lodged a formal complaint naming 13 people. The families said a police picket was deployed only after the FIR was registered.

Harassment allegedly began last year

The families told The Wire that the hostility did not begin with the October attacks. According to their account, Lakshmi’s husband, Tapan, his brother Gopal and another villager had embraced Christianity several years ago. Other residents of neighbouring villages had also converted. Lakshmi maintained that the decision was voluntary and rooted in their religious beliefs. She said the families continued to respect other religions and had been practising Christianity peacefully inside their homes.

However, she alleged that her relatives, Asit, Arun, Barun and Tarun Mondal, began harassing the family during Durga Puja last year, questioning their decision to convert. The family said they had submitted a written complaint to Chandrakona police station at the time. Although the police visited the village, they alleged that no effective action was taken against those accused of harassment.

The families said the intimidation later intensified, particularly after the change of government in West Bengal in May. According to Lakshmi, the attackers allegedly invoked the arrival of a new government and claimed that the Bajrang Dal would ensure that the families abandoned Christianity. Several witnesses who spoke to The Wire reportedly corroborated aspects of the victims’ account. 

Police security offered, but families remain afraid

Patlapur, located around 15 kilometres from Chandrakona town, is home to approximately 150 families belonging to different social and religious communities. Agriculture and the manufacture of copper ornaments are among the principal sources of livelihood in the area. Local primary school teacher Soumitra Gharui told The Wire that the village had not witnessed caste-related disputes or violence of this nature for decades. Residents alleged that efforts to disturb the area’s social harmony had begun around a year ago.

The families said the three days of violence had left them traumatised. Lakshmi also expressed concern for her elderly father-in-law, Krishnapada Mondal, who has reportedly been living with paralysis for several years and witnessed the harassment of the family. Speaking to The Indian Express, one of the victims said that four police personnel had been stationed outside their homes. While welcoming the security, she expressed fear that the protection might not last.

“We are happy the police helped us. But threat calls are coming. One day the police will leave. What will we do then?” she said. She added that she wanted only to live peacefully in her own home.

On October 21, Paschim Medinipur Superintendent of Police Papiya Sultana told The Wire that an FIR had been registered and that the police would provide security to the families and investigate the incident. Speaking to The Indian Express, Sultana said a police picket had been deployed because the families felt insecure and that the police were taking steps to prevent further incidents. An advocate who assisted the victims told The Indian Express that the FIR was registered after he visited the police station on October 20, but the accused had not been arrested.

For the families, the immediate concern remains their safety. They have alleged that they were threatened, assaulted and pressured to abandon their faith despite seeking police intervention. While a police picket has been established, the absence of reported arrests has added to their apprehension.

Related:

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

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

Six police personnel suspended after custodial death of Dilshad Ansari in Bihar

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

Six Days, One Unanswered Question: What happened to Shaheen and Nafisa Khan at Saket Police Station?

The post Christian families assaulted, humiliated and forced into Durga Puja rituals in West Bengal village appeared first on SabrangIndia.

#WATCH | Mumbai: Students staged a protest at Chaityabhoomi, expressing disappointment over the lack of action in the IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode’s death case. Police detained all the protesters at the site. https://t.co/wxdd5uvOaA

— ANI (@ANI) October 25, 2026

Comedian Masoom Rajwani and many others detained by Mumbai Police.

Their crime?

Carrying out a peaceful candlelight gathering for Sahil Wakode.

Sahil, a Dalit student, died by suicide at IIT Bombay.

His parents have alleged that caste-based harassment led to his death https://t.co/7UgIIQwSL8

— Parth MN (@parthpunter) October 25, 2026

Why is Mumbai police house-arresting General Secretary of AIISCA @deepali_writes from going to Chaityabhoomi for candle gathering at 6 PM. Chait yabhoomi is a sacred place for Ambedicarites, it is arrocously casterst, cowardly and unconstitutional of police to detain Deepali. Why is the state so afraid of Dalits demanding justice?

— TheAmbedkarianChronicle (@TheAmbedkarian) October 25, 2026

VIDEO | Mumbai: The Progressive Students Union (PSU) organised a candlelight march at Chaityabhoomi to demand justice in the case of the suicide of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode.

Protesters participating in the march were taken into custody. A heavy police force was deployed in the area as a precautionary measure.

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

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 25, 2026

https://www.instagram.com/p/De8wW4MjUw_/ 

Parents of Wakode were also detained, and released later. 

Mumbai police has illegally detained Sahil Wakode’s parents in an unknown location.

— TheAmbedkarianChronicle (@TheAmbedkarian) October 25, 2026

The detentions at Chaityabhoomi, the memorial site of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, came amid mounting demands for accountability from the IIT Bombay administration over allegations of caste-based harassment preceding Wakode’s death. Rather than allowing students and concerned citizens to mourn and demand justice peacefully, the police deployed a heavy force, prevented the gathering from proceeding freely and detained participants on the grounds that the vigil lacked permission. 

According to The Hindu, approximately 20 to 25 people were detained at Chaityabhoomi, with protesters alleging that police personnel forcibly removed participants, including women. The Times of India also reported the detentions, confirming that Rajwani was among those taken into custody. Police maintained that the gathering was unauthorised and cited law-and-order concerns.

The Progressive Students Union (PSU) had called for the candlelight vigil at 5.30 p.m. to pay tribute to Wakode and demand an impartial investigation into his death. Participants included students and activists associated with organisations supporting the struggle for justice, including individuals from IIT Bombay and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

According to accounts reported by The Hindu, protesters alleged that police personnel carried out two rounds of detentions, at around 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. Tejas Anoop of Aamchi Padhai Aamchi Ladai said police approached individuals and detained those they suspected of participating in the protest, including people carrying candles or placards. He further alleged that people who questioned the detentions or sought written authorisation were also taken away.

Rajwani told The Hindu that he arrived at Chaityabhoomi around 6.10 p.m. and that the march had still not begun by 7.30 p.m. He alleged that four police personnel lifted him by his arms and legs while detaining him, causing a minor scratch. He also claimed that detainees were not told where they were being taken and were not provided water during transportation.

Another participant, Akalya, alleged that four police personnel put her inside a van while she was photographing the gathering. She said she was kept inside for approximately 30 to 45 minutes without being informed of the reason for her detention. Her phone was temporarily taken away when she tried to contact her family, she alleged.

Deepali, another participant, said she had been taken to a police station and released around 6.30 p.m. She maintained that the gathering was intended to be peaceful and condemned the manner in which participants were treated. Social media posts also raised allegations that police had prevented activists, including the general secretary of the All India Independent Scheduled Caste Association (AIISCA), from reaching Chaityabhoomi.

Despite the police action, approximately 40 to 50 people subsequently gathered to pay tribute to Wakode, according to reports. Those detained were released from police stations in Tardeo, Worli and Dadar later that evening.

People broke free from Tardeo police station https://t.co/HXDOLYDJgC

— Preksha (@09preksha) October 25, 2026

A month of protests, allegations of police brutality

Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay’s Powai campus, was found dead in his hostel room on September 18, hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination. His parents and fellow students subsequently raised allegations of caste-based harassment and mistreatment.

A police complaint named Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside provisions relating to abetment of suicide. Doolla, who was removed from his position as dean of students’ welfare and sent on leave, has been at the centre of allegations concerning his treatment of Wakode. The professor and IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare have denied allegations of caste-based discrimination. The Mumbai Crime Branch has taken over the investigation and recorded statements from more than 40 people.

The police action at Chaityabhoomi followed earlier detentions of Wakode’s parents and protesting students on October 18, exactly a month after his death. At the time, police also demolished the protest site outside IIT Bombay and detained several people. Students and activists have continued to allege that the police, acting alongside the institutional response to the death, have repeatedly attempted to suppress their demands for accountability.

As The Wire previously reported, a student injured during an earlier protest received a medico-legal certificate from KMJ Hospital in Vikhroli that reportedly recorded “assault by Powai police” as the cause of injury. The certificate also documented blunt trauma to the shoulder and a linear abrasion over the right elbow, alongside a reported attempt to strangle the student. Earlier social media posts had also alleged that women protesters were dragged, beaten and inappropriately touched by police personnel.

84 organisations demand IIT Bombay director’s resignation

The police crackdown came as 84 organisations from across the country issued an open letter demanding the resignation of IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare, describing it as a necessary measure of institutional accountability following Wakode’s death. As reported by Maktoob Media, the letter accused the institute of responding to complaints of caste discrimination with callousness and repression. The signatories questioned the administration’s decision to refer to Wakode as a “cheater” in its initial communication following his death, arguing that the statement risked discrediting the student before the circumstances surrounding his death had been adequately investigated.

The letter also criticised the public support extended by the institute’s faculty body to Doolla, who has been named in the police complaint, and raised concerns about the alleged selective release of examination-hall CCTV footage to the media. It further condemned the police action against Wakode’s parents and fellow students during earlier protests.

“The series of events which has unfolded following the unfortunate demise of your student Sahil Wakode has revealed IIT Bombay administration to be spectacularly callous at best or maliciously repressive towards complaints of caste discrimination,” the letter stated.

The signatories include student unions, Ambedkarite organisations, teachers’ associations and civil rights groups, including the Ambedkar Students’ Association, Students’ Federation of India, All India Students’ Association, National Alliance of People’s Movements and Disha Students’ Organisation.

The organisations argued that the director’s resignation was necessary to establish accountability and send a clear message that allegations of discrimination and harassment against marginalised students cannot be brushed aside through institutional statements or disciplinary narratives that shift scrutiny onto the deceased student.

Tribal students detained at Shivaji Park

The crackdown was not confined to Chaityabhoomi. At nearby Shivaji Park, Mumbai Police detained approximately 120 tribal students and activists who had assembled to demand the resignation of Maharashtra Tribal Development Minister Ashok Uike, along with the commissioner and secretary of the tribal development department.

According to PTI and The New Indian Express, the protesters were seeking accountability for deteriorating conditions in tribal residential schools, an inquiry into the alleged deaths of 584 students, improved hostel facilities and the scrapping of the contract system for centralised kitchens in tribal residential schools.

The students had reportedly been agitating since August. Their earlier demonstration on October 5 had ended with police detaining participants and sending them back to their hometowns in Nashik, Nandurbar and Jalgaon. On Sunday, protesters said they were detained at Dadar railway station and near Tilak Bhavan before they could reach the proposed venue. Police personnel were also reportedly deployed at railway stations and bus stops along routes leading to Shivaji Park. The protesters had sought permission to demonstrate at Azad Maidan and Shivaji Park but were denied permission. They said they would continue their agitation at Azad Maidan on Monday.

Taken together, the detentions at Shivaji Park and Chaityabhoomi reveal a disturbing pattern: students raising questions about caste deaths, discrimination and the treatment of vulnerable communities are met with preventive custody and restrictions on assembly rather than meaningful engagement with their grievances.

At Chaityabhoomi, the demand was for justice for a young Dalit student whose death has raised serious questions about caste discrimination and institutional responsibility. At Shivaji Park, tribal students were seeking accountability for conditions in residential schools and alleged student deaths. Both gatherings were disrupted by police action.

Related:

7,000 farmers and workers rally in Maharashtra as drought deepens agrarian crisis

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

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

Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe

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

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

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

The post Mumbai police detain 140 protesters as student’s demand justice for Sahil Wakode, accountability from IIT Bombay appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The disclosures follow the September 23 investigation by The Indian Express, which documented repeated internal objections over the centralisation of electoral roll management, restrictions on statutory officials’ access to voter databases and changes in oversight of the Election Commission’s IT division.

The newly disclosed records show that the Cabinet Secretariat considered seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s opinion. It ultimately acknowledged the complaints but concluded that acting without a formal communication from the Commission as a whole could be construed as interference in a constitutional body.

ECINet’s launch followed earlier warnings about software controls

ECINet was launched on January 22, 2026, bringing more than 40 election applications and portals onto a single platform for voters and election officials. CEC Gyanesh Kumar said the platform had been developed in accordance with the law, while Director General of Information Technology Seema Khanna said it would “enhance transparency, credibility and public trust”.

The platform was presented as a means of simplifying election services and addressing misinformation. Kumar also offered assistance to other countries interested in developing similar systems suited to their laws and languages.

Within the Commission, however, concerns about software restricting the powers of election officials had surfaced before ECINet’s launch. These initially involved ERONet, the electoral roll management system subsequently brought within ECINet.

On November 4, 2025, Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar, acting on Sandhu’s directions, wrote to Khanna and other senior officers. He said the statutory functions of Electoral Registration Officers, District Election Officers and Chief Electoral Officers had to be exercised by those authorities alone and that the IT systems must comply with the law.

On January 2, 2026, with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) underway in 12 States and Union Territories, Kumar again wrote to Khanna. As a module for issuing notices and conducting hearings was being introduced, he asked that the system preserve the ERO’s discretion to act.

Commissioners questioned centralisation and sought an audit

The concerns related to the relationship between statutory responsibility and control over the software used to discharge it. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, assign responsibility for preparing electoral rolls and deciding claims, objections, inclusions and deletions to designated statutory authorities.

The Commissioners’ objection was that centrally controlled software access was restricting those authorities’ ability to perform their duties.

On April 16, Sandhu recorded that the IT division had developed several modules and portals without bringing them to his knowledge or presenting them before the Commission. He said he had learnt about developments through the media and asked that all members be briefed and the necessary approvals obtained before further activities were undertaken.

On May 29, Joshi wrote to the CEC, Sandhu and Sanjay Kumar about the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”. He proposed an audit involving an outside expert from the Indian Institutes of Technology to establish that only the relevant statutory authorities possessed credentials to change the voter database.

Joshi proposed two committees. One would periodically examine the systems and certify that database access remained with the statutory authorities. The other would assess legal compliance and ensure that policy or procedural changes to ERONet and ECINet were brought before the Commission.

According to the Indian Express, Sandhu endorsed the proposal on July 13 and asked that it be placed before the Commission. On August 14, he recorded “Any action taken on these two notes of two Election Commissioners is not known to the undersigned.”

July 28 order removed a layer of IT oversight

The work allocation dispute arose while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who handled administration, was on leave from July 27 to August 9. Garg received additional charge of the administration division and issued a revised work allocation order on July 28.

The order removed Sanjay Kumar’s oversight of the DG(IT). Until then, Kumar had supervised the division’s work and routed its files to the three-member Commission.

The change affected the administrative channel through which the Commissioners had sought information about the IT division and proposed scrutiny of its systems.

In separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29, Sandhu and Joshi complained that Garg had revised the allocation of work among senior officers without discussing it with the Commission or the officers concerned. They said this had happened despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without prior discussion or approval.

Sandhu said the revised allocation had not been discussed with or communicated to him. Joshi added that when he sought the relevant file from the administration division, it was not provided.

Both Commissioners alleged that the action departed from established practice and violated the law governing the Commission.

Two Commissioners set aside the order

On July 30, a day after writing to the Cabinet Secretary, Sandhu and Joshi jointly set aside Garg’s order.

They described the changes as having been made “without any reason and justification” and directed that the previous allocation continues until the Commission reached a consensus on any revision. Their note was sent to Garg and copied to the CEC.

The sequence is significant: The Commissioners first sought action from the Cabinet Secretary and then jointly directed that the disputed administrative changes should not operate.

Cabinet Secretariat considered seeking the CEC’s opinion

The RTI records show that the complaints were examined within the Cabinet Secretariat on August 3 and August 4.

The August 3 noting summarised the allegation that Garg had revised the work allocation of officers equivalent or senior to him without consulting the Commission or those concerned. It also recorded the Commissioners’ complaint that this had occurred despite earlier instructions requiring prior discussion or approval.

“In this connection, we may request the Chief Election Commissioner for his opinion on the issue,” the noting stated, as the Times of India reported. 

The disclosed material does not establish whether the proposed communication seeking the CEC’s opinion was sent or whether he responded. The following day’s noting records the course ultimately adopted: acknowledge the letters, inform the CEC’s office and place the matter on record with the personnel authorities.

Why the Secretariat declined action

The Cabinet Secretariat noted that the Election Commission was a constitutional body designed to function independently of executive interference. It also referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under which business should be transacted unanimously wherever possible, with differences resolved by majority.

However, it treated the two letters as communications from the Commissioners individually rather than a formal reference from the Commission.

“The above communications are from the ECs in their individual capacity and, while they must be taken with due seriousness, they cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole,” the August 4 noting stated, The Hindu reported.

The Secretariat reasoned that although Garg had been appointed through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, his conduct as an ECI officer was governed by the Commission’s rules and guidelines.

It therefore concluded that, without an official communication from the Commission as a whole, action at that stage could be inappropriate and construed as interference in the constitutional body’s functioning.

Complaints acknowledged and placed on record

Somanathan acknowledged both Commissioners’ letters on August 5. Copies were marked to the CEC’s office, the Department of Personnel and Training Secretary and the Establishment Officer.

The acknowledgement referred specifically to their July 29 letters concerning the working of Garg, a 1996-batch Himachal Pradesh cadre IAS officer serving as Senior Deputy Election Commissioner.

The Cabinet Secretariat also decided that the personnel authorities should retain the matter on record so it could be considered in future decisions concerning the officer.

The decision thus left the complaints formally recorded but did not initiate the action the Commissioners had sought.

Sandhu raised further concerns about restricted access

On August 14, Sandhu recorded a more detailed objection to the operation of the electoral roll system. He said several Chief Electoral Officers, District Election Officers and Electoral Registration Officers had reported that they lacked “proper and complete access” to ERONet and were consequently unable to discharge their statutory duties properly.

He objected to responsibility remaining with these authorities while access was controlled centrally at the DG(IT) level.

Sandhu said the DG(IT) had no legal authority to restrict the access and operational freedom available to statutory authorities under the law. He directed that full access be provided immediately.

He also sought certification from the DG(IT), based on confirmations from Chief Electoral Officers, that statutory authorities across States and Union Territories could perform their functions without restrictions.

Sanjay Kumar, handling the ‘Electoral Roll’ division in ECI moved out of ECI

On Aug 24, Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Election Commissioner was moved out of ECI while the two Election Commissioners complained against Maneesh Garg.

Kumar had been handling the electoral roll division and had earlier communicated directions seeking to protect statutory officials’ powers from restrictions imposed through the IT system. His oversight of the DG(IT) had also been affected by the July 28 order that the two Commissioners subsequently set aside.

His departure forms part of the chronology. The material supplied does not, however, establish that it resulted from the Commissioners’ complaints or his earlier communications.

As a follow up to @IndianExpress story on ‘CEC vs ECs’, official documents accessed by RTI Activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd) sheds more light on the issue.

Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi wrote to Union Cabinet Secretary individually on the issue of change in ‘work allocation order’ by Maneesh Garg, Sr Deputy Election Commissioner on July 29.

Cabinet Secretariat decided to seek the opinion of the CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Aug 3. (No information on whether CEC responded to the Cabinet Secretariat).

Union Cabinet Secretary, TV Somanathan acknowledged the letters of the two ECs Dr SS Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi on Aug 5.

On Aug 24, Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Election Commissioner was moved out of ECI while the two Election Commissioners complained against Maneesh Garg.

Importantly, Sanjay Kumar was handling the ‘Electoral Roll’ division in ECI before he was moved out of ECI.

The officer handling the ‘Electoral Roll’ division was moved out of ECI in the middle of SIR’ exercise.

— Arvind Gunasekar (@arvindgunasekar) October 22, 2026

ECI said the disputed order never took effect

The ECI responded on September 26 that the work redistribution orders issued by the officer concerned were never implemented following the two Commissioners’ directions.

It also maintained that their letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation, rather than policy decisions or matters relating to the IT division.

The RTI disclosures establish how the Cabinet Secretariat handled those letters: it acknowledged the complaints, informed the CEC’s office and personnel authorities, and declined executive action. The wider record contains repeated objections about database centralisation, access restrictions and oversight.

Related:

Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions

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

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

The post Two Election Commissioners complained over work allocation changes; RTI records reveal why Cabinet Secretariat declined action appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The authorities’ attempts to censor films perceived as “problematic” at film festivals only validates the power of cinema, says Smriti Nevatia, examining the films that did not make the state’s cut.

Cinema, the youngest of the major art forms, is now a venerable 131, which is why certain classic films get to celebrate their centenaries. Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin, a foundational text for film students around the world, observed its 100th anniversary in 2025 by being banned at the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK), 12-19 December 2025.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) in its opaque wisdom refused to allow a tribute screening of the classic, while also disallowing Argentinian filmmaker Fernando Solanas’s iconic political documentary The Hour of the Furnaces (1968) and other – mainly Palestinian – films.

Cancelling Potemkin, which pioneered several aspects of the language of cinema while portraying the brutal suppression of people’s rebellions by the Tsarist state, is like banning Premchand at an Indian literary symposium because the powers-that-be are less than enchanted by his stories depicting social oppression (or corrupt officials). It indicates a disturbing lack of historical and cultural understanding, which was once again on unabashed display last month when the 18th edition of the prestigious International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (IDSFFK), 25-30 September 2026, was made to drop as many as 31 films (selected from more than 1700 entries) from its screening schedule at the last minute.

(Editor’s Note: After protests from film-makers, 23 films were permitted to be screened. Scroll down for the list of eight films that were denied a screening)

IDSFFK and its older sibling IFFK are both government-funded events, held in Thiruvananthapuram under the auspices of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy. This can make for piquant political irony, not to mention the occasional open clash. Kerala, ruled by the Left Democratic Front coalition when the 2025 censorship brouhaha occurred, is today a Congress-led state, while MIB operates under the political tutelage of the ruling party at the Centre.

The state is the state

Bina Paul, well-known film editor, and co-founder of the Women in Cinema Collective that advocates for issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry, was Artistic Director of both IFFK (over 20 years) and IDSFFK (around 15 years). Does she think cultural events like film festivals are becoming new political flashpoints?

Bina cautions against thinking of these as new. “The state is the state,” she says, and every political party in power pushes back against criticism, the difference being that 20 years ago it would be a “gentle suggestion” rather than an outright ban. “Earlier, we didn’t have to appeal to the Court. We would often just appeal to the [Ministry], and they’d look at it again.”

But more recently, “when Anand’s film was stopped, he went to court and got a stay order, and the festival was able to screen the film.” She is alluding to Anand Patwardhan’s Reason (Vivek), an indictment of Hindutva extremist groups for their alleged role in the assassination of rationalists Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare.

In these post-truth times, we have grown familiar with the rewriting of history in school textbooks and in the public imagination. We have seen how censorship can be made to work both ways, through addition or subtraction. Protests against censorship have been par for the course, says Bina. “I feel it’s also what Kerala is – you can’t get away with things. There will be questions asked!…I think maybe in Kolkata as well.” To her mind, the really new factor is “fear”: bureaucrats are afraid to take decisions; everyone is nervous; a good deal of passing the buck occurs.

The beginnings of film festival censorship

It was the Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF) that notoriously set the film festival censorship controversy in motion in 2003. That year, a number of Indian film entries was rejected on the flimsy ground that they lacked “censor certificates” from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), necessary for a film’s theatrical release.

There were three problems with this, as Indian filmmakers were quick to point out: one, it had never before been a requirement in film festival spaces meant to promote the free flow of ideas and creative expression; two, the discriminatory rule was being imposed only on Indian, not on international films; three, this was blatant political censorship to weed out films critical of the state, including but not limited to films about the 2002 communal carnage in Gujarat. Some filmmakers pulled their films from the main festival and screened them alongside the rejected films at a well-attended alternative festival. The standoff had a salutary outcome: an official decision that no film, Indian or foreign, would need a censor certificate for film festival screenings; a festival would just have to submit its list of selected films, with synopses, to obtain the desired exemption from MIB.

This workaround has worked, largely. How, then, were 31 films ousted from IDSFFK’s line- up this year?

Imagine… You are a mid-level MIB bureaucrat. You can read. And this skill makes you as suited as the person in the next cubicle to wield your fat marker in the service of your country’s most literate state. Some town with some long name is holding some sort of film festival. You have seen quite a few films yourself; you even used to bunk school to go watch movies with your friends. You enjoyed “Dhurandhar 1 & 2”. Thus you are eminently qualified to decide which films might be a danger to members of the public, who might start getting ideas of the kind that would dismay your bosses.

It’s not a terribly hard task you’ve been given; you just have to read some synopses or something, you don’t actually have to watch the films, most have no stars or songs anyway, not even hot scenes like in that Swedish film you once stood for two hours in a queue to watch at a Dilli filmi festival! Just be on the lookout for red flags, you’ve been told. Those documentary filmmakers are particularly cunning. They  know how to plant those flags so well they’re hard to spot. But they can’t fool you! You find one, then another, then yet more, embedded inside words and phrases like caste, sanitation workers, Naxal-era, bauxite mining, Adivasi and Dalit, sex workers, land rights.

Some films titles themselves ring warning bells: Parliament Street, Redlight… Thanks to your vigilance, 31 of the 347 selected films will now not be shown at the upcoming IDSFFK in September. You are puffed up with patriotic pride. And so, when the s&@t hits the creaky fan above your desk, you are truly bewildered. Those cinema-mad mallus still have more than 300 films to watch. And yet they are so unhappy, they’ve gone and moved their High Court!

Seeking answers

While the festival was in full swing, many attendees were confused. Where’s this film? Wasn’t it supposed to be screening here? And that one? Shouldn’t it be on now? As news spreads about a whole slew of titles being yanked, the festival organisers were embarrassed, while the deeply upset makers of the missing films – many of which were in competition for awards – were seen protesting with supporters at the venue, wearing black.

They demanded that the juries watch the excluded films. Jury members were themselves seeking answers. Film editor Irene Dhar Malik, Non-Fiction Jury member, recalls, “We were constantly talking to the Festival authorities, asking them if there was any way we could get these films screened.”  According to her, the festival authorities kept telling the jury that they were fighting the legal fight. “They said, ‘See, we don’t want to drop the screenings, but [censorship] is a Central subject’, she added.”

They were clear, she says, that going ahead with the screenings would cause problems not only for the festival, but create obstacles for the filmmakers when they applied for censor certificates later. The jury members, finding themselves in an ethical bind, strongly felt the need to take a stand.

“On the last day, we told them the non-fiction jury is not attending the awards ceremony. We don’t approve of what is happening, ”the jury members conveyed to the festival authorities. But the jury was told: “The Chief Minister is going to call these guys up on stage to acknowledge they were at the festival and we could not screen their films, [and] we don’t support the ban.”

And so the jury was present when the filmmakers were introduced to the audience and assured that their films would be screened publicly once they were legally cleared. The Kerala High Court has scheduled the matter for 13 November 2026.

Kolkata-based filmmaker Debalina Majumder, whose ‘Friends of Jilipibala’ won Best Short Documentary, and who was actively involved in the protests, says it was one of their demands that the filmmakers denied screenings be named and acknowledged.

She was part of the signature campaign for a statement opposing the competitions and awards unless all selected films were considered. When the ceremony went ahead, she used the opportunity to express solidarity with her fellow filmmakers and call out the imposition of censorship while receiving her award.

The eponymous Jilipibala of Debalina’s film is a child, facing the gradual erosion of nature in her urban neighbourhood built around a historic tamarind tree. Nothing there to draw the censor’s ire, you’d think, but Debalina is no stranger to formal and informal clampdowns on her other films, which have explored queer and trans lives, and the fallout of communal violence.

When it isn’t MIB, it’s been threats by goons on campuses. In her acceptance

speech she also spoke of the recent horrific right wing assaults on students of SRFTI,

Kolkata’s film school, implicitly linking the attacks on filmmaking and on filmmakers to the same political ecosystem.

Intense scrutiny

Will today’s “safe” subject remain safe tomorrow? Can we discern any pattern or logic in what causes MIB unease? In an article for The Wire, film scholar Ashish Rajadhyaksha wonders, “Can the illegitimacy of state censorship be further compounded by the incomprehensibility of its actions?”

“A lot of countries face this,” says Bina. “You cannot show a film in Singapore, in the Middle East, without [scrutiny] – the world has become a bit like that.” Irene comments with irony, “Of course, they’re trying to ban political films, but they’re not doing a proper job of [even that]…the film that got the top award for Long

Documentary – that’s an extremely political film. They didn’t understand! ”

She’s referring to Close Up Up Close – The Making of Political UBU by Kamal KM, about a theatre company adapting Ubu Roi, an 1896 French play satirising a ruler’s greed for power, for the contemporary Indian stage.

If MIB is merely reading synopses, they (in the form of our imagined bureaucrat) could well have thought it was just an innocuous film about a play.

Bina, however, thinks MIB probably cross-checks film titles and filmmakers online. It is so easy nowadays to pop a film’s title into your search bar and find out what an anodyne synopsis may have downplayed for strategic reasons. Debalina has even heard rumours of a hardline committee that sniffs out “problem” films (and filmmakers!), which may explain why, when a review is sought, other Ministries like Home or External Affairs suddenly find the film sitting on their laps.

Just the country of origin may be enough to set off alarms. Of the 31 films initially refused exemption at IDSFFK, one was ‘Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk’, in which the Iranian director is in conversation throughout with a Palestinian photojournalist, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza a day after the film was selected for Cannes (where it received a brilliant reception).

Festival attendees here were dismayed that they would not get to watch it, but fortunately it was one of the 23 films abruptly cleared, and screened, before the festival ended.

The films that were denied a screening

The remaining films, all but one set in India, continue to languish in limbo. Only one, ‘In Search of Buddha’ by Sharanya Dey, is fiction; the tile references “The” Buddha as well as a forgotten Naxal-era leader of that name.

‘Parliament Street’ by Spandan Banerjee explores personal and public memories of this part of Delhi through the closing down of People Tree, a popular alternative bookstore.

‘Sanitised Republic: Cast(e) & Contracts’ by Afiya Khalid and Rizwan Rahman focuses on labour conditions and caste dynamics among contract sanitation workers who worked through Covid-19 in Delhi, only to lose their jobs.

‘Redlight to Limelight’ by Babuljit Basu looks at how sex workers and their children in Kolkata’s Kalighat enjoy creating stories and making videos.

‘The Mali and the Parasite’ by Sankara follows an indigenous people’s resistance movement against corporate bauxite mining in Odisha.

‘Simmering Odyssey’ observes local communities rebuilding destroyed schools in conflict- affected areas of Bastar.

‘Far From Home’ by Kristi Tethong seeks to archive the filmmaker’s parents’ memories of Tibet, and of a settlement they built in South India.

‘Our Land’, by Argentine filmmaker Lucrecia Martel, was the only cancelled film with no India connection – it retraces the murder of an indigenous leader and the ensuing trial, in the context of long-term settler colonialism and land dispossession.

Were these films deemed too “politically sensitive?”? What makes certain subjects taboo? Or to pose a better question: why do certain subjects scare the current dispensation?

Filmmakers may draw a bit of cold comfort from all this fear in the echelons of power, a fear that appears to validate the power of cinema, and art in general, to change the world – one shot, one work, one subversion and, not least, one real world protest at a time.

———-

Smriti Nevatia has been a curator, selector and jury member for a number of Indian and international film festivals and has collaborated on many documentary film projects. She is co-author of ‘No Outlaws in the Gender Galaxy’ (Zubaan, 2015), and freelances as a text editor and translator between Hindi and English. 

Courtesy: freespeechcollective.in

The post State Censorship: Pushback by Filmmakers, Juries and Audiences Enable Screenings appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that there was sufficient material before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to initiate preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court, however, did not determine whether Bora had ultimately breached the law or whether she must furnish a bond. It directed the State to disclose all material relied upon in the proceedings and required the SEM to follow the principles of natural justice and independently decide whether an interim bond was necessary.

From a call to gather at Mandi House to preventive proceedings

Bora, who is also described in the judgment as a social activist, had posted an invitation on Instagram on October 16, calling people to assemble at Mandi House at 5 pm. Her post stated: “Jantar Mantar is not a site that you can denotify, it’s a symbol of our resistance! Today, all of Central Delhi has become Jantar Mantar!”

The judgment records that Bora was detained by Delhi Police at around 5:30 pm that day and released on October 17. The notice initiating preventive proceedings was issued on October 17 by Mahesh Kumar Meena, the SEM for New Delhi district. It called upon her to appear and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety for the same amount under Section 135(3) of the BNSS.

The notice alleged that Bora had created a nuisance by shouting slogans at the Mandi House roundabout, repeatedly participated in protest-related activity around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and instigated people to join an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place. It also alleged that she had called for the national flag to be hoisted without obtaining permission and that there was a likelihood of a breach of public peace and tranquillity.

The notice stated that she might commit a breach of peace or a wrongful act likely to disturb public tranquillity within the SEM’s jurisdiction. It invoked Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS to initiate proceedings and required her to appear on October 19. The judgment noted that Bora sought exemption from personal appearance on health grounds on October 19 and was subsequently directed to appear before the SEM on October 24.

Bora challenged the notice as mechanical and based on hearsay

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the notice did not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 126 of the BNSS and merely reproduced the language of the statutory provision. He submitted that the SEM was required to examine the information received, make an independent assessment of whether it disclosed a likelihood of breach of peace, and record the basis for initiating proceedings.

The challenge also questioned the reliance placed on the police kalandara, the report submitted to initiate preventive proceedings. Bora’s counsel argued that the SEM had acted on the report and the directions of senior police officers rather than forming an independent opinion. He pointed to the SEM’s order of October 17, which recorded that the kalandara had been submitted by Sub-Inspector Vaishali Tushir and that the notice should be issued after its inspection.

The petition also contested the claim that Mandi House was covered by a prohibitory order. Counsel relied on an order dated August 23, 2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Parliament Street subdivision, to argue that the location where Bora had called for a gathering was not within the area covered by restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS.

Another central argument was that the information cited in the notice was hearsay and did not provide a sufficient factual basis for proceedings that could affect Bora’s liberty. Counsel maintained that a peaceful protest could not, by itself, justify preventive action and disputed the allegation that Bora had urged people to gather at Central Park, Connaught Place, where another group had called for a protest.

The petition also raised the question of whether the SEM could initiate proceedings on the material placed by police without conducting the inquiry required by law. Counsel argued that the statutory safeguards were particularly important because failure to furnish an interim bond could have consequences for personal liberty.

State relied on prohibitory orders, police records and previous cases

Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that Section 126 of the BNSS allows an Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings when information indicates that a person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity and the Magistrate considers there to be sufficient grounds to proceed.

The State maintained that the SEM had relied not merely on an allegation or hearsay, but on the kalandara dated October 17 and supporting material. It argued that the SEM had considered the report and heard the investigating officer before forming an opinion. Sharma further submitted that the assessment at this stage was a matter of the SEM’s subjective satisfaction and that the High Court should not substitute its own assessment for that of the authority conducting the inquiry.

The State also argued that the petition was premature. Under the statutory scheme, it said, the person receiving the notice would have an opportunity to appear, contest the information and participate in the inquiry. If the allegations were not substantiated, the person could be discharged under Section 137 of the BNSS and would not be required to furnish a bond, or any bond already furnished could be discharged. The State submitted that the law provided remedies at subsequent stages and that the High Court should not interrupt the proceedings merely because a show-cause notice had been issued.

On the question of the restrictions in force at Mandi House, the State relied on a prohibitory order dated August 24, 2026, issued under Section 163 of the BNSS by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Barakhamba Road subdivision. According to the State, the order covered the jurisdictions of Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police stations, including Mandi House.

The police kalandara alleged that Bora arrived at the Mandi House roundabout at around 5:10 pm with approximately 40 to 50 protesters and began moving towards Barakhamba Road while raising slogans. It claimed that police repeatedly announced over a loudspeaker that Section 163 was in force and that gatherings of five or more people, demonstrations, processions and dharnas were prohibited in the area. The report alleged that Bora continued moving forward and raising slogans, including “Reclaim Jantar Mantar”, “Gyanesh Kumar, resign” and “We do not accept any Section 163 BNSS, nor do we accept any such law”, before police stopped the group after considerable effort.

The kalandara also alleged that Bora had repeatedly participated in demonstrations around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, had encouraged people through her language and social-media posts to violate the law, and had called upon supporters and members of the Cockroach  (CJP) to gather at Connaught Place and hoist the national flag without permission.

The police report sought to justify the restrictions by referring to Connaught Place’s commercial character, traffic movement, the presence of banks, offices, hotels, showrooms and vendors, the high footfall at Rajiv Chowk Metro Station, and the potential for crowding to obstruct emergency services. It also referred to the area’s proximity to Parliament and the Central Secretariat and argued that a gathering could affect public safety, traffic and livelihoods.

The report further alleged that previous events involving AISA and CJP had seen violence and property damage, that Bora had previously been detained under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and that several FIRs had been registered against her. It claimed that she might again attempt to gather people at prohibited locations and provoke demonstrations, creating a risk to public and government property.

The police report stated that the matter had been brought to the attention of senior officers and that preventive action had been considered necessary on their directions. This aspect was significant to Bora’s challenge, which argued that the proceedings reflected a command from senior officers rather than an independent decision by the SEM.

Court found material for initiating proceedings, but did not decide the allegations finally

After examining the record, the High Court noted that the material placed before the SEM included three General Diary entries relating to different incidents and dates, the kalandara dated October 17, and information relating to six FIRs registered at Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place police stations. The record also included information under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act.

The judgment identifies General Diary entry No. 19A dated October 17, relating to information under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act; entry No. 20A dated October 17, recorded at Barakhamba Road police station under Sections 126 and 169 of the BNSS; and entry No. 111A dated September 25, recorded at Parliament Street police station in relation to Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act.

The court also recorded that three witnesses had been examined in connection with the material, including Sub-Inspector Vaishali Tushir. It concluded that the SEM had considered the kalandara, the General Diary entries and the accompanying material before initiating proceedings.

Importantly, the High Court said it would not rely on additional video material handed over by the State because it was unclear whether those videos had been placed before the SEM when the decision to initiate proceedings was made. The court confined its assessment to the material that could be shown to have been before the Magistrate.

The court rejected the argument that the notice was based on no material or merely on hearsay. It held that the notice had identified the alleged conduct at Mandi House and the alleged attempt to mobilise people for a demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place. It also noted that the prohibitory order dated August 24 covered Mandi House, rejecting Bora’s argument that the location fell outside the restrictions.

The court distinguished the present case from Sumitra Dhal v. State of Odisha, in which the notice had not disclosed even a summary of the information or incidents said to justify apprehension of a breach of peace. It also distinguished Anuj Suhag v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the proceedings were based on a single incident, noting that the material in Bora’s case included multiple General Diary entries, FIRs and the prohibitory orders.

The High Court held that a notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS need not read like a judicial judgment. It must convey the substance of the information received and the reasons for the Magistrate’s opinion. It also accepted that the two statutory requirements could be conveyed through a composite notice rather than separate documents, relying on the Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling in Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra.

The court’s conclusion was that the material was sufficient to cross the threshold for issuing a show-cause notice. It expressly refrained from deciding the truth of the allegations or whether the SEM’s assessment would ultimately justify requiring Bora to furnish a bond.

Preventive proceedings are not punishment, court says

A substantial part of the judgment examines the purpose and limits of preventive proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS, which deals with security for keeping the peace and good behaviour. The court reiterated that proceedings under these provisions are preventive rather than punitive. Their purpose is to avert a possible breach of peace, not to punish a person for an offence already committed. Under Section 126, an Executive Magistrate may require a person to show cause why a bond should not be ordered if information indicates that the person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity and the Magistrate considers there to be sufficient grounds to proceed. The period of a bond under that provision cannot exceed one year.

The court held that, at the stage of a challenge to a show-cause notice, the High Court’s inquiry is generally limited to whether there was material before the SEM and whether the SEM applied his mind to it. The writ court should not ordinarily replace the Magistrate’s assessment with its own, unless the case involves a complete absence of material or an exceptional ground for interference.

For this proposition, the judgment relied on Supreme Court rulings including Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghoushe, Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories and J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement. These decisions recognise that show-cause notices should not routinely be quashed before the authority has had an opportunity to conduct the prescribed proceedings, while also acknowledging exceptions where a notice is without jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is pre-determined, constitutes an abuse of process or violates natural justice.

The court observed that preventive action may be based on the circumstances and nature of the alleged conduct rather than the number of incidents alone. It said even a single incident may, in appropriate circumstances, support apprehension of a future breach of peace. In Bora’s case, however, the court relied on its view that the record contained multiple entries and other material, rather than a solitary allegation.

The judgment also stated that the SEM was not required to conduct a full fact-finding investigation before issuing the notice. The court considered the initial examination of the information and the recording of the three witnesses sufficient to meet the threshold for initiating proceedings. It did not, however, dispense with the requirement of a proper inquiry before any final decision or interim order affecting Bora’s liberty.

Court emphasises safeguards under Madhu Limaye

The court devoted particular attention to the Supreme Court’s five-judge Bench decision in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, which stresses that preventive powers must be exercised with care because personal liberty is at stake. The Supreme Court had held that a Magistrate cannot demand an interim bond or place a person in jeopardy of detention without making the inquiry required by law into the truth of the information. The safeguards governing preventive proceedings must be strictly followed, and reasons must be recorded in writing. The power is judicial in character and cannot be exercised as a purely administrative measure.

The State relied on other passages in Madhu Limaye recognising that preventive provisions are intended to address reasonable apprehensions of conduct likely to disturb public peace. The Delhi High Court concluded that the principles laid down in that decision had not been violated at the stage then before it, but made clear that the SEM must continue to comply with those safeguards in the later proceedings.

Police directed to disclose all material; bond cannot be automatic

Despite dismissing Bora’s petition, the High Court issued specific directions to safeguard her rights during the inquiry. First, the State must provide Bora with all the material on which it intends to rely when she appears before the SEM. The court directed that the principles of natural justice must be followed before any order requiring her to furnish a bond is passed.

Second, the court specifically addressed Section 135(3) of the BNSS, which permits an interim bond during the pendency of an inquiry in circumstances where the statutory requirements are met. It left the question of whether to insist on a bond at the first instance to the SEM, emphasising that the provision concerns an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity arising after the inquiry has commenced and before it is completed. The SEM must therefore independently apply his mind to the material and decide whether an interim bond is necessary. The court directed him to take into account the safeguards laid down in Madhu Limaye and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Aldanish Rein v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Third, the court made clear that Bora would retain the right to pursue remedies at subsequent stages of the proceedings, including after a final order is passed at the conclusion of the inquiry. Its observations were expressly limited to the question of whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage when only a show-cause notice had been issued. The writ petition was dismissed along with any pending applications.

The ruling leaves the preventive proceedings against Bora to continue before the SEM. It upholds the initiation of those proceedings, but leaves the substantive questions, including whether the allegations warrant a bond and whether an interim bond is necessary, for independent determination in accordance with the law.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

People take to the streets to defend the right to vote and protest against SIR

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

SKM calls for scrapping SIR, removal of Gyanesh Kumar and restoration of voting rights

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Bikaner House censors 75 photographs of Delhi protests from Raihan Vadra’s exhibition, leaving empty walls behind

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards

‘Chalo Delhi’: Thousands march to Supreme court against ‘Vote Chori’, demand Gyanesh Kumar’s removal

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

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

The post Delhi High Court rejects AISA president Neha Bora’s plea against peace-bond notice, directs police to disclose material appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thousands of farmers, workers and women joined a rally held by the AIKS, CITU, AIDWA and DYFI in Akole, Maharashtra, on 22 October, demanding substantial relief for drought-hit farmers, immediate payment of crop insurance compensation, ₹2 lakh loan waiver for farmers who have regularly repaid their loans, land titles for those cultivating forest and other lands, and the resumption of financial assistance to Ladli Behna beneficiaries.

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 23, 2026

7,000 Farmers and Workers Rally in Akole, Maharashtra

A massive rally, led by the AIKS, CITU, AIDWA and DYFI, was held in Akole, Ahilyanagar district, Maharashtra, on 22 October in support of the ongoing sit-in Satyagraha, demanding substantial relief for drought-hit farmers, immediate payment of crop insurance compensation, ₹2 lakh loan waiver for farmers who have regularly repaid their loans, land titles for those cultivating forest and other lands, and the resumption of financial assistance to Ladli Behna beneficiaries.

Carrying red and white flags and raising militant slogans, thousands of farmers and workers marched through Akole town to the Tehsil office, where they submitted a memorandum outlining their demands along with thousands of individual applications from farmers and citizens.

Addressing the public meeting held following the rally, senior leader Brinda Karat, AIKS National President Ashok Dhawale and AIKS National Joint Secretary Ajit Nawale strongly criticised the Maharashtra government’s anti-farmer policies. They condemned the ₹5,000 drought relief announced for farmers as a cruel mockery, as crop losses and mounting debts deepen the agrarian crisis, and pointed out that the ₹4,000 payable under the Namo Kisan Nidhi scheme was being withheld.

The round-the-clock sit-in agitation will continue until 26 October. The Kisan Sabha leadership announced that if the state government fails to take concrete decisions on the demands, hundreds of vehicles carrying farmers from across Maharashtra will set out from Akole for Mumbai to compel the state government to address the pressing issues confronting farmers.

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 23, 2026

Carrying red and white flags and raising militant slogans, the protesters demanded substantial drought relief, immediate disbursal of crop insurance compensation, a ₹2 lakh loan waiver for farmers who have regularly repaid their loans, land titles for people cultivating forest and other lands, and the resumption of financial assistance to beneficiaries of the Ladli Behna scheme.

The rally followed an ongoing round-the-clock sit-in Satyagraha in Akole, with organisers announcing that the agitation would continue until October 26. Addressing the gathering, senior leader Brinda Karat, AIKS National President Ashok Dhawale and AIKS National Joint Secretary Ajit Nawale criticised the Maharashtra government’s handling of the agrarian crisis. They condemned the ₹5,000 drought relief announced for farmers as grossly inadequate in the face of widespread crop damage and escalating debt, while also pointing to the withholding of ₹4,000 payable under the Namo Kisan Nidhi scheme.

The Kisan Sabha leadership warned that if the state government failed to take concrete decisions on the demands, hundreds of vehicles carrying farmers from across Maharashtra would set out from Akole for Mumbai to press the government for action.

The protest comes as the scale of Maharashtra’s drought becomes increasingly difficult to ignore. The state has declared 265 of its 358 talukas drought-affected, covering nearly three-quarters of its administrative subdivisions. Yet, despite announcing a series of concessions, the government has left direct crop-loss compensation dependent on field assessments, prolonging uncertainty for farmers who are already watching their harvests fail.

Drought declared, but direct compensation remains uncertain

A September 25, 2026, government resolution issued by Maharashtra’s Relief and Rehabilitation Department directed district administrations to assess crop damage in the drought-affected talukas. Collectors have been instructed to conduct field inspections, prepare panchnamas, document crop conditions through photographs and GPS-tagged records, and submit their findings to the state government. The declaration covers extensive parts of Marathwada and Vidarbha, alongside drought-hit areas in northern and western Maharashtra. Among the districts affected are Beed, Latur, Dharashiv, Nanded, Parbhani and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Marathwada, and Yavatmal, Amravati, Akola, Wardha, Nagpur and Chandrapur in Vidarbha.

As reported by The Indian Express, Maharashtra’s overall monsoon rainfall deficit has obscured the severity of the crisis in its most vulnerable agricultural regions. While the state recorded a deficit of around 18% between June 1 and September 25, some districts experienced far more severe shortfalls. Solapur recorded a 57% deficit, followed by Beed at 49%, Hingoli at 48%, Jalna at 46%, Dharashiv at 45% and Akola at 41%.

The consequences have been particularly severe in Marathwada, where prolonged gaps between rainfall have deprived rain-fed crops of the soil moisture needed to survive. Agriculture department estimates reported in the media indicated that at least a quarter of standing crops in the region had been damaged following a dry spell lasting approximately 45 days.

The government has announced concessions in land revenue, restructuring of crop loans, suspension of the recovery of agriculture-related loans, electricity-bill relief for agricultural pumps, examination-fee waivers for students and expanded employment under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. It has also provided for tanker-based drinking-water supplies where necessary, fodder arrangements for livestock and water-conservation works.

However, these measures do not amount to direct compensation for the crops already destroyed. The government resolution states that financial assistance for drought-affected farmers will be announced separately after the prescribed assessments are completed. According to a PTI report, Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar has also said that the actual assistance would be determined after ground-level assessments. For farmers confronting immediate losses, the concern is critical. Loan restructuring does not replace a failed harvest, and electricity concessions cannot compensate for crops that have withered in the fields. The demand for immediate financial relief has therefore become central to the agitation in Akole.

From failing soybean crops to dying orchards

The drought is damaging both seasonal crops and plantations that take years to establish. Soybean, cotton and maize have suffered extensive losses, while fruit growers are struggling to secure enough water to keep trees and vines alive. In an October 5 report, Mid-Day report described the devastation in Yevta village in Beed district, where farmer Sheikh Rashid’s four-acre soybean crop was drying up after prolonged water shortages. Rashid told IANS that farmers had anticipated a good harvest but had suffered significant losses because of the lack of rainfall.

The damage extends well beyond a single season’s produce. In a report published on October 12, India Today documented the growing crisis among Maharashtra’s horticultural farmers, with grapevines, orange trees, pomegranate plantations, banana crops and mango orchards all facing water stress. The report highlighted the threat to vineyards in the Nashik region, where October is a crucial period for pruning and preparing vines for the next harvest. Kailas Bhosale, president of the Maharashtra Grape Growers’ Association, told Kisan Tak that farmers could not carry out normal vineyard operations without water. He called for emergency intervention, including tanker supplies, to prevent the vines from dying.

The difference between losing a harvest and losing a plantation is devastating. According to India Today, growers could face a wait of at least four years before newly planted grapevines begin yielding commercially. Farmers who have invested years of labour and substantial sums in their orchards risk losing not merely their current income but the foundation of their future livelihoods.

The crisis has also reached Maharashtra’s orange-growing belt. The Times of India reported on October 8 that orange orchards across an estimated 5,000 hectares in Amravati had suffered extensive damage, with trees being cut down and surviving orchards struggling with flowering, fruit development and fruit size.

The state’s fruit economy is particularly vulnerable because Maharashtra is a major producer of grapes, pomegranates and bananas, with horticultural output supporting agricultural households, traders, exporters and workers across supply chains. The destruction of perennial crops threatens to leave farmers without income for several seasons, even after rainfall returns.

Water scarcity is becoming a crisis of survival

As local wells and other water sources dry up, farmers are increasingly being forced to purchase water simply to keep their crops and livestock alive.

India Today report described the mounting costs faced by drought-hit growers. In Shahapur in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district, farmer Badrinath Bharat told The Indian Express that he was spending ₹3,000 a day on two water tankers after his well dried up. Having already lost his cotton and maize crops, he was buying water to protect his ginger crop and provide for his family and ten cattle.

The burden is particularly punishing for small and marginal farmers, who have limited financial reserves to absorb repeated crop failures or sustain expensive irrigation through prolonged dry spells. Purchasing water can become an additional debt even when there is little certainty that the surviving crop will generate enough income to recover the cost.

The shortage is also threatening the coming rabi season. As reported by The Indian Express, the depleted soil moisture and declining reserves in reservoirs and borewells could discourage farmers from sowing crops such as chickpea and jowar. A drought that has already devastated the kharif harvest could therefore compromise the next agricultural cycle as well.

Scientists have warned that the timing and distribution of rainfall matter as much as the overall deficit. Karthikeyan Lanka, associate professor at IIT Bombay’s Centre for Climate Studies, told Down To Earth that the monsoon had been characterised by repeated swings between wet and dry conditions. Sporadic heavy rainfall may briefly replenish soil moisture, but prolonged dry spells allow that moisture to dissipate through evaporation and plant transpiration.

The India Drought Monitor, maintained by IIT Gandhinagar, indicated that around 84% of Maharashtra’s area was under dry or drought conditions as of September 23. The figures underline how widely the crisis has spread, even though the extent of agricultural damage varies by region.

Government relief under pressure as farmers demand accountability

The Maharashtra government’s drought declaration has formally recognised the crisis, but farmers’ organisations argue that recognition without timely and adequate assistance will do little to prevent mounting indebtedness and the destruction of rural livelihoods. The state’s response has included loan restructuring, revenue concessions and other administrative relief, while direct compensation remains contingent on assessments. Meanwhile, farmers are facing immediate expenses for water, livestock fodder, agricultural inputs and household needs, often without the income expected from their crops.

The growing pressure has also reached the Union government. India Today reported that Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis met Union Home Minister Amit Shah to seek financial assistance through the National Disaster Response Fund. An inter-ministerial team subsequently visited Maharashtra between October 8 and 11 to assess crop losses and relief requirements, according to The New Indian Express.

But for the farmers gathered in Akole, the central question remains whether these assessments will translate into timely assistance on the ground. Their demands extend beyond the immediate drought declaration to include crop insurance payments, a loan waiver for farmers who have regularly repaid their loans, land rights for cultivators and the restoration of financial assistance to Ladli Behna beneficiaries. With the sit-in scheduled to continue until October 26, the Kisan Sabha leadership has made clear that it is prepared to escalate the agitation to Mumbai if the government fails to act.   

Related:

Inside the SSP’s Office: Allegations of beatings, torture & police impunity against farmer leaders in Meerut, UP

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

“₹4 a Kilo for a Crop That Costs ₹20 to Grow”: Nashik’s onion farmers erupt in protest over deepening price crisis

Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers

A Silent Emergency: Farmer suicides surge in Maharashtra amid apathy, debt, and systemic collapse

The post 7,000 farmers and workers rally in Maharashtra as drought deepens agrarian crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protest meeting, held at 1 p.m. in response to the nationwide call issued by People Against SIR, brought together prominent intellectuals, citizens and representatives of political parties and organisations. Speakers, including Dr Hiren Gohain, Dr Ghanshyam Nath and Dr Rituraj Kalita, raised concerns over the implications of SIR for citizens’ constitutional rights, citing alleged violations and the growing threat to democratic participation.

The meeting demanded the immediate scrapping of SIR, the completion of Assam’s pending NRC process within a defined timeframe, and the adoption of 2014 as the base year for electoral rolls. It also called for eligible people left out of the NRC to have their names included within a specified period.

‘SIR is being used to deprive citizens of voting rights’

Addressing the gathering, Dr Hiren Gohain criticised what he described as the erosion of the Election Commission’s independence, alleging that the constitutional institution had increasingly become an instrument serving the political interests of the BJP.

“Under the pretext of SIR, the BJP is creating conditions to win elections by depriving Indian citizens, particularly Muslims and Dalits, of their voting rights. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is being used for this purpose. This is fascism in the name of democracy,” Gohain said.

He further warned that the attacks on democratic institutions extended to the Constitution itself, and demanded that Kumar either resign or be removed from office. Pointing to the growing resistance against SIR, Gohain said that young people across the country were taking to the streets despite police repression and intimidation. He described this mobilisation as a positive development and called for a similar political awakening in Assam.

“It is time for the people of Assam to wake up,” he said, urging citizens to join the wider struggle to defend democratic rights.

The meeting was attended by several other prominent individuals and representatives of political parties and organisations, including Harkumar Goswami, Debajit Choudhury, Khagen Kalita, Pankaj Kumar Das, Mukut Lochan Kalita, Jayanta Gogoi, Phanidhar Das, Munin Mahanta, Shankar Uccha Saikia, Kishor Kumar Kalita, Yechmin Ara Begum and Humayun Choudhury.

Assam cannot remain on the sidelines of the struggle over voting rights

In a statement issued after the meeting, the Forum for Social Harmony – Citizens’ Initiative said Indian democracy had reached a decisive juncture, with state power and repression confronting citizens determined to defend their constitutional and democratic rights.

The Forum noted that people across the country were mobilising to protect democracy, the Constitution and the right to vote. It argued that Assam, given its long and fraught history of disputes over citizenship and electoral rights, could not afford to remain detached from this national struggle.

“Assam, which has been turned into a testing ground for decades over questions of citizenship and voting rights, cannot remain aloof from this struggle. On the contrary, drawing upon its own historical experience, Assam must play a decisive role in this pan-Indian struggle to defend democratic rights,” the statement said.

The Forum extended its support to the nationwide protest call issued by People Against SIR and appealed for a united movement against attempts to curtail voting rights through the revision exercise. It also stressed the need for a just resolution of Assam’s unresolved citizenship and electoral issues, including the completion of the NRC process and the inclusion of eligible people who have been left out.

The demands reflect the longstanding concerns surrounding the intersection of citizenship documentation and electoral participation in Assam, where the NRC process has remained unresolved despite years of official scrutiny and public uncertainty. The Forum’s position is that electoral revision cannot become a substitute for resolving these pending questions or a means of excluding eligible citizens from democratic participation.

Police shut Guwahati Press Club gate, prevent protesters from marching out

The protest took a contentious turn after the meeting concluded. When participants attempted to leave the Guwahati Press Club premises while raising slogans, a large contingent of police personnel stationed at the entrance shut the gate, preventing them from marching out. The protesters raised slogans demanding that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign, that SIR be scrapped, and that the pending NRC process in Assam be completed. They also challenged the police action that prevented them from leaving the Press Club premises.

Questioning the restriction on their movement, the protesters asked: “Has the Press Club premises now also been turned into a place of confinement to silence the voice of protest?”

The incident underscored the central contradiction at the heart of the gathering: citizens had assembled to defend their voting rights and democratic freedoms, only to find themselves prevented from marching out of the venue while expressing those demands.

A continuing campaign against SIR in Assam

The Forum for Social Harmony – Citizens’ Initiative has consistently opposed SIR in Assam and has raised concerns about its implications for citizenship, electoral participation and constitutional rights. Its latest mobilisation places Assam within the wider nationwide campaign challenging the revision exercise and demanding accountability from the Election Commission.

By linking the demand to scrap SIR with the completion of the NRC and the inclusion of eligible people excluded from the register, the Forum has foregrounded the specific anxieties surrounding citizenship and voting rights in Assam. Its appeal is for a collective democratic response that safeguards electoral participation rather than deepening existing uncertainty over who can exercise the right to vote.

https://share.google/LjDNn1hmXRRjL7DOg

https://share.google/KoWOPhNr0xBz2GazA

Related:

UP voter lists: Software manipulates Voter’s names, Pilibhit investigation finds 10,470 irregular entries

Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions

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

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

The post Assam must resist sir, defend voting rights, says Guwahati Citizens’ Forum appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We acknowledge that the unlawful arrest has caused substantial financial loss to the Petitioner, in addition to irreparable damage to his reputation and lasting blemish on his credibility.” (Para 26)

In a strongly worded judgment pronounced on October 22, a division bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that the arrest was arbitrary, mala fide and carried out without applying the law. The Court also held the Magistrate responsible for allowing Agrwal’s detention to continue without independently examining the case or recording reasons for remand.

“Upon examining the entire case and the record, we find that the Police have attempted to characterize the Petitioner as some gangster, history-sheeter or an extortionist without having an iota of evidence in that regard and even without an investigation into genuineness of complaint. Even a simple analysis and investigation of the messages and communication on record reveal that the Petitioner was alleging wrongdoings by the partners of the Developers. The Police have entirely failed to do so. It clearly appears to us that the Respondent No.2 in connivance with the Developer/ Intervener, with a view to prevent the Petitioner from pursuing his lawful remedy has falsely implicated him in the present crime by clearly con-writing a story of alleged extortion.” (Para 24)

“We find that, the learned Magistrate of the 64th Court was also responsible for the Petitioner’s wrongful detention. No reasons have been recorded for justifying continuation of remand of the Petitioner. We find that the Ld. Magistrate has failed to independently apply his mind and adopted a very casual approach, thereby causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner on account of continued entirely unlawful arrest and detention.” (Para 25)

The bench directed the State to pay the compensation within two weeks of the judgment being uploaded to the High Court’s official website. It further ordered the State to initiate strict action, including the immediate suspension of the concerned police officers, and directed the High Court Registry to place the judgment before its Administrative Committee for appropriate action against the Magistrate or Magistrates who authorised the remand.

Arrest following a property dispute

Agrwal, a resident of Walkeshwar in South Mumbai, had been appointed as the constituted attorney of his mother-in-law, Asawari K. Kulkarni, to negotiate with the developers of a housing society undergoing redevelopment. The dispute concerned the terms on which her flat would be sold or replaced following redevelopment.

According to the judgment, Agrwal was negotiating with Seth and Sonal Developers over the sale of the flat for approximately ₹1.64 crore. On August 4, 2017, the developers handed him ₹2 lakh as an advance during a meeting at their office. The police arrived shortly after he received the money, handcuffed him and took him to Azad Maidan Police Station.

The developers subsequently accused him of extortion, leading to the registration of FIR No. 243 of 2017 under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribed a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment. Agrwal was arrested on August 4 and spent six days in police custody, followed by 20 days in judicial custody. He was eventually granted bail by the Sessions Court on August 28, 2017, after being unable to secure an earlier hearing on his bail application.

Appearing in person before the High Court, Agrwal challenged the legality of his arrest and detention, alleging that the police had acted in collusion with the developers and manipulated documents to implicate him in a false extortion case.

Court exposes discrepancies in police records

The High Court’s scrutiny of the case record revealed serious inconsistencies in the police documentation, including discrepancies in the station diary entries, the FIR and the arrest form. The police claimed that a complaint against Agrwal had been lodged as early as June 23, 2017. However, the Court noted that an RTI response from the police stated that no such complaint had been received. The FIR also failed to name the complainant in the relevant record, while the charge sheet stated that a copy of the alleged earlier complaint had not been annexed.

The Court also found that the arrest form originally recorded August 5, 2017, at four places, with the date overwritten as August 4 at three of them. The arrest registration number continued to reflect August 5, exposing a discrepancy that the police had failed to explain. Other mandatory fields, including those relating to the medical examination, grounds of arrest and intimation to Agrwal’s wife, were left blank despite other records referring to these procedures.

The bench also took exception to the police having described Agrwal as a recidivist likely to abscond if released on bail, despite there being no material on record establishing criminal antecedents. The Court found these discrepancies significant and concluded that the police had attempted to construct a case portraying Agrwal as a criminal without first verifying the complaint’s genuineness. The judgment observed that the documents indicated a deliberate attempt to implicate him in a false extortion case and justify an arrest that had already taken place.

Police failed to establish why arrest was necessary

The bench found that the police had made no meaningful effort to establish why the ₹2 lakh had changed hands. Given Agrwal’s documented role as his mother-in-law’s attorney in the redevelopment negotiations, the Court held that a preliminary inquiry could have clarified the nature of the transaction. Instead, the police arrested him without adequately investigating the circumstances or establishing why custodial interrogation was necessary.

The Court held that the police had failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governed the notice-of-appearance procedure applicable to the case. The notice was served after Agrwal’s arrest, and there was no evidence that he had been given a genuine opportunity to comply with it before the police resorted to arrest.

Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the bench reiterated that the power to arrest cannot be exercised merely to question a person. Police must establish why arrest is necessary and why the investigation cannot proceed without taking the person into custody. The bench found no satisfactory justification in the record. It concluded that the arrest and subsequent remand were high-handed and arbitrary, carried out without application of mind and in violation of basic statutory safeguards.

The Court was particularly critical of the conduct of the police sub-inspector, finding that the officer had exploited his position and used the police machinery to advance the developer’s interests against Agrwal. The judgment stated that the record indicated collusion between the officer and the developer, with the apparent objective of preventing Agrwal from pursuing his lawful remedies and exposing alleged wrongdoing.

Magistrate also held responsible for unlawful detention

The Court did not confine its criticism to the police. It also held that the Magistrate of the 64th Court, Mumbai, had contributed to Agrwal’s wrongful detention by repeatedly authorising custody without adequately examining the record or recording reasons. Agrwal was remanded to police custody on August 5, 2017, with the remand continued on August 8. On August 10, he was sent to judicial custody, which continued despite the absence of cogent reasons recorded in the remand orders. His bail application was also adjourned before he eventually obtained relief from the Sessions Court.

The bench found that the Magistrate had failed to independently apply his mind and had adopted a casual approach, resulting in the continuation of an entirely unlawful arrest and detention. The Court directed the Registry to place the judgment before the High Court’s Administrative Committee for appropriate action against the judicial officers who dealt with the remand applications and bail proceedings in August 2017.

State ordered to compensate victim

Holding that the unlawful arrest had caused Agrwal substantial financial loss as well as lasting damage to his reputation and credibility, the High Court allowed his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State has been directed to pay ₹5 lakh within two weeks. The Court also ordered the initiation of strict action against the concerned police officers, including immediate suspension, and stated that the proportionate compensation could be recovered from their salaries, if so advised.

The judgment underscores that an arrest cannot be justified merely by the registration of an FIR or the subsequent grant of remand. Police officers must comply with statutory safeguards and establish the necessity of arrest, while magistrates must independently scrutinise the grounds for detention rather than mechanically authorising custody. The petition was allowed in these terms, and the connected intervention application filed by the developer was disposed of.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka released on ₹50,000 bonds, undertake not to call protests at Jantar Mantar

Punjab & Haryana HC: Users must be given blocking notices immediately; sets aside Facebook page takedown

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

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

The post Bombay High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation for man illegally arrested, slams police-developer collusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a press release issued in New Delhi on October 22, 2026, SKM said its member organisations would submit a memorandum addressed to President Droupadi Murmu through district magistrates and sub-divisional magistrates at district and tehsil centres. It also announced demonstrations at district and tehsil headquarters, state capitals and New Delhi.

The memorandum states that farmers are uniting to protect democracy and the right to vote of all citizens, and seeks the President’s immediate intervention.

Demand to scrap SIR and act against the CEC

SKM demanded the immediate annulment of SIR and accused Gyanesh Kumar of violating his constitutional pledge. It alleged that genuine citizens had been deleted from electoral rolls to help the ruling BJP retain power and that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was protecting the Chief Election Commissioner.

Demanding Kumar’s removal and prosecution, the memorandum described the situation as a constitutional standoff. It maintained that Parliament alone holds the power to formally change the rulebook and argued that the Prime Minister could not resolve the standoff without parliamentary action to remove the CEC.

Changes to the selection panel and electoral reforms

The farmers’ platform also demanded an amendment to the 2023 Act governing the selection of election commissioners. It sought the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel in place of the Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

Alongside these demands, SKM called for comprehensive electoral reforms to introduce proportional representation, curb money and muscle power, and legalise state funding of elections.

Restore Jantar Mantar as a protest site

The memorandum demanded the immediate revocation of what it described as a Delhi Police order denotifying Jantar Mantar as a designated site for peaceful protest.

SKM said the right to protest is a fundamental right and that attacks on peaceful protesters violate the Constitution and the rule of law.

Support for students and youth protesting against SIR

Expressing support for those protesting against SIR, particularly students and youth, SKM said the October 23 demonstrations would also protest the alleged suppression and torture of protesters, including young women students, in New Delhi.

The organisation accused Delhi Police personnel and people it described as criminal elements associated with the RSS-BJP of attacking protesters. It also alleged sexual harassment of women students and journalists, calling it “shocking and shameful”.

SKM warned that if attacks on protesters continued, farmers would be forced to come forward to protect them. It urged the President to ensure an investigation, the arrest of those responsible and stringent action against offenders, including police personnel and others involved.

Criticism of the judiciary

The memorandum criticised the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, for not taking suo motu cognisance of the alleged crimes against peaceful protesters in the national capital.

SKM linked this criticism to its demand for protection of the constitutional right to peaceful protest and action against those accused of violence.

Objections to alleged house arrests

SKM also raised concerns over the alleged confinement of political and social activists in their homes to prevent them from joining peaceful protests.

The memorandum asserted that no statutory law or rule explicitly permits police to keep citizens under “house arrest”. It alleged that police, acting under the direction of Home Minister Amit Shah, were entering private homes and placing activists under illegal house arrest, particularly in states governed by what it called “Double Engine Governments”.

Describing these actions as violations of fundamental rights, privacy and democratic freedoms, SKM accused the government of turning India into a “Police State”. It demanded immediate intervention to stop such actions.

The memorandum urged the President to give the demands earnest consideration and initiate appropriate steps without delay.

October 12 meeting set protest dates

At its October 12 meeting in Karnal, Haryana, SKM decided to hold protests on October 23 in support of students and youth opposing SIR.

It also announced demonstrations in New Delhi and across India on November 26, marking six years since the farmers’ struggle at the Delhi borders, and urged farmers to prepare for prolonged protests until their demands are met.

Related:

Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM): Demand to hold talks with real representatives of farmers

Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions

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

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

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

The post SKM calls for scrapping SIR, removal of Gyanesh Kumar and restoration of voting rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to DT Next, Akilan, a Class XI student, had faced taunts from classmates over his caste and eating habits. The harassment had reportedly become so distressing that he left home last month and went to stay with a relative in Alandurai. His father, Ashok Kumar, brought him back and complained to the school management. Although the taunts reportedly stopped for a few days, they later resumed.

The FIR, as reported by South First, alleges that class teacher Vijayakumar asked students which of them ate beef. Following this interaction, two classmates allegedly subjected Akilan to casteist verbal abuse and physical assault. Akilan belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. His mother, Kousalya, has named the two students, the class teacher and headmaster Arunkumar in her complaint, alleging that the school failed to address the discrimination.

The harassment allegedly continued when Akilan returned to school after the Puja holidays on Wednesday. According to DT Next, he was subjected to caste-based taunts during the morning prayer assembly before returning home. His mother found him hanging when she returned home for lunch around 1 pm. He was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was declared dead.

Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding his death and the family’s allegations. A senior police officer told NDTV that the role of the school, the headmaster, the class teacher and others was being examined. The officer confirmed that a case had been registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused have also been booked under provisions relating to abetment of suicide and voluntarily causing hurt. Akilan’s body was kept at Coimbatore’s ESI Hospital for a post-mortem examination.

The case raises serious questions about the school’s response to alleged caste-based harassment, particularly after the family had reportedly approached its management. The allegations against the staff and students remain under investigation. The incident also comes amid earlier allegations of caste discrimination in Coimbatore’s schools. Last year, the principal of a private school was suspended after allegedly making a Dalit student who was menstruating sit on the stairs outside her classroom to write her examinations.

Related:

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

Thirty years on, justice remains elusive for Dalits in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana

“Obnoxious and Caste-Coloured”: Supreme Court strikes down Odisha bail orders mandating cleaning work, declares them void

Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law

Beyond the ‘plum’ posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

The post Dalit Class XI student dies by suicide after alleged casteist harassment in Coimbatore School appeared first on SabrangIndia.