Samajwadi Party backs November rally amid electoral dispute

Samajwadi Party spokesperson Ghanshyam Tiwari has defended the opposition’s November 1 rally in Delhi, accusing the Bharatiya Janata Party of protecting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and diverting attention from allegations of irregularities in electoral rolls.

Tiwari’s intervention on Monday added to the dispute over the planned gathering at Ramlila Maidan, where Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other opposition figures intend to protest against alleged voter deletions and demand accountability from the Election Commission. The allegations remain contested and have not been established as findings of electoral wrongdoing.

The Samajwadi Party spokesperson argued that warnings about disruption to business were being deployed to shift public attention away from questions about the integrity of voter lists. His comments followed an appeal from Delhi traders seeking postponement of the demonstration during a crucial festive shopping period.

The Chamber of Trade and Industry, led by chairman Brijesh Goyal, wrote to Gandhi on October 24 asking that the rally be deferred until after November 10. The organisation warned that traffic restrictions, barricades and reduced access to major markets could damage trade at one of the busiest times of the year.

The chamber estimated that commercial activity worth as much as Rs 10,000 crore could be affected. That figure represents the organisation’s assessment of potential disruption, not a verified loss. It also claimed that road closures and diversions earlier this month had already cost traders approximately Rs 3,000 crore.

Goyal’s organisation highlighted the proximity of Ramlila Maidan to wholesale and retail centres including Chandni Chowk, Sadar Bazar and Khari Baoli. It said restrictions around railway stations and roads could discourage customers and obstruct deliveries, particularly ahead of Dhanteras and Diwali.

Gandhi responded on Monday by acknowledging the traders’ concerns but maintaining his demand for Kumar’s removal. He accused the government of shutting Metro services and restricting roads during demonstrations, arguing that the authorities, rather than protesters alone, bore responsibility for disruption.

Addressing shopkeepers through a social media message, Gandhi said their businesses, savings and families’ futures were vulnerable when voting rights were compromised. He urged traders to ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi to dismiss Kumar, claiming that protests would stop within 30 seconds if that happened.

The demand is political rather than a statement of the constitutional process for removing a chief election commissioner. Kumar holds a protected constitutional office, and removal requires the procedure applicable to a Supreme Court judge. The government cannot simply dismiss him at the prime minister’s discretion.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge also appealed for participation in the November 1 demonstration. He linked the opposition’s allegations about electoral rolls with public anxiety over inflation, while acknowledging that the traders’ representations deserved consideration.

The BJP has criticised the decision to stage the rally on November 1, citing both commercial disruption and the date’s association with the anti-Sikh violence of 1984. Party spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad accused Gandhi of disregarding public hardship and Sikh sensitivities. Those objections have become a separate element of the confrontation over the demonstration.

The opposition’s campaign focuses on the Election Commission’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls and allegations that eligible voters have been removed or otherwise disadvantaged. Gandhi has accused election authorities of breaching rules and failing to address objections. Such assertions require examination against electoral records and applicable procedures; they cannot be treated as proof of deliberate manipulation.

The Election Commission maintains responsibility for preparing and revising voter lists under the electoral framework. Revision exercises are intended to identify eligible electors and correct inaccurate entries, although their implementation can generate disputes over documentation, deletions and access to remedies. Opposition parties are demanding greater scrutiny of how those processes have operated.

Gandhi had called on students, farmers, workers, women, young people and traders to attend the Delhi rally, presenting it as a campaign to protect voting rights. His appeal placed traders among the groups invited to participate even as their representatives pressed for a change of date.

The chamber’s letter identified several markets within roughly five kilometres of the venue and warned that congestion could extend beyond the rally itself. Its request was for postponement until after the festive trading period, rather than cancellation of the opposition’s right to hold a public meeting. The organisation also highlighted possible restrictions affecting Old Delhi and New Delhi railway stations, which serve shoppers and wholesale merchants travelling into the capital.

House Democrats seek Epstein special counsel over Trump allegations

House Judiciary Committee Democrats have demanded an independent investigation into President Donald Trump's links to Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that the Justice Department suppressed evidence and that Attorney General Todd Blanche interfered with questioning of a key witness.

A 53-page report released on Monday by the committee's Democratic staff examines accounts involving 11 women and alleges that five directly accused Trump of rape or sexual assault in Epstein's presence or company. The claims have not been established in court, and the report is not a finding endorsed by the Republican-controlled committee.

Representative Jamie Raskin, the panel's senior Democrat, called for a special counsel to examine possible offences involving Epstein's associates and the department's handling of evidence. He also urged fuller cooperation with state and overseas prosecutors investigating matters connected to Epstein.

Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing involving Epstein. Neither the White House nor the Justice Department had provided a substantive response to the report when it was released. The allegations against Blanche likewise remain accusations by Democratic investigators, not findings of criminal misconduct.

The report's most specific allegation concerning Blanche centres on his July 2025 interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's convicted associate, while Blanche was deputy attorney general. Democrats say he repeatedly discouraged discussion of a woman identified as Jane, whose earlier account to the FBI described meeting Trump through Epstein at Mar-a-Lago when she was 14.

A transcript quoted in the report records Blanche saying, “Let's not talk about individuals.” Democratic investigators contend that his interventions could raise questions about witness tampering or obstruction because Maxwell was expected to appear before congressional investigators shortly afterwards. The transcript alone does not establish that Blanche committed either offence.

The committee staff also accused federal authorities of prematurely closing investigative avenues and withholding material that could illuminate allegations against Epstein's associates. Its findings draw on survivor interviews, FBI records and documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, alongside accounts that have circulated publicly for years.

Among the women discussed is Beatrice Keul, who told committee staff that Trump raped her during a November 1993 pageant at New York's Plaza Hotel. She alleged that Epstein approached her at the event and that Trump offered assistance with immigration arrangements and university admission. Her account is an allegation, not a judicially established event.

Former model Stacey Williams alleged that Trump groped her at Trump Tower while Epstein stood nearby. Jill Harth, whose allegations appeared in a 1997 lawsuit, accused Trump of unwanted sexual contact at Mar-a-Lago during a gathering also attended by Epstein. Trump has denied allegations of sexual misconduct.

The report additionally revisits an allegation made under the pseudonym Katie Johnson that Trump and Epstein sexually assaulted her when she was 13. Democrats claim records connected to that allegation have not been fully disclosed. The allegation has not been proved, and its inclusion does not establish the credibility of the underlying claim.

Another witness, Maria Farmer, described an encounter with Trump at Epstein's New York office that she considered threatening. Other accounts concern introductions allegedly arranged by Epstein or Maxwell. The report distinguishes these encounters from direct accusations of assault, although Democrats argue that the combined material warrants further examination.

Investigators also scrutinised Paolo Zampolli, a former modelling agent and Trump associate who served in his administration. They suggested he and Trump may have participated in Epstein's exploitation network during the 1990s. That assertion remains an investigative hypothesis rather than a criminal charge or established finding.

Democrats challenged Trump's statements about the extent of his friendship with Epstein, citing flight records and an account of a 2009 conversation concerning whether Epstein had been expelled from Mar-a-Lago. Disputes over those statements do not themselves prove involvement in Epstein's crimes.

The report was issued eight days before the November 3 congressional midterm elections, when control of the House will be contested. Raskin could assume the Judiciary Committee chairmanship if Democrats secure a majority, potentially giving the party greater authority to demand documents and testimony.

Under Justice Department procedures, appointment of a special counsel generally rests with the attorney general, making the Democrats' request particularly contentious because their report directly questions Blanche's conduct. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges; Maxwell is serving a prison sentence following her conviction for helping him abuse underage girls.

Election Commission contests plea to restrain Gyanesh Kumar

The Election Commission told the Supreme Court on Monday that a petition seeking to prevent Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from performing his duties was not maintainable under the constitutional safeguards governing his office.

In a counter-affidavit filed on October 26, the Commission invoked Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which stipulates that a Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.

The Commission also rejected allegations that Kumar had taken decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without the consent of fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It maintained that its three principal SIR orders were approved unanimously.

The response concerns a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh questioning whether the Chief Election Commissioner could individually exercise powers vested in the three-member constitutional body. The petitioner sought judicial intervention over alleged departures from collective decision-making and asked that Kumar be restrained from functioning.

The Commission argued that the petition relied entirely on one newspaper investigation without independently establishing the allegations. It said the petitioner had neither approached the Commission for clarification nor sought to verify the underlying facts before requesting extraordinary judicial relief.

The affidavit stated that a newspaper account could not, by itself, establish the truth of its contents. The Commission also pointed out that the petition did not challenge the legality of its composition or dispute that Kumar had been appointed in accordance with the law.

It consequently described the request for a writ of quo warranto, requiring a public officeholder to establish the authority under which the position is held, as misconceived.

The Commission further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision requires members to endeavour to reach unanimous decisions and provides for majority decisions when they disagree.

Restraining the Chief Election Commissioner, the affidavit argued, would interfere with the statutory arrangements through which the constitutional body conducts its business. These submissions represent the Commission's position before the court, rather than a judicial determination of the petition's merits.

The Commission said orders governing the SIR issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 had received the agreement of all three members. It distinguished questions, comments and suggestions recorded during internal file circulation from final decisions formally approved by the Commission.

According to its account, files move through both Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner. Urgent approvals may be obtained electronically and subsequently recorded. Decisions are then implemented through the Commission's secretariat.

The affidavit itself, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, was unanimously approved by Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi, the Commission said. It denied authorising the release of internal notes or files to the press.

The proceedings follow allegations that objections by the two Election Commissioners had been disregarded in decisions connected with the electoral roll revision exercise. Those allegations remain contested, and the Supreme Court has not established that Kumar acted without the requisite authority.

On October 5, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant declined to suspend Kumar through an interim order without hearing the other side. The court nevertheless agreed to examine the challenged decisions and their compatibility with the governing law.

The matter was listed for further hearing on Tuesday, October 27. The Commission requested permission to submit a fuller, paragraph-by-paragraph response, explaining that its immediate affidavit had been prepared amid the Dussehra court vacation.

Addressing a separate issue concerning voter registration, the Commission maintained that Form 6, used for applications to enter electoral rolls, had not been amended. It said an additional SIR declaration was a separate document, although its online presentation could have created confusion.

The Commission said the online application process had been adjusted from October 21 to distinguish the two documents. It also maintained that changes to voter records on its digital platform require an order from the appropriate Electoral Registration Officer.

For voters whose details cannot be matched during the revision exercise, the Commission said booth-level officers would ordinarily collect supporting documents at their homes, with personal hearings reserved for exceptional circumstances. Such hearings would preferably be conducted online, while officials would seek necessary documentation directly from households wherever that was feasible.

Rahul Gandhi rebuffs traders over Delhi rally postponement

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has turned down an appeal from Delhi traders to postpone the Opposition’s November 1 rally, urging them instead to press Prime Minister Narendra Modi to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha said on Monday that protests against alleged electoral malpractice could end within 30 seconds if Kumar was dismissed. His response followed warnings from business organisations that the planned demonstration at Ramlila Maidan could disrupt commercial activity during the peak Diwali shopping season.

Gandhi acknowledged the traders’ concerns but linked their economic security to the Opposition’s campaign against alleged vote theft. He accused the government of imposing restrictions that had disrupted transport and business operations during earlier demonstrations.

“To every trader in Delhi: We love you and hear you,” Gandhi wrote on X, before accusing the government of shutting Metro services, sealing roads and restricting movement across the capital.

“With a stolen vote nothing is safe - your shop, your savings, your children’s future,” he declared.

Gandhi urged traders to demand Kumar’s removal, referring to the election official as “accused no. 4”, a designation used in the Opposition’s allegations against the Election Commission. No judicial finding establishing wrongdoing by Kumar was cited in his statement.

The confrontation followed an October 24 letter from the Chamber of Trade and Industry, whose chairman Brijesh Goyal requested postponement of the rally until after November 10, when the principal Diwali festivities conclude.

The organisation warned that road closures, security barricades, traffic diversions and possible Metro restrictions could prevent customers and suppliers from reaching major wholesale and retail markets surrounding Ramlila Maidan.

Goyal estimated that commercial transactions worth approximately Rs 10,000 crore could be affected by disruptions during the festive trading period. The figure represented the organisation’s assessment of potential business exposure rather than independently established losses.

Traders identified approximately 20 markets within five kilometres of the proposed demonstration venue as particularly vulnerable to restrictions on vehicle movement and customer access.

Their concerns centred on the timing of the demonstration, scheduled just five days before Dhanteras on November 6 and a week before Diwali on November 8. Bhai Dooj falls on November 10.

Goyal said Delhi’s commercial establishments traditionally experience substantial sales during these festivals, particularly in jewellery, electronics, clothing, household goods, automobiles and gifts. He estimated Dhanteras-related transactions across the capital at approximately Rs 25,000 crore.

The trading organisation also claimed that restrictions accompanying earlier demonstrations had caused losses of roughly Rs 3,000 crore. That estimate has not been independently substantiated.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge adopted a more accommodating position when questioned about the traders’ representations on Monday, saying the Opposition would examine their concerns and attempt to find an acceptable solution.

“The rally is scheduled for November 1. We have received an appeal from the traders,” Kharge said, indicating that party leaders would consider the request while maintaining the importance of their electoral campaign.

His remarks left open the possibility of further discussions even as Gandhi’s response made removal of the Chief Election Commissioner the central demand for ending the agitation.

The INDIA alliance has organised the rally as part of its campaign challenging the Election Commission’s handling of electoral rolls, the Special Intensive Revision exercise. Opposition parties allege that the process risks excluding eligible voters and have demanded accountability from the commission. Those allegations remain disputed and do not themselves establish manipulation of election results.

Congress leaders have also questioned decisions attributed to Kumar and sought his departure from office. Removal of a Chief Election Commissioner, however, is governed by constitutional procedures rather than an executive dismissal. The Constitution provides safeguards comparable to those applying to a Supreme Court judge, requiring parliamentary action under the prescribed process.

The November 1 event follows demonstrations by Opposition parties and civil society representatives in Delhi over the revision of voter lists. Political organisers have described the planned gathering as an opportunity to mobilise supporters and renew pressure for action on their complaints about electoral administration.

The traders’ organisation has approached Delhi Police Commissioner with a request to reconsider Ramlila Maidan’s use as a designated venue for political demonstrations. Goyal proposed moving such events to the CBD Ground in Burari or another site on the capital’s outskirts, arguing that this could reduce pressure on districts and the roads serving them.

Trump alleges irregularities in Brazil presidential vote without evidence

US President Donald Trump questioned the legitimacy of Brazil’s presidential election on Monday, describing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s victory as apparently rigged without producing evidence of wrongdoing.

Speaking to reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, Trump said the election had looked terrible and suggested that its outcome was questionable, a day after Brazilian voters returned Lula to office for another term.

“It looked like another rigged election, frankly,” Trump said. “I didn’t take sides, but it was a terrible look for the world. Elections have to be indisputable, and it looked really bad to me.”

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court formally announced Lula’s victory following Sunday’s runoff against right-wing senator Flávio Bolsonaro. Its published count gave Lula 64,256,232 votes, or 51.79 per cent of valid ballots, against Bolsonaro’s 59,826,041 votes, equivalent to 48.21 per cent.

The difference of more than 4.4 million votes gave Lula a fourth presidential term. The official declaration was made by electoral court president Kassio Nunes Marques, who congratulated both candidates for participating in the contest.

Trump did not identify particular polling stations, counting procedures or documented discrepancies to support his charge. His comments therefore stood in contrast to the declared result from Brazil’s election administration, which oversees voting and tabulation across the country.

Asked about the Brazilian contest, Trump maintained that he had not supported either candidate. He nevertheless criticised the appearance of the election, saying he had watched the process and considered it deeply troubling. His remarks did not amount to a substantiated finding of electoral fraud.

Flávio Bolsonaro, the defeated Liberal Party candidate, initially refused to acknowledge the result and called for the election to be annulled. He subsequently said he would organise the opposition, leaving questions about his next political steps after a closely fought campaign.

The senator is the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, who maintained close political ties with Trump during his presidency. Trump had welcomed Flávio Bolsonaro to the White House earlier this year and publicly praised him, although he insisted on Monday that he had not taken sides in the election.

Trump’s intervention added an international dimension to the controversy surrounding the vote. Lula has had disagreements with Washington over trade and foreign policy, while the Trump administration has celebrated electoral successes by right-wing politicians elsewhere in Latin America.

The result was recognised by several foreign leaders who congratulated Lula and indicated their willingness to continue working with Brazil. Among them were Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

Brazil’s electoral authorities released figures covering the nationwide contest rather than relying on competing campaign estimates. More than 128 million voters cast ballots in the second round, from an electorate exceeding 158 million, according to the Superior Electoral Court.

Abstention was approximately 19.2 per cent, compared with 21.08 per cent in the first round. The electoral court also said it had made more than 95,000 voting locations available across the country to facilitate access.

The court acknowledged operational complications on polling day after a Supreme Federal Court order extended voting from 5pm to 7pm at stations still open. Nunes Marques said the decision required adjustments to electoral systems and counting arrangements, as well as additional safeguards for election workers.

Those administrative adjustments were described publicly by the electoral authority, but they did not constitute evidence supporting Trump’s allegation that the presidential result was manipulated. The court announced the outcome after counting votes from the second-round ballot.

Lula, representing the Workers’ Party, had trailed Bolsonaro in the first round on 4 October but overtook him in the runoff. Electoral figures showed Bolsonaro receiving 47.03 per cent of valid votes in the first round, compared with Lula’s 45.16 per cent.

The president’s victory was also confirmed through official announcements by Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies and Senate, whose accounts reflected the electoral court’s declared totals. Lula is scheduled to begin his next term in January 2027.

The legislature also noted that the winning margin exceeded Lula’s approximately 2.1 million vote advantage over Jair Bolsonaro in the presidential election held in 2022.

Nunes Marques said more than 95,000 polling locations had been provided to reduce travel distances for voters. Electoral officials also monitored the availability of free public transport intended to help citizens reach polling stations on voting day.

Congress seat claim posters spark row over UP alliance

Posters demanding 200 Assembly seats for the Congress appeared outside its Uttar Pradesh headquarters in Lucknow, triggering a political controversy ahead of the 2027 elections as opposition allies accused the BJP of attempting to disrupt their seat-sharing negotiations.

The posters, bearing the slogan “200 seat haq hai hamara” (200 seats are our right), surfaced on Sunday outside the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee office and elsewhere in the state. They also declared that Uttar Pradesh trusted Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Photographs of Rahul Gandhi, Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi and party general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra featured prominently alongside state Congress leaders.

However, the Congress denied responsibility for the campaign, while Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav described the posters as fake and alleged that the BJP was attempting to create divisions within the opposition INDIA bloc.

The controversy emerged as Congress and the Samajwadi Party began discussing their respective shares of the 403 constituencies ahead of next year's Assembly elections.

Congress state in-charge Rajendra Pal Gautam confirmed that his party had submitted a preliminary list covering between 175 and 200 constituencies to its alliance partner.

Gautam said the final allocation would be determined through discussions between the senior leadership of both parties. He maintained that Congress workers would accept whatever arrangement emerged from an amicable agreement.

The distinction between the party's preliminary constituency list and the poster campaign became central to the dispute. Although Congress leaders have publicly sought a substantial allocation, they have not endorsed the posters as an authorised party initiative.

Yadav accused the BJP of orchestrating the campaign to undermine opposition cooperation. He questioned how unidentified individuals could install political hoardings without paying the prescribed municipal charges.

The Samajwadi Party leader demanded an investigation into the installations and action against municipal officials responsible for enforcing advertising regulations.

Gautam supported Yadav's allegations, maintaining that attempts to generate confusion over the alliance would not undermine cooperation between the two parties.

Neither leader presented publicly verified evidence establishing who commissioned or financed the posters. The allegations against the BJP therefore remain unsubstantiated.

The hoardings were also spotted in Rae Bareli, Amethi and Sultanpur, extending the controversy beyond Lucknow. Their appearance coincided with negotiations over the relative electoral strength of the two opposition partners.

Samajwadi Party leader Dharmendra Singh said constituency allocations could not be decided through posters or public demands.

He emphasised that the leadership and the designated negotiating committee would determine which party contested individual constituencies, with electoral viability serving as the principal consideration.

The Samajwadi Party has maintained that candidates' prospects of winning should take precedence over numerical demands during alliance negotiations.

The competing positions reflect differences in the parties' electoral standing. Congress won only two seats when it contested the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections independently, while the Samajwadi Party emerged as the principal opposition force.

Their cooperation during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections produced substantially stronger results. The Samajwadi Party secured 37 parliamentary constituencies in Uttar Pradesh, while Congress won six.

That performance strengthened the opposition alliance against the BJP and provided Congress leaders with grounds to seek a larger organisational and electoral role in the state.

Nevertheless, the parliamentary results do not automatically translate into an equivalent distribution of Assembly constituencies. The parties must assess local organisational networks, candidate strength and constituency-level voting patterns before reaching an agreement.

Congress leaders have indicated that they want a respectable share of seats rather than an allocation based solely on their previous Assembly performance.

The Samajwadi Party, meanwhile, remains the larger partner in the state and has stressed the importance of protecting the alliance's electoral competitiveness.

No final seat-sharing formula has been announced, and the leadership of both parties has indicated that negotiations will determine the eventual distribution.

The posters also displayed photographs of Uttar Pradesh Congress president Aradhana Misra, working president Imran Masood and Gautam, placing the state leadership alongside the Gandhi family.

The slogan accompanying the demand for 200 seats read “UP ko hai Rahul Gandhi par bharosa”, expressing confidence in Rahul Gandhi's leadership.

The campaign's authorship remains unresolved, with Congress officials distancing themselves from the displays despite their use of party leaders' photographs and electoral messaging.

Yadav has additionally sought accountability from municipal authorities over the installation of the hoardings, including whether the necessary advertising fees were collected and permissions obtained.

Centre deploys riot police after Arunachal dam protests

The Central Government has sent two companies of the Rapid Action Force to Arunachal Pradesh after protests against a proposed hydropower dam erupted into violence in Pasighat.

The Ministry of Home Affairs ordered the movement of 250 personnel on Saturday, with the units to be flown from Navi Mumbai aboard an Air Force transport aircraft. Officials said the reinforcements were expected to reach Pasighat by Sunday to assist security forces stationed there.

The deployment followed arson, vandalism and clashes during demonstrations opposing the proposed 11,200-megawatt Siang Upper Multipurpose Project. Police said a mob attacked an office of state-run hydropower developer NHPC, damaged a police station and targeted the residences of three political leaders in East Siang district on Friday night.

Chief Minister Pema Khandu appealed for calm and said demonstrations must remain peaceful. His office said a 12-hour shutdown across Siang, Upper Siang and East Siang districts had been largely peaceful before disturbances broke out in Pasighat after the protest ended. The violence continued until approximately 3.30 am on Saturday.

The Rapid Action Force is a specialised riot-control formation within the Central Reserve Police Force. Its deployment adds to the CRPF units already operating in the affected districts. Arunachal Pradesh also has a standing presence of roughly two to three CRPF battalions.

Security officials said personnel from the CRPF and other police forces were injured while responding to the unrest. They maintained that the forces had prevented further escalation, although the attacks on public buildings and private residences exposed the intensity of opposition surrounding the project.

Authorities also imposed restrictions on gatherings in Pasighat, Mebo and Ruksin, prohibiting assemblies of more than five people in designated areas. The measures cover processions, the carrying of weapons and activities likely to disturb public order. District officials appealed to residents to cooperate with police and avoid further confrontation.

The homes of state BJP president Kaling Moyong and legislators Ninong Ering and Oni Panyang were among properties targeted during the disturbances. Police have been examining the attacks, including vehicle damage, while seeking to identify those responsible for the violence.

Khandu said peaceful protest was an essential democratic right but could not justify destruction of property or threats to public safety. He also reiterated the government's willingness to hold discussions with organisations opposing the project and urged them to raise their concerns through dialogue.

Opposition to the dam centres on fears that a large reservoir could displace communities, submerge ancestral land and damage the river environment. Indigenous groups, including organisations representing Adi communities in the Siang valley, have questioned the impact on settlements, agriculture and cultural heritage.

Protest organisers have also demanded a halt to preliminary surveys and the release of activists detained during earlier demonstrations. Their objections concern not only the eventual construction of the dam but also technical investigations they believe could advance the proposal without sufficient community consent.

The state government maintains that the project has not received a final construction decision. Khandu has said preliminary feasibility assessments are necessary before its benefits, costs and possible consequences can be evaluated, and that affected residents should have opportunities to express their views.

Officials have presented the proposed storage project partly as a response to concerns over China's planned hydropower development upstream on the Yarlung Tsangpo, the river that enters Arunachal Pradesh as the Siang. They argue that regulating water flows could help address downstream risks, while opponents remain concerned about the local environmental and social costs.

The shutdown preceding the violence was organised by groups opposed to the project across the three affected districts. Their mobilisation followed disagreements over survey work and the handling of protests, leaving the authorities facing demands for consultation and accountability over security confrontations.

Anti-dam activist Ebo Mili and youth leader Otul Jerang surrendered at Pasighat police station on Saturday in connection with cases arising from the disturbances. Both condemned damage to public property and disputed suggestions that the protest organisers were responsible for the mob attacks. Their accounts of how the confrontation developed differ from the police version.

The district administration and police have called for restraint as investigations continue. Officials have not publicly established every confrontation or identified all those involved in the attacks. The differing accounts underline the need to distinguish allegations about individual actions from the broader campaign against the dam.

Chandrachud maintains Kaul endorsed unanimous collegium recommendations

Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has rejected suggestions of recorded disagreements over judicial appointments, asserting that every collegium recommendation made during his tenure with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul received unanimous approval.

His response follows allegations in Kaul’s forthcoming memoir that Chandrachud was excessively deferential to the government when considering appointments to the Supreme Court, sometimes contemplating consultation with the executive before the collegium had completed its deliberations.

Chandrachud said the collegium’s resolutions, including the reasons supporting recommendations, were published on the Supreme Court website. He maintained that Kaul endorsed each recommendation and never formally recorded a dissent against any name proposed to the government.

The former Chief Justice nevertheless declined to address the memoir’s detailed allegations without reading the text and understanding the context of Kaul’s observations. He distinguished his recollection of collegium proceedings from the account presented in excerpts of the book.

Chandrachud also disputed Kaul’s description of leaving a collegium meeting in protest. He said he could not recall Kaul walking out and described their interactions as respectful, with discussions taking place in an amicable atmosphere.

He explained that decisions did not emerge solely from formal meetings. Judges conducted several rounds of discussions, both informal and formal, before recommendations were finalised and transmitted to the government. The published resolutions, he argued, reflected the outcome of that process.

Kaul’s memoir, Without Fear or Favour, offers a different account of the discussions preceding those decisions. The former Supreme Court judge, who served as the senior-most puisne judge under Chandrachud, argues that consultation with the government should not become a means of securing advance approval for proposed candidates.

One episode concerns an exercise to fill six Supreme Court vacancies. Kaul writes that collegium members had already agreed on five candidates when Chandrachud proposed an additional name as they approached a meeting.

According to Kaul, the other members resisted the proposal. He suspected that the additional candidate had been suggested at the government’s instance. Chandrachud then took him aside and considered telephoning to ascertain the executive’s view, the memoir states.

Kaul says he objected, insisting that seeking the government’s opinion during collegium deliberations would be inappropriate. The five previously agreed candidates were recommended, while the sixth name was not advanced.

A second disagreement involved a proposed judge belonging to a minority faith. Kaul alleges that the government questioned whether further representation from that community was necessary, notwithstanding the candidate’s connection to a state with limited representation on the Supreme Court.

The government subsequently sought information about the caste background of the candidate’s family before its conversion to that faith, according to Kaul. He considered the question irrelevant to the judicial appointment and objected to the reasoning being conveyed.

Kaul writes that he closed the file and walked out after telling Chandrachud he could not participate in appointments determined by such considerations. He says the meeting was adjourned and that the government relented, allowing the candidate’s appointment to proceed.

The conflicting recollections concern what happened before the collegium issued its formal recommendations. Unanimity in published resolutions establishes the absence of recorded dissent but does not, by itself, resolve competing accounts of informal exchanges or objections during deliberations.

Chandrachud has acknowledged that the government participates in the appointments process and communicates with the Chief Justice. He pointed out that judicial appointments require warrants issued by the President, while reserving a fuller response to Kaul’s particular account.

Kaul has argued that governments inevitably exert pressure over appointments and that judges must preserve institutional independence while engaging with the executive. His memoir describes differences over the appropriate boundaries of that engagement rather than a formal dissent recorded against the collegium’s final recommendations.

The distinction matters because the collegium recommends candidates collectively, whereas consultations and preliminary discussions can involve individual judges. Kaul’s criticism is directed at the manner in which appointments were discussed with the executive. Chandrachud’s defence focuses on the decisions and the absence of objections recorded when those decisions were adopted. Neither account establishes that preliminary proposals became a recommendation. The disagreement therefore turns partly on the stage at which government involvement was considered appropriate.

The memoir is scheduled for publication by Juggernaut later this month. Kaul retired from the Supreme Court in December 2023, having served alongside Chandrachud in the collegium during the latter’s tenure as Chief Justice.

BJP announces nationwide protests over Kharge’s Modi remark

The BJP has announced nationwide protests on Monday after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge invoked Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s father during a heated exchange at a gathering in Patna, prompting accusations of personal abuse and demands for an apology.

The confrontation occurred on Sunday during an event commemorating the 139th birth anniversary of Bihar’s first chief minister, Shri Krishna Singh. Kharge was addressing the audience when a man interrupted with words suggesting that Modi would not leave power.

“Modi ka baap bhi jayega,” Kharge responded, a Hindi expression meaning “Even Modi’s father will have to go.” He repeated the remark as disorder broke out inside the venue, drawing immediate condemnation from leaders of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah accused Kharge of crossing the limits of decency and said the Congress had repeatedly targeted Modi and his family. Shah argued that the opposition party’s electoral setbacks had led its leaders to substitute personal attacks for substantive political arguments.

BJP president Nitin Nabin also condemned the language, describing it as indecent and unparliamentary. He said voters were watching the Congress leadership’s conduct and would respond to it politically. Other BJP representatives accused Kharge of insulting the prime minister’s late father and undermining standards of public debate.

The controversy acquired another dimension when the audience member, identified as Santosh Kumar, said his words had been misunderstood. Speaking outside the venue, he maintained that he had not intended to defend Modi’s continuation in power or disrupt Kharge’s speech.

“I was saying that unless there is a revolt, Modi will not go. But only a part of it was heard and was misunderstood,” Kumar said. His explanation suggested that the exchange began with a sentence Kharge had interpreted differently from its intended meaning.

Kumar said he wanted Modi to leave power but believed political change would require stronger public resistance. His account challenged the initial portrayal of him as a supporter of the prime minister heckling the Congress leader, although the full exchange remained difficult to establish from the words audible in the hall.

People attending the function confronted Kumar after the interruption. Footage showed a disturbance as several men surrounded him, and accounts of the incident said he was assaulted before being removed from the auditorium. The circumstances of the confrontation and responsibility for the alleged assault were not independently established.

The BJP’s decision to organise demonstrations extended the dispute beyond the Patna meeting. The party said protests would take place across the country on Monday, turning a confrontation at a state-level commemorative function into a national political issue. Its response also drew attention to the distinction between criticism of an elected leader and remarks involving family members who hold no public office.

The Congress defended its president amid the escalating exchange of accusations.

The disagreement over the interrupted sentence became central to the competing interpretations of the episode.

Kharge’s speech had otherwise concentrated on electoral accountability and the opposition’s objections to the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. He alleged that the exercise could be used to exclude opposition supporters from voter lists and accused the BJP-led government of weakening democratic safeguards.

The Congress president warned that protecting voting rights required sustained public mobilisation. He described opposition to alleged electoral manipulation as a second struggle for independence and called for resistance to actions he said threatened the Constitution.

Those allegations remain disputed. The electoral roll revision is administered by the Election Commission, and accusations that it is being deliberately used to disadvantage opposition voters have not been established merely by Kharge’s statements.

Kharge also criticised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, challenging its ideology and accusing it of contributing to communal divisions. He questioned Modi’s past promises concerning black money and argued that the government had failed to deliver on key commitments.

The Congress gathering took place amid a broader dispute between the two parties over the conduct of elections and the functioning of democratic institutions. Those policy arguments were largely overshadowed on Sunday by the reaction to Kharge’s choice of words.

The commemorative programme was held at Bapu Sabhagar in Patna to honour Shri Krishna Singh, who served as Bihar’s first chief minister after independence. The interruption occurred during Kharge’s address to those assembled for the anniversary observance.

Police detain 15 after Jalgaon RSS procession clashes

Police detained more than 15 people after a dispute over a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) procession near a mosque triggered stone-throwing and a baton charge in Maharashtra's Jalgaon district, officials said on Monday.

The confrontation occurred on Sunday at Kingaon village in Yawal taluka, where residents objected to the route of a Dussehra-related march. Police said several RSS participants and officers were injured as stones were thrown during attempts to clear protesters blocking the road.

Additional Superintendent of Police Sandeep Gavit said more than 15 people had been detained and that officers were preparing to register a first information report. The investigation was continuing, with additional police personnel stationed in the village to prevent further disturbances.

The procession eventually proceeded under police protection after officers dispersed demonstrators. Superintendent of Police Shrikant Dhivare said the situation had returned to normal and security personnel remained deployed across the affected area.

The dispute began when a group of residents opposed the RSS march passing in front of a mosque. Muslim women joined the protest, sitting on the road outside the place of worship and preventing the procession from following its planned route.

Police tried to persuade those assembled to move away before using batons to disperse the gathering. Dhivare said officers had spent between two and two-and-a-half hours attempting to resolve the confrontation through discussion.

The superintendent maintained that the organisers had obtained police permission for the procession and were entitled to use the authorised route. He said the police had repeatedly requested that protesters withdraw their objections and allow the march to proceed.

Gavit separately confirmed that officers had attempted to convince demonstrators to clear the road but encountered continued resistance. Police then carried out what officials described as a mild lathicharge, or baton charge, to restore access to the route.

Stone-throwing took place as tensions escalated around the blocked procession. Accounts of the confrontation differ over precisely when stones were thrown and who initiated the violence. Police have not publicly established individual responsibility for the stone-throwing, and the identities of those detained have not been disclosed.

The reported injuries to RSS participants and police personnel underscore the seriousness of the confrontation, although officials have not provided a comprehensive casualty figure or detailed medical assessments. There was no confirmed information about serious injuries among the protesters.

Senior officers travelled to Kingaon as the confrontation unfolded. Alongside Dhivare and Gavit, divisional police officer Anil Badgujar was among those involved in the response. Reinforcements were brought into the area as police worked to separate the opposing groups and secure the procession route.

Dhivare said the procession was completed peacefully after the intervention. His account distinguished the disorder surrounding the route dispute from the subsequent conduct of the march, which continued once the road was cleared.

The incident centred on objections to a specific stretch of the approved route rather than a reported prohibition on the RSS gathering itself. The protesters' detailed demands, including whether they had proposed an alternative route, have not been formally set out by police.

The RSS, a Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation, conducts uniformed route marches as part of its public activities. Sunday's event was described by organisers and police as a Dussehra procession, with permission secured before participants assembled in Kingaon.

Authorities have not announced whether charges will be brought against every person detained or whether additional suspects are being sought. Detention does not itself establish criminal responsibility, and the investigation must determine who participated in the violence and whether any offences occurred during the protest or the police response.

Police officials said their immediate priority was maintaining order following the confrontation. The additional deployment remained in place even after the march concluded, reflecting precautions against renewed clashes in the village.

The police account has not clarified whether any weapons other than stones were involved, how many people joined the sit-in, or whether the detained individuals belonged to either of the groups at the scene. Those unanswered questions are relevant to the inquiry, but officials have so far confined their statements to the obstruction, police intervention and restoration of order.

Kingaon is situated within Yawal taluka of Jalgaon district. Officers from surrounding areas were called to assist local personnel as senior district police officials supervised efforts to reopen the road and allow the authorised procession to finish.

Mumbai police detain Rapido rider over extremist posts

Mumbai police are investigating a Rapido motorcycle taxi rider accused of circulating extremist material and posting inflammatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, after an Anti-Terrorism Squad inquiry failed to establish suspected links with Pakistan.

Mohammad Hasan Abu Sarmad Akhtar, a Mahim resident described as 33 years old in several police accounts, was taken into custody following intelligence about his online activities. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) questioned him before transferring the case to Mahim police, who registered an offence concerning the promotion of hostility between religious communities.

The investigation initially focused on possible connections with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the banned Pakistan-based militant organisation, and a suspected Pakistani intelligence operative. However, officers said the ATS preliminary examination uncovered no evidence that Akhtar had communicated with anyone in Pakistan or maintained operational links with an organisation based there.

That finding significantly narrows the allegations established so far. Police are examining the suspect's online statements and distribution of material associated with JeM, rather than treating membership of the organisation or participation in a terrorist conspiracy as proven. Investigators have not publicly established that he was preparing an attack.

According to police, the ATS received information on October 21 alleging that Akhtar was in contact with a Pakistani intelligence operative. Officers located him near Mahim Metro Station and examined his mobile telephone and social media accounts. Their inquiry identified messages, videos and online groups that they considered potentially inflammatory.

Akhtar allegedly posted comments invoking jihad and shared recordings featuring JeM founder Maulana Masood Azhar. Police said some material circulated through Telegram groups, including audio speeches addressing the Babri Masjid dispute. Investigators are seeking to determine how the recordings were distributed and whether other individuals were involved in managing the groups.

One comment under scrutiny appeared beneath a social media post about security arrangements connected with a visit to Mumbai by Modi. Police allege that Akhtar referred to the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi while discussing Modi, prompting concern about the threatening implications of the remark.

The authorities have not announced evidence that the comment formed part of a concrete assassination plan. Its wording and circumstances remain matters for investigators, and the distinction between an offensive online statement and an organised threat is central to assessing the case.

Officers also identified activity on Instagram, X, WhatsApp and Telegram. They allege that Akhtar posted messages capable of aggravating communal divisions and subscribed to a Telegram channel called IBN-e-Qasim, which investigators suspect of circulating extremist propaganda. Joining or following a channel does not, by itself, establish organisational membership.

Police documented 39 screenshots of online material and seized a Redmi Note 14 Pro telephone for examination. Investigators are reviewing the content, its origin and the accounts involved. The material could help establish which statements Akhtar personally authored, which he forwarded and whether any exchanges went beyond public commentary.

A case has been registered under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the provision addressing acts that promote enmity between groups. The charge concerns alleged communal incitement. Police have not identified a separate terrorism charge arising from the initial examination.

Accounts of the arrest chronology differ. Some initial accounts described an ATS arrest on Saturday, October 24, while more detailed police accounts indicate that Akhtar was detained earlier, handed over to Mahim police and arrested on October 22. One account states that a court remanded him to police custody on Friday for four days.

There is also a discrepancy over his age, with some police-based accounts putting it at 32 rather than 33. His name has appeared with minor variations in transliteration, although the identification of the Mahim resident and the substance of the investigation are consistent.

Akhtar earned his living driving for the Rapido bike-taxi platform and selling perfumes, according to investigators. Police are examining whether he used online groups to contact people outside the country, but their preliminary findings have not substantiated the suspected Pakistani connection.

Investigators have not disclosed any verified financial transfers, weapons recoveries or instructions from JeM figures that would demonstrate direct operational involvement.

The inquiry remains with Mahim police, who are assessing the seized digital material and the circumstances surrounding the posts. No response from Akhtar or his legal representative has been publicly established in the accounts available, and the allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial scrutiny.

Arunachal deploys security reinforcements after Siang dam violence

Authorities have tightened security in Arunachal Pradesh’s East Siang district after violent protests against a proposed hydropower project left police personnel injured and public buildings and political leaders’ homes badly damaged in Pasighat.

The central government has sent approximately 250 Rapid Action Force personnel to the state following Friday night’s unrest, while the district administration has restricted public gatherings in Pasighat, Mebo and Ruksin. The additional personnel belong to two companies of the Central Reserve Police Force’s specialised riot-control unit.

Protesters opposing the proposed 11,200-megawatt Siang Upper Multipurpose Project allegedly attacked an NHPC office, Pasighat police station and police vehicles. They also vandalised the residences of two legislators and Arunachal Pradesh BJP president Kaling Moyong, according to police and Chief Minister Pema Khandu.

Khandu identified the affected legislators as Pasighat West MLA Ninong Ering and Mariyang-Geku MLA Oni Panyang. He said the homes were vandalised amid allegations of looting and theft, while the office complex of the Adi Baane Kebang, an organisation representing the Adi community, was also damaged.

Police said roughly 40 security personnel were injured during the disturbances, although accounts of the number of injured officers and damaged vehicles have varied. Deputy Superintendent of Police Tony Tatak was among those hurt. At least one protester was injured during police efforts to disperse demonstrators.

The violence followed a 12-hour shutdown organised on Friday across Siang, Upper Siang and East Siang districts by groups opposed to the project. The shutdown had largely ended peacefully before confrontations developed in Pasighat late that evening and continued into Saturday’s early hours.

Khandu said the attacks continued until approximately 3.30 am. He condemned the destruction and urged residents to maintain peace, while acknowledging the right to demonstrate against government decisions through lawful means.

The chief minister offered talks with organisations, associations and other stakeholders opposing the project, saying his government was prepared to discuss both its potential advantages and the concerns raised by affected communities. He offered to meet representatives in Itanagar, Pasighat or another mutually convenient location.

Khandu also reiterated the government’s position that public consensus would be central to decisions on advancing the project. Opponents, however, have sought a halt to preliminary activities and raised objections concerning displacement, environmental damage and the consequences for communities along the Siang River.

The protesting organisations have demanded the release of 10 arrested activists, reinstatement of suspended village headmen and withdrawal of paramilitary and central security forces from the affected areas. They have also called for an end to activities connected with assessing the project’s feasibility.

The Adi Baane Kebang United, SUMP Affected Area Youth Association, Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum Youth Wing and Adi Galo Welfare Society were among the organisations behind the shutdown. Their demands reflect opposition not only to construction of the dam but also to preparatory surveys and the deployment of security personnel in communities where resistance to the proposal has persisted.

Police and demonstrators have offered differing accounts of the confrontations. Officials accused groups of throwing stones at security personnel and damaging vehicles, while protesters alleged that police used tear gas against people taking part in a peaceful gathering. The circumstances of the initial confrontation remain disputed.

The East Siang administration imposed restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita from 5 pm on Saturday. The order prohibits gatherings of more than five people, unauthorised processions and the carrying of weapons in the designated areas.

The restrictions also cover public meetings and demonstrations without prior permission. Officials said the measures were intended to prevent further damage to property and disturbances while security personnel maintained a presence in vulnerable locations.

The Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee condemned the violence and called for an independent investigation into the use of tear gas against demonstrators. The competing allegations have added to pressure for a clear account of police actions and the events preceding the attacks.

Police have detained five youths for questioning in connection with alleged vandalism and robbery at residential properties. The precise extent of the damage remains under assessment, with accounts differing on whether fires destroyed buildings or principally affected vehicles and materials inside their premises.

Shops and businesses in Pasighat remained closed on Saturday following the overnight disturbances, although vehicles continued moving through the town. The proposed project is being pursued by NHPC on the Siang River.

Delhi traders seek postponement of Congress election rally

Delhi traders have urged Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to postpone the opposition's November 1 rally at Ramlila Maidan, warning that traffic restrictions could jeopardise business worth ₹10,000 crore during the Diwali shopping season.

The appeal comes amid an escalating confrontation between Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party over the planned demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

BJP president Nitin Nabin has accused Gandhi of acting at the behest of foreign interests seeking to destabilise the country. He has also announced a Save Democracy campaign to counter the opposition's allegations concerning electoral integrity.

The Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI), representing Delhi traders, has written to Gandhi requesting that the demonstration be rescheduled until after November 10, when Bhai Dooj marks the conclusion of the principal festive celebrations.

CTI chairman Brijesh Goyal said the rally could seriously disrupt wholesale and retail activity around Ramlila Maidan, particularly because the festive shopping period begins on November 1.

The organisation estimates that commercial activity worth approximately ₹10,000 crore could be affected if restrictions on movement discourage customers from visiting major markets. The figure represents a projection of business at risk, rather than an established financial loss.

Goyal pointed out that Dhanteras falls on November 6, followed by Diwali on November 8 and Bhai Dooj on November 10. These occasions traditionally generate substantial demand for jewellery, electronics, clothing, household goods and gifts.

The traders' organisation estimates that Delhi records approximately ₹25,000 crore in commercial transactions around Dhanteras across several sectors.

Nearly 20 wholesale and retail markets within five kilometres of Ramlila Maidan could face difficulties, according to CTI. They include Chandni Chowk, Sadar Bazaar, Chawri Bazaar, Khari Baoli, Bhagirath Palace and Karol Bagh.

Traders fear that barricades, traffic diversions and possible restrictions on Metro services could reduce customer footfall and interrupt deliveries. Buyers travelling from outside Delhi could also encounter difficulties reaching markets near the city's principal railway stations.

CTI maintained that political organisations have a democratic right to organise demonstrations but should consider their economic consequences when selecting dates and venues.

The association also claimed that demonstrations and road closures during October had already caused substantial commercial losses. Its estimates have not been independently established.

Meanwhile, Nabin intensified the BJP's criticism of Congress while addressing party workers in Ranchi on Saturday. He accused the opposition of undermining constitutional institutions while claiming to defend democracy.

The BJP president alleged that Gandhi and his associates were advancing the interests of external forces opposed to India's development. No independently verified evidence establishing foreign direction of the Congress campaign has been presented.

Nabin also challenged Congress over its allegations of electoral manipulation, arguing that the opposition was attacking the Election Commission without substantiating its accusations through appropriate institutional channels.

Congress has maintained that its campaign seeks to protect voting rights and ensure accountability in electoral administration. Opposition leaders have questioned the conduct of electoral roll revisions and demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Kumar.

Haryana Congress leaders Sanjay Dutt and Rao Narender Singh said the demand for Kumar's removal would be central to the November 1 gathering, which is being organised under the Save the Vote, Save the Country campaign.

Gandhi has reiterated his appeal for participation in the demonstration, while Congress general secretary K C Venugopal has reviewed organisational preparations with party functionaries responsible for mobilisation.

The proposed gathering is intended to bring together Congress supporters and other constituents of the INDIA opposition alliance, which has challenged the Election Commission's handling of voter-list revisions.

The Election Commission has defended its procedures, maintaining that its decisions carry legal authority and comply with established statutory requirements. It has also stated that differences of opinion within the institution are part of normal deliberations.

Delhi Police has already granted permission for the rally. Deputy Commissioner of Police Rohit Rajbir Singh confirmed that a no-objection certificate had been issued covering October 25 to November 3.

Police authorities have said they are coordinating with organisers, traffic personnel and other agencies to maintain public order and manage movement around the venue.

The arrangements will be particularly important because Ramlila Maidan is situated close to densely populated commercial districts where wholesale deliveries, retail purchases and passenger movements frequently overlap.

The traders' letter additionally highlights the dependence of these markets on visitors arriving through New Delhi and Old Delhi railway stations, both located near the proposed demonstration venue.

Trump renews tariff claim over India-Pakistan ceasefire

US President Donald Trump has again claimed that threats of punitive tariffs compelled India and Pakistan to end their military confrontation, reviving a disputed account of the May 2025 ceasefire at a Florida election rally.

Addressing supporters in Fort Myers on Friday, Trump said he had warned both nuclear-armed countries that continued fighting would jeopardise their access to the American market. He asserted that the pressure ended hostilities, although India's government has repeatedly rejected any connection between trade negotiations and the decision to stop military operations.

Trump described threatening tariffs of 250 per cent on both countries, presenting the proposed penalties as a decisive instrument of diplomacy. He said the two governments became angry at his warning but ultimately stopped firing.

“I’m going to put massive tariffs on both of you, 250 percent,” Trump recalled telling the countries. “And they got very upset, very angry, and they stopped shooting and the war was over.”

The president also claimed that 11 aircraft had been shot down during the confrontation. He did not provide supporting evidence or identify the aircraft, and the figure remains contested. Neither country's publicly established account independently substantiates his latest total.

His comments came during campaigning for the November 3 congressional midterm elections, with Trump seeking to strengthen Republican support in Florida and nationally. He promoted Republican gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds and Senator Ashley Moody while defending his administration's economic and foreign policies.

Trump again maintained that he had settled eight wars or conflicts, arguing that tariffs and the prospect of lost trade had helped secure several agreements. His wider assertion combines different international disputes and diplomatic outcomes, and cannot be independently treated as eight equivalent wars brought to an end.

India's Ministry of External Affairs has consistently disputed his explanation of the confrontation with Pakistan. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal previously stated that trade and tariffs did not arise during exchanges between senior officials from India and the United States while military operations were under way.

New Delhi has maintained that the cessation of hostilities was negotiated directly between the directors general of military operations of India and Pakistan on May 10, 2025. Its position is that Pakistan requested the military contact and that the two sides settled the arrangements without outside mediation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi subsequently conveyed that position to Trump during a telephone conversation, according to Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Modi told the president that neither an India-US trade agreement nor American mediation had figured in the discussions leading to the halt in fighting.

Washington offered a different account at the time. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 10 that the two governments had agreed to an immediate ceasefire after intensive American contacts with senior figures on both sides. His statement acknowledged the decisions taken by the leaderships of India and Pakistan.

Pakistan has been more receptive than New Delhi to acknowledging Washington's diplomatic contribution. That difference has remained central to the competing accounts of how the confrontation ended, even as Trump has continued presenting the outcome as evidence of his personal negotiating influence.

The fighting followed an April 22 attack on tourists at Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 26 people. India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, striking targets it described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The confrontation then escalated through exchanges involving missiles, drones and military strikes.

The May 10 understanding halted four days of intense military action, but the circumstances behind that decision have remained politically sensitive. India's government has insisted that matters involving Pakistan, including Kashmir, must be addressed bilaterally rather than through third-party mediation.

At the Fort Myers rally, Trump linked his foreign policy assertions to a broader defence of tariffs, which he portrayed as instruments for obtaining concessions abroad and encouraging domestic manufacturing. He also argued that Republican control of Congress was essential to advancing his administration's economic programme.

The rally was held in Fort Myers, a city on Florida’s Gulf Coast, where Trump asked voters to back his endorsed candidates.

The Florida event took place eleven days before voters were due to choose members of Congress and several state officials. Trump urged supporters to elect Donalds as governor and return Moody to the Senate, making the overseas conflict one element of a campaign speech focused principally on domestic political priorities.

Farooq Abdullah faces BJP backlash over Pakistan remarks

National Conference president Farooq Abdullah has triggered a political controversy by crediting Pakistan with protecting Kashmiris through its international advocacy, prompting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to demand an apology and legal action against the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister.

Addressing a party workers’ convention in Baramulla on Saturday, Abdullah claimed that Pakistan’s efforts to keep the Kashmir dispute alive internationally had prevented New Delhi from pursuing policies detrimental to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The remarks drew condemnation from BJP leaders, who accused Abdullah of legitimising Pakistan’s position on Kashmir while questioning the intentions of the central government.

Abdullah argued that international attention generated by Pakistan had restrained New Delhi, which he accused of failing to deliver justice to the region.

“What hope will you have from them? Will you expect that they will do justice for you?” Abdullah asked, referring to the central government.

He urged party workers to remain courageous and defend their political identity, warning that failure to resist policies they considered harmful could undermine their rights.

Referring to Pakistan without initially naming it, Abdullah said international discussion of Kashmir had compelled the authorities to exercise restraint.

“They are silent today because there is noise in the world, and our neighbour is constantly behind this,” he said.

Abdullah maintained that Pakistan repeatedly raised the unresolved Kashmir question internationally and suggested that this diplomatic activity had helped safeguard the region’s interests.

His assertion that the neighbouring country was protecting Kashmiris became the central point of contention, particularly because Pakistan has faced longstanding accusations from New Delhi of supporting militancy in Jammu and Kashmir.

Jammu and Kashmir BJP spokesperson Altaf Thakur described Abdullah’s statement as “seditious and anti-national” and demanded police action against him.

Thakur argued that a political leader who had sworn allegiance to the Constitution should not question the country’s intentions towards its citizens while appearing to endorse Pakistan’s position.

He accused Pakistan of contributing to decades of terrorism, violence and instability in Kashmir, rejecting Abdullah’s suggestion that Islamabad could be regarded as a protector of the region’s population.

The BJP spokesperson also challenged Abdullah to explain how Pakistan’s involvement had benefited Kashmiris, maintaining that its policies had instead caused widespread suffering.

Another BJP spokesperson, Abhijeet Jasrotia, demanded an unconditional public apology, describing Abdullah’s comments as politically irresponsible and damaging to national unity.

Jasrotia said political criticism of government policies was legitimate but argued that public representatives should avoid statements that could strengthen Pakistan’s diplomatic narrative.

He defended the central government’s record on infrastructure, investment, tourism and democratic participation in Jammu and Kashmir, rejecting Abdullah’s portrayal of New Delhi’s intentions.

The controversy also brought attention to Abdullah’s broader criticism of the political treatment of Muslims across the country.

During his Baramulla address, Abdullah alleged that Muslims were facing discrimination in BJP-governed states, citing demolition drives involving mosques, residential properties and commercial establishments.

He questioned whether the destruction of homes and shops reflected equal treatment under the law. The allegations formed part of his wider criticism of the government’s approach towards religious minorities.

Abdullah nevertheless emphasised that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had never rejected their constitutional relationship with India.

“We never said that we are not Indians,” he declared, recalling the region’s accession and invoking the political ideals associated with Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

He said the commitment to a secular and inclusive political order had shaped Kashmir’s historical relationship with the country.

Abdullah also accused political forces of encouraging divisions between Hindus and Muslims for electoral advantage, expressing concern about the consequences for communal relations.

His remarks reflected the National Conference’s continuing disagreement with the BJP over constitutional protections, regional autonomy and the political rights of Jammu and Kashmir’s population.

The party has consistently sought restoration of statehood and challenged the consequences of the 2019 constitutional changes that removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

Jasrotia separately criticised Abdullah over his reported description of the media as compromised, arguing that sweeping allegations against journalists undermined press independence.

He said political leaders were entitled to dispute individual news accounts but should substantiate accusations rather than question the integrity of the entire profession.

The BJP spokesperson urged media organisations to defend their professional independence against what he characterised as unsupported political attacks.

Delhi magistrate seeks residence proof from CJP leader

A special executive magistrate in Delhi has directed Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convener Saurav Das to produce documentary evidence of his current residential address in the capital, as proceedings concerning an alleged violation of a peace bond continued on Friday.

Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj issued the direction after Das and fellow CJP leader Ashutosh Ranka appeared before the court along with their sureties. The magistrate observed that the documents submitted by Das did not include a rental agreement or lease establishing his residence in Delhi.

Das's lawyers requested additional time to obtain the necessary documents. The magistrate accepted their request and scheduled the next hearing for November 17, when the residential evidence will be examined.

Delhi Police counsel Prashant Prakash and Bhairav Dass questioned the adequacy of the documents furnished by Das, arguing that he had failed to establish that he was currently residing in the capital.

The disagreement over residential verification emerged during proceedings to examine compliance with conditions imposed when Das and Ranka were released from judicial custody earlier this week. Both leaders remain subject to preventive proceedings initiated by Parliament Street police over apprehensions of a breach of public peace.

The magistrate's direction concerned verification of Das's address rather than a fresh determination of the allegations underlying the proceedings. No finding that he had violated the conditions of his release was announced during Friday's hearing.

The two CJP leaders appeared before the magistrate following their release on October 21 after spending approximately a week in judicial custody. Their release was conditional upon furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each and submitting written undertakings concerning their future conduct.

The magistrate had accepted those undertakings after considering arguments from Delhi Police that the leaders continued to pose a risk to public order. Police had sought an additional three days of judicial custody, citing their previous conduct and public statements.

The court nevertheless concluded that further detention was unnecessary at that stage because the preventive objectives could be achieved through financial bonds and enforceable commitments to maintain peace.

Under the release conditions, Das and Ranka agreed not to organise or call for demonstrations at Jantar Mantar until the location was officially restored as a designated protest site. They also undertook to ensure that any future demonstrations remained within constitutional and legal limits.

The magistrate had directed the investigating officer to verify the sureties and submit a report at the subsequent hearing. Both leaders and their sureties were required to attend Friday's proceedings as part of that verification process.

The preventive action followed an incident at Jantar Mantar during demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Police alleged that Das and Ranka entered a restricted protest area after crossing security barriers.

Authorities initiated proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, invoking provisions concerning apprehended breaches of peace and preventive police action.

The allegations remain contested, with the CJP maintaining that its demonstrations concern electoral accountability and the right to peaceful political expression.

The leaders had earlier challenged the extension of their custody before the Delhi High Court but withdrew their petition after the court raised questions about their conduct and the available legal remedies.

Friday's proceedings were confined principally to compliance with the magistrate's directions and verification of the documents and sureties furnished following their release.

Speaking after the hearing, Ranka said the verification process involving their sureties had proceeded satisfactorily. He confirmed that another hearing would take place during the third week of November.

Ranka also maintained that the CJP would continue its political activities despite the legal proceedings. He said the organisation's campaign would carry on whether its representatives remained outside custody or faced further detention.

Separately, Delhi Police's Crime Branch had summoned Das and Ranka for questioning in connection with cases arising from the Jantar Mantar demonstrations. The leaders sought additional time to appear before investigators.

The Crime Branch inquiry is separate from the preventive proceedings before the special executive magistrate, although both arise from events surrounding the demonstrations in the capital.

The magistrate's October 21 order requires Das and Ranka to attend every scheduled hearing and observe their undertakings until the preventive inquiry concludes.

Advocates Abhik Chimni and Pranjal Abrol represented the two CJP leaders during the proceedings concerning their release from judicial custody.

Delhi High Court sustains preventive action against AISA president

The Delhi High Court has declined to quash preventive proceedings against All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora, ruling that a magistrate’s notice requiring her to explain why she should not furnish a peace bond complied with statutory requirements.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, dismissing Bora’s petition on Friday, held that the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court found no violation at this stage of safeguards established by the Supreme Court.

The ruling, however, requires the authorities to provide Bora with all material relied upon while initiating proceedings. The magistrate must also observe principles of natural justice before deciding whether she should furnish a bond.

The disputed notice, issued on October 17, directed Bora to show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000, supported by one surety for an equivalent amount, to maintain peace during an inquiry.

The court clarified that the proceedings were preventive rather than punitive. Their purpose was to address an apprehended disturbance of public tranquillity, not to determine criminal liability or impose punishment for an established offence.

Justice Prasad observed that the magistrate had examined a police report, known as a kalandara, together with three general diary entries concerning different incidents. The magistrate had also examined three witnesses before forming an opinion that preventive proceedings were warranted.

The court rejected the contention that the notice rested entirely on hearsay. It held that the available material provided a basis for the magistrate’s preliminary assessment, although its ultimate sufficiency remained subject to the statutory inquiry.

The judgment emphasised that a constitutional court could not substitute its own assessment for the magistrate’s satisfaction merely because another interpretation of the available material was possible.

Judicial intervention at the preliminary stage would be justified where the statutory requirements were disregarded or the proceedings lacked any supporting material. The court found that neither circumstance had been established.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhu Limaye versus Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, Justice Prasad held that the procedural protections governing preventive action had not been breached by issuing the show-cause notice.

The court nevertheless stressed that those protections must remain effective throughout the proceedings. Bora must receive the documents supporting the allegations and have an opportunity to contest the proposed requirement.

The magistrate was additionally directed to consider the implications of Section 135 of the BNSS, particularly whether an interim bond could be demanded immediately or only after circumstances arising during the inquiry justified such a requirement.

Bora had challenged the notice as vague, factually inaccurate and unsupported by credible evidence of any likelihood that she would disturb public peace.

Her petition alleged that the police were misusing preventive powers to suppress peaceful political dissent, thereby infringing constitutional guarantees concerning freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and personal liberty.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Bora, argued that her participation in political demonstrations and calls for governmental change could not themselves establish an apprehension of violence or disorder.

He also disputed allegations concerning her involvement in a demonstration at Connaught Place, maintaining that she had called for a separate peaceful gathering at Mandi House.

The authorities, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, defended the notice as a lawful preventive measure based on information available to the magistrate.

The proceedings followed Bora’s detention on October 16, when she was travelling to participate in the Lehra Do Tiranga demonstration in central Delhi. She was released the following day.

Police allegations underlying the notice included sloganeering at Mandi House, participation in protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory restrictions, and encouraging people to assemble for the October 16 demonstration.

The court examined the scope of an August 24 prohibitory order covering the Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police jurisdictions, including Mandi House, while assessing the material placed before the magistrate.

Bora had initially been directed to appear before the SEM on October 19. She approached the High Court challenging both the notice and the resulting proceedings.

The court heard arguments on Thursday before delivering its decision on Friday. The magistrate remains responsible for conducting the statutory inquiry and determining whether the circumstances justify requiring a bond from Bora.

Microsoft identifies three major AI-driven cyber threats facing India

India ranks seventh globally and third in Asia among countries targeted by cyber threats, Microsoft executive Nicholas Butts said on Friday, identifying three forms of artificial intelligence-enabled attacks involving ransomware, state-sponsored espionage and organised cybercrime.

Speaking at the NDTV World Summit 2026 in New Delhi, Butts, Microsoft's Director of AI and Cybersecurity Policy, warned that artificial intelligence was increasing the capabilities of malicious actors, allowing them to execute sophisticated operations with greater speed, scale and automation.

Butts identified a China-based ransomware operation, espionage campaigns linked to state-sponsored groups and a commercially available cybercrime platform as examples of the changing threat environment. He said these developments demonstrated that cybersecurity risks were already materialising rather than remaining hypothetical concerns about future technology.

The first example involved Storm-3168, also known as Jadepuffer, which Microsoft tracks as a ransomware operation based in China. Butts said the group was employing AI agents to conduct attacks against organisations across international markets, illustrating how automation was transforming criminal operations.

Ransomware attacks typically involve criminals gaining access to computer systems, encrypting information or threatening its disclosure, and demanding payment. AI agents can assist attackers with multiple stages of an operation, potentially reducing the technical expertise and human intervention required.

The second threat concerned espionage activities involving groups linked to Russia and China. Butts said state-sponsored operators were incorporating AI agents into campaigns designed to obtain sensitive information from targeted organisations and networks.

He specifically identified Storm-0940, which Microsoft associates with China-linked activity focused primarily on data theft and espionage. The company had published fresh threat intelligence concerning the group on Thursday, a day before his remarks.

The distinction between criminal ransomware and state-sponsored espionage is significant because their objectives differ. While ransomware operators generally seek financial returns, espionage campaigns concentrate on obtaining confidential information, maintaining access to networks and gathering intelligence.

Butts did not disclose specific organisations in India compromised by the groups he identified, nor did he provide a country-by-country breakdown of their operations. The examples illustrated broader international threats relevant to India's cybersecurity exposure.

His third example concerned EvilTokens, a cybercrime operation Microsoft began tracking in February. Butts said two individuals had used open-source and proprietary AI models to develop criminal infrastructure capable of operating with substantial autonomy.

According to Butts, the platform offered access to cybercrime tools for $1,500, alongside a monthly subscription of $500 for first-time customers. He said the operation had affected more than 10,000 organisations across 120 countries.

The figures highlighted how AI-assisted software development could enable small criminal operations to create and distribute capabilities that previously required considerably greater resources. However, Butts did not specify how many organisations affected by EvilTokens were located in India.

Microsoft's assessment comes as its 2026 Digital Defense Report identifies AI as an increasingly important factor in the speed and accessibility of cyberattacks. The company says malicious actors are applying the technology to reconnaissance, phishing, malware development and activities following unauthorised network access.

The report also cautions against treating every AI-assisted intrusion as fully autonomous. Complex attacks still frequently involve substantial human direction, even as software agents take responsibility for individual tasks and accelerate operations.

Microsoft's security research indicates that attackers continue exploiting compromised identities, phishing and weaknesses in access controls. AI can increase the effectiveness of those methods without necessarily changing the underlying vulnerabilities through which organisations are compromised.

Butts emphasised the scale of Microsoft's monitoring operations to explain how the company identifies evolving threats. He said its systems processed approximately 165 trillion telemetry signals daily, screened around five billion emails and blocked roughly five million newly identified malicious files.

Those figures broadly correspond with Microsoft's published cybersecurity measurements, which put daily email screening at 5.2 billion messages and malware blocking at approximately 4.7 million new files.

The company's threat intelligence draws on activity observed across its security products and services. Its geographical rankings therefore reflect threats detected within Microsoft's monitored environment rather than an exhaustive count of every cyberattack worldwide.

Microsoft's 2026 report covers customer targeting patterns between July 2025 and June 2026. It also identifies government services, information technology, and research and academic institutions among the sectors experiencing substantial malicious activity.

The report records that 63 per cent of observed intrusions involved data theft, underscoring the importance of protecting sensitive information alongside preventing disruption to computer systems and digital services.

Dipke challenges Centre over border security and protests

Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke on Friday accused the Centre of compromising national security by deploying security forces against domestic protests while confrontations with Chinese troops continued along the Arunachal Pradesh border.

Dipke's criticism followed an acknowledgement by Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Director General Shatrujeet Kapur that face-offs had occurred at several locations along the disputed frontier and remained unresolved. The disclosure prompted opposition leaders to question the government's handling of border security and its public communication about tensions with China.

The CJP founder accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government of diverting security resources towards preventing demonstrations rather than strengthening frontier protection. He argued that maintaining public order should not come at the expense of safeguarding territory against external threats.

Dipke said the government's priority should be securing the country's borders rather than transforming Delhi into a fortress to prevent peaceful protests. His remarks followed the extension of additional Central Armed Police Forces deployments in the national capital amid concerns about possible demonstrations.

The Union Home Ministry has extended the deployment of 273 companies of Central Armed Police Forces in Delhi until October 31. The additional deployment, extended for a second time, was linked to apprehensions about possible flash protests by political organisations and other groups.

However, no evidence has emerged establishing that the deployment in Delhi has directly reduced the strength of forces guarding the frontier with China. Dipke's assertion about compromised security remains a political allegation rather than an independently established operational assessment.

Kapur, addressing an ITBP felicitation ceremony in Alwar, Rajasthan, on Thursday, acknowledged that confrontations had occurred at multiple locations in Arunachal Pradesh. He praised the force's newly constituted Shaurya commando teams for their performance during the continuing standoffs.

The disclosure provided official acknowledgement of continuing tensions along the Line of Actual Control, despite diplomatic and military engagement between New Delhi and Beijing aimed at maintaining stability along the disputed boundary.

Kapur did not identify every location involved or provide operational details about the confrontations. His remarks nevertheless drew attention to unresolved differences over patrolling arrangements and territorial perceptions along the northeastern frontier.

Responding to questions on Friday, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said disturbances occurred when Chinese forces departed from established patrolling patterns. He referred questions about specific incidents to the Ministry of Defence.

Jaiswal maintained that both countries continued using established diplomatic and military mechanisms to address outstanding issues, prevent misunderstandings and avoid miscalculations along the Line of Actual Control.

He reiterated that peace and tranquillity in the border areas remained essential for the overall development of bilateral relations. The government did not publicly identify the locations of the continuing confrontations or disclose whether additional military discussions had been scheduled.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh also questioned Modi's silence following the ITBP chief's acknowledgement. Ramesh accused the government of making concessions to Beijing while failing to adequately explain developments affecting the country's territorial security.

The Congress raised concerns about allegations that Chinese personnel had obstructed access to established patrolling points. Those allegations have not been independently established through publicly available official operational records.

Shiv Sena (UBT) parliamentarian Priyanka Chaturvedi demanded answers from the ministers responsible for home affairs, defence and external affairs. She questioned how government assurances about improving relations with China could be reconciled with continuing confrontations along the frontier.

The diplomatic dispute follows military discussions held on September 6 at the Wacha-Damai border meeting point concerning tensions around Taksing in Arunachal Pradesh's Upper Subansiri district.

Those discussions followed engagements between local commanders intended to address disagreements and prevent escalation. The continuing face-offs indicate that some operational concerns remained unresolved despite those contacts.

Kapur also outlined plans to strengthen the ITBP's specialised capabilities, including additional Shaurya commando formations, improved equipment and greater deployment of drone and counter-drone technology.

He emphasised that the force must retain its expertise in high-altitude operations while adapting to changing military requirements. The ITBP is responsible for guarding the 3,488-kilometre Line of Actual Control with China.

The director general said modernisation was necessary because existing weapons and equipment required improvement. He also described plans to expand specialised commando capabilities across border battalions.

The ITBP's Shaurya units are being developed for demanding mountain operations, with additional teams and dedicated formations intended to strengthen the force's preparedness along difficult frontier terrain.