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.

Congress questions Modi over continuing Arunachal border face-offs

The Congress on Friday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of maintaining silence over continuing confrontations with Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh, demanding an explanation of the government's handling of border security and its diplomatic concessions to Beijing.

The opposition's criticism followed remarks by Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Director General Shatrujeet Kapur acknowledging that face-offs with China's People's Liberation Army had occurred at several locations along the frontier and that tensions were continuing.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh accused the government of making what he described as calibrated concessions to China while withholding information about developments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Ramesh said the ITBP chief had rightly praised the force's performance during confrontations with Chinese personnel but questioned why Modi and his administration had not publicly addressed the situation.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge intensified the criticism, demanding greater transparency about territorial security, military preparedness and the outcome of diplomatic engagements with Beijing.

"Enough clean chits to China. PM Modi must come clean before India!" Kharge declared, questioning whether another serious confrontation was developing along the disputed frontier.

The Ministry of External Affairs subsequently acknowledged that disturbances occurred when Chinese forces departed from established patrolling patterns. Its spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, referred questions concerning specific incidents to the Ministry of Defence.

Jaiswal said both countries continued using established diplomatic and military mechanisms to resolve outstanding issues and prevent misunderstandings or miscalculations along the LAC.

He emphasised that maintaining peace and tranquillity in border areas remained essential for the overall development of bilateral relations. The spokesperson also referred to discussions aimed at improving understanding of the disputed boundary in appropriate areas.

Kapur's remarks, delivered during an ITBP function in Alwar, Rajasthan, provided official acknowledgement of continuing confrontations along the Arunachal Pradesh frontier. However, he did not publicly identify every affected location or disclose operational details.

The developments have renewed questions about the Taksing sector of Arunachal Pradesh, where allegations emerged earlier this year that Chinese personnel had obstructed access to traditional patrolling points.

Kharge questioned whether security forces had lost access to areas previously covered by established patrols. The alleged restrictions have not been independently established through publicly available official records.

The Congress also referred to corps commander-level discussions held in September at the Wacha-Damai border meeting point following tensions in the Taksing area.

Ramesh argued that the continuation of confrontations after those discussions raised questions about the effectiveness of existing arrangements for managing disputes.

At a press conference, Congress leader Pawan Khera demanded a fuller account of the situation and questioned whether diplomatic engagement had produced measurable improvements in border security.

Khera also challenged the government's decisions concerning economic engagement with China, including the easing of certain restrictions affecting investment and visas.

The opposition linked its security concerns to India's widening trade imbalance with China, arguing that growing commercial dependence could weaken New Delhi's negotiating position.

Ramesh cited a trade deficit of approximately $112 billion during 2025-26, compared with $99 billion in the preceding financial year. He maintained that the imbalance was damaging domestic manufacturers, particularly micro, small and medium enterprises.

The Congress questioned whether expanding economic engagement was appropriate while territorial disputes remained unresolved. Its criticism reflected broader concerns about the relationship between trade policy, diplomatic negotiations and national security.

Kharge also sought clarification about the results of repeated meetings between Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, asking whether those engagements had secured meaningful progress on outstanding border questions.

The government has maintained that diplomatic engagement and military communication are necessary for managing differences with China. Its latest statement reiterated the importance of avoiding misunderstandings while addressing unresolved matters through established channels.

The renewed controversy comes as both countries pursue improved bilateral relations despite continuing disagreements over the alignment of their disputed boundary.

Congress leaders also raised concerns about China's construction of a major hydropower project on the Brahmaputra system and Beijing's practice of assigning Chinese names to locations in Arunachal Pradesh.

Ramesh questioned the implications of the proposed 60,000-megawatt hydropower development for downstream water security and the ecological interests of communities dependent on the river.

New Delhi has consistently rejected Beijing's territorial claims over Arunachal Pradesh, maintaining that the state is an integral part of India.

The ITBP, which operates under the Union Home Ministry, is responsible for guarding substantial stretches of the frontier with China and works alongside the Army in sensitive border areas.

Kapur praised specialised ITBP personnel for their handling of confrontations and outlined efforts to strengthen operational capabilities through improved equipment, drones, counter-drone systems and specialised training.

Anti-SIR alliance plans nationwide marches without police permission

A coalition opposing the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has called nationwide demonstrations for Friday, October 23, with a march towards the Election Commission headquarters in New Delhi.

People Against SIR has invited Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke, All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora, actor Prakash Raj and senior advocate Prashant Bhushan to participate. Economist Parakala Prabhakar, farmer leader Rakesh Tikait, author Tushar Gandhi and student leader Aishe Ghosh are also among those approached.

The organisers are demanding the cancellation of the voter-list revision exercise and the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. They have appealed to opposition parties belonging to the INDIA alliance to support the mobilisation, although their participation has not been confirmed.

The Delhi procession is scheduled to begin near Bangla Sahib Gurdwara in Connaught Place and proceed towards the Election Commission's office near Patel Chowk. Organisers say they will not seek police permission, setting up a potential dispute with authorities over restrictions on public gatherings.

Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita remain in force in the New Delhi district. The restrictions cover processions, demonstrations and assemblies of five or more people without prior written authorisation. Delhi Police had not publicly responded to the organisers' plans when the march was announced.

The coalition said in an October 18 statement that its proposed People's March to Reclaim Democracy would proceed without applications for police approval anywhere in the country. It also urged police and security personnel to refrain from using force against peaceful participants.

If the planned route is blocked, the organisers say demonstrators will convene a People's Parliament at the point where they are stopped and disperse after singing the national anthem. The proposed alternative would allow a public expression of dissent even if the procession cannot reach the commission's premises.

The nationwide mobilisation carries the slogan “Har haath mein Tiranga, har gali mein Jantar Mantar”, calling for a tricolour in every hand and a protest space in every street. Another campaign slogan extends the idea to villages and individual homes, encouraging demonstrations beyond established protest venues in the capital.

People Against SIR was constituted on October 14 at Surjeet Bhavan in New Delhi. It brings together organisations representing students, farmers, workers, women, Dalits, Adivasis and minority communities. Its campaign challenges the electoral revision process on the grounds that eligible voters could be excluded from the rolls.

The alliance has demanded restoration of names removed during the exercise and a return to electoral lists predating 2024, followed by verification through social audits. These are demands advanced by the protesters, rather than findings that the revision has unlawfully removed particular voters.

The Election Commission and the Bharatiya Janata Party have rejected allegations surrounding the SIR exercise. The commission maintains responsibility for maintaining accurate electoral registers, while critics argue that the procedures and documentation requirements warrant closer scrutiny to protect voting rights.

The coalition has also sought action against Kumar and changes to the legal framework governing election commissioners. Its demands include repeal of provisions that it says shield election officials from accountability. No determination of wrongdoing by Kumar follows from the allegations raised by the campaign.

Friday's call follows police action against earlier demonstrations in the capital. Dipke and other Cockroach Janta Party members were detained ahead of a planned October 10 protest. Bora, Ghosh and Bhushan were also detained during protests that day and subsequently released.

The earlier confrontations have sharpened attention on the rules governing protest locations. Jantar Mantar, long associated with public demonstrations, was no longer available as a designated protest site under the arrangements cited during the previous mobilisation.

Prabhakar has publicly endorsed the October 23 mobilisation, urging participation under the Jantar Mantar slogan. Invitations to other prominent figures should not be taken as confirmation that each will attend a particular march or appear at the Delhi gathering.

The coalition's organisers have asked supporters elsewhere to arrange local marches carrying the national flag, rather than depend exclusively on a single gathering in New Delhi. Specific attendance figures and the number of participating locations have not been established ahead of the demonstrations. The alliance has encouraged participants to organise within their neighbourhoods, allowing supporters outside Delhi to take part without travelling to the capital. Its appeal covers urban streets and rural communities, with local organisers expected to determine arrangements for individual gatherings.

Bombay High Court questions marriage-only religious conversions

The Bombay High Court has observed that religious conversion solely for marriage cannot be permitted, while affirming an individual's freedom to change faith, during proceedings challenging Maharashtra's anti-conversion law.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna made the observations on Thursday while hearing a petition questioning the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw his challenge and file a fresh petition after finding that the existing pleadings lacked specific facts demonstrating how he had been affected.

The bench did not rule on the constitutionality of the legislation. Its remarks concerning marriage and religious conversion were observations during the hearing rather than a final determination of the legal issues raised by the petition.

The petition was filed by Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, a 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Bhiwandi in Thane district. He argued that provisions of the legislation interfered with freedom of conscience, privacy and personal autonomy, and could expose voluntary religious conversions to criminal proceedings.

Chief Justice Tripathi distinguished an individual's freedom to adopt another religion from conversion undertaken merely to facilitate marriage. The bench also questioned whether a constitutional challenge could proceed without identifying concrete instances of injury or interference arising from the law.

Senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala, appearing for Khan, sought permission to amend the petition to introduce additional factual material. The court declined that request, after which the petitioner withdrew the proceedings with liberty to approach the court again through a more detailed challenge.

The judges indicated that the petitioner should explain the practical consequences of the legislation and identify circumstances in which its provisions had affected individuals. The hearing also referred to two prosecutions registered in Pune under the law that had not been included in the petition.

Khan's challenge focused on several provisions, including the definition of allurement and procedures requiring people intending to change religion to notify the authorities beforehand. His lawyers argued that these requirements could subject private decisions about religious belief to official scrutiny even where no coercion or deception was alleged.

Section 6 requires advance notice of an intended conversion, with a 60-day period specified under the legislation. The petitioner objected to the disclosure of personal information and the possibility of objections and inquiries, contending that these procedures intruded upon constitutionally protected choices.

The petition also questioned Section 2(a), which defines allurement. It argued that broadly framed language could encompass legitimate religious teaching, charitable activities and persuasion, making it difficult for individuals and organisations to know what conduct might attract prosecution.

The challenge invoked constitutional guarantees covering equality, expression, association, life and personal liberty, freedom of religion and minority rights. Khan maintained that restrictions designed to prevent forced or fraudulent conversion should not extend to consensual changes of faith or voluntary interfaith relationships.

The Maharashtra government has presented the Act as a measure against conversions secured through force, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, undue influence or inducement. Its stated objective is to prevent unlawful conversion rather than prohibit the exercise of religious freedom through genuine personal choice.

The legislation includes criminal penalties for prohibited conversions and enhanced punishment in specified circumstances. Its requirements concerning advance declarations and official examination of conversions have prompted objections over privacy, enforcement powers and the potential consequences for people entering interfaith marriages.

The petition additionally questioned provisions placing the burden of proving that a conversion was lawful upon an accused person. Khan contended that such requirements could undermine procedural fairness and expose individuals to prosecution without adequate safeguards. His challenge sought either invalidation of the disputed provisions or a narrower interpretation restricting their application to conversions involving improper pressure or deception.

Article 25 of the Constitution protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. The dispute raises questions about how those protections interact with state powers to regulate conversions obtained through improper means.

The petitioner also challenged provisions governing punishment, arguing that serious criminal consequences could follow from procedures and definitions he considered vague. Those objections remain allegations advanced in the withdrawn petition, not findings accepted by the High Court.

Khan filed the case through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh. The bench's permission to bring a fresh petition leaves him able to set out specific grievances and supporting facts in any subsequent proceedings.

India challenges UN designation of Dawood criminal network

New Delhi has strongly disputed a United Nations report describing fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim's D-Company as an India-based criminal organisation, accusing a UN human rights expert of factual inaccuracies that undermine the credibility of the world body.

Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India's Permanent Mission to the UN, raised the objection during Wednesday's meeting of the General Assembly's Third Committee, challenging a report submitted by Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Puri said the report misleadingly described D-Company as operating from India despite Ibrahim having fled the country long before his inclusion on a UN Security Council sanctions list in 2003.

The diplomat argued that the report omitted crucial information establishing that Ibrahim had been wanted in India over terrorist attacks dating back to 1993. He said the omission distorted the circumstances surrounding the gangster's international designation.

"Read in isolation, this line paints a very different picture from the actual reality," Puri told the committee, referring to the report's description of the organisation and its leader.

The disputed passage stated that the Security Council had listed the leader of the India-based D-Company in 2003 because of his association with Al-Qaeda. New Delhi maintains that the geographical description creates a misleading impression about the organisation's location and Ibrahim's whereabouts.

Puri pointed to the narrative summary accompanying Ibrahim's listing under the Security Council's 1267 sanctions regime, arguing that the document clearly establishes his status as a fugitive wanted over terrorism-related offences.

"Not mentioning this fact is regrettable, and such incompetence on part of special mandate holders does this organisation tremendous harm," he said.

He emphasised that Ibrahim had left India well before the sanctions designation and that his alleged connections with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were identified while he was outside the country.

Puri also asserted that Ibrahim resides in the same country where bin Laden was discovered and killed, an unmistakable reference to Pakistan. Bin Laden was killed during a United States military operation in Abbottabad in May 2011.

New Delhi has consistently maintained that Ibrahim is sheltered in Pakistan, although Islamabad has denied harbouring him. His precise whereabouts have not been independently established.

Beyond the geographical dispute, Puri questioned the accountability of UN-appointed experts responsible for preparing reports submitted to member states.

He said India's delegation had repeatedly expressed concern about special rapporteurs publishing documents containing factual inaccuracies without facing adequate scrutiny or accountability for their contents.

Such circumstances, he argued, leave governments confronting established reports whose disputed assertions may already have entered the international institutional record.

Puri described the situation as particularly unfortunate for an organisation confronting wider questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness.

The intervention also raised concerns about impartiality in international counter-terrorism discussions, with New Delhi maintaining that human rights protections must not become a justification for overlooking terrorist activities or providing legitimacy to extremist organisations.

India's objections were directed at the report's presentation of Ibrahim's circumstances rather than the Security Council's underlying decision to sanction him for alleged terrorist associations.

The distinction is significant because the sanctions designation concerns Ibrahim individually, while the disputed wording characterises the geographical identity of the wider criminal network.

Saul's report examines the relationship between organised crime and terrorism, including circumstances in which criminal organisations or their leaders become subject to international counter-terrorism measures.

The disagreement highlights the importance governments attach to terminology used in UN documents, particularly where descriptions of criminal networks could be interpreted as identifying their territorial bases.

Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed through the UN Human Rights Council's special procedures system. They investigate thematic human rights issues and present findings and recommendations, but their reports do not automatically constitute binding decisions by the United Nations.

The Third Committee considers human rights, humanitarian and social questions, providing a forum for governments to scrutinise the findings of independent mandate holders and place objections on the diplomatic record.

During the same proceedings, Puri also rejected remarks by Pakistan concerning Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, characterising them as politically motivated propaganda.

He maintained that terrorism could not be justified and that international human rights mechanisms should not provide protection for individuals promoting radicalisation or extremism.

The exchange took place during the committee's interactive dialogue with the special rapporteur, where participating delegations were able to respond to his findings and raise questions about the report's contents.

Cabinet Secretariat withheld action on election commissioners' complaints

The Cabinet Secretariat declined to take disciplinary action against a senior Election Commission officer after two election commissioners complained about his conduct, newly disclosed official records show.

The Secretariat concluded that separate letters from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi could not be treated as a formal communication from the three-member poll panel. Acting without such authorisation, it reasoned, could constitute executive interference in an independent constitutional institution.

The decision emerged from documents supplied under the Right to Information Act to retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra. The correspondence identifies the officer as Maneesh Garg, a senior deputy election commissioner, and details objections to his handling of administrative responsibilities in July.

Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan on July 29, seeking action over an order issued by Garg the previous day. They alleged that he had redistributed responsibilities among senior officers without consulting the Commission or obtaining the approval required under its procedures.

An internal note dated August 4 said the commissioners' concerns deserved serious consideration but did not amount to the institutional position of the Election Commission. It warned that action by the Cabinet Secretariat at that stage could be regarded as interference with the constitutional body's functioning.

The Secretariat also observed that Garg's appointment by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet did not make his day-to-day conduct a matter for unilateral executive supervision. Once posted to the Election Commission, he was subject to the body's applicable rules and administrative arrangements.

The note referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision requires the Commission to conduct its business unanimously where possible, with differences resolved by majority decision.

The records show that officials initially considered seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's opinion. A note dated August 3 proposed sending him a letter for that purpose. The following day's assessment instead recommended acknowledging the commissioners' correspondence and informing Kumar's office and personnel authorities.

Somanathan sent separate acknowledgements on August 5. Copies were marked to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the principal private secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. There is no confirmation in the disclosed correspondence that Kumar subsequently responded or initiated proceedings against Garg.

The Secretariat said the papers should be placed on record with personnel authorities so the matter could be considered in future decisions concerning the officer. That step stopped short of the disciplinary action sought by the commissioners.

The dispute originated when Garg took temporary responsibility for the Election Commission's administration division while Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu was on leave between July 27 and August 9. Within hours of taking charge, Garg issued a revised distribution of work on July 28.

According to the commissioners' letters, the order affected senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and officials of comparable rank. They alleged that the redistribution disregarded repeated oral and written instructions requiring consultation and approval before such changes.

Joshi additionally complained that the Administration Division did not provide a relevant file when he requested it. Both commissioners questioned whether the order complied with the statutory framework governing decisions by the Commission. The correspondence itself does not establish misconduct by Garg.

The controversy also raised questions about responsibility for electoral-roll administration and the allocation of oversight among senior officials. The particular allocation changes were contested because of their potential implications for administrative control, although an order's issue did not necessarily mean its provisions had taken effect.

The Election Commission stated on September 26 that the work-redistribution orders were never implemented after directions from Sandhu and Joshi. It maintained that the commissioners' letters concerned the conduct of a deputed officer, rather than a policy decision or the functioning of the Commission's information technology division.

The Commission also said oversight of the information technology division by the relevant deputy election commissioner had not been withdrawn. The disputed work allocation was set aside on July 30, following objections from the two commissioners.

Garg, a 1996-batch IAS officer of the Himachal Pradesh cadre, had been posted to the Election Commission through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet with effect from September 2, 2024. The RTI disclosure includes the commissioners' letters, internal notes and the Secretariat's acknowledgements.

ITBP chief confirms continuing confrontations along Arunachal frontier

Face-offs involving Chinese troops are continuing at several locations along the Arunachal Pradesh frontier, Indo-Tibetan Border Police director general Shatrujeet Kapur said on Thursday, providing the clearest official acknowledgement of the extent of tensions since July.

Kapur told personnel at an awards ceremony in Alwar, Rajasthan, that newly established Shaurya commando teams had participated in handling the confrontations. His remarks came weeks after senior military officers from India and China held talks intended to address the situation along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC).

“Face-offs happened at several locations in Arunachal, and it still continues,” he said, describing the activity of the specialised units. He did not identify each location, disclose troop numbers or announce any resolution. Nor did he indicate that the encounters had developed into armed clashes.

The standoff has centred partly on the Taksing area of Upper Subansiri district, where patrols from the two countries encountered each other near Maja during July. Accounts of the deployment indicate that Chinese personnel subsequently established tents in territory that New Delhi regards as lying on its side of the LAC. The precise positions and competing territorial claims have not been independently established.

Troops from India have maintained a substantial presence in the sector. The Army and the ITBP both operate along the frontier, where differences over the alignment of the undemarcated boundary can produce encounters between patrols. The latest remarks suggest that military contacts have not eliminated friction on the ground.

Corps commanders met on September 6 at the Wacha-Damai border personnel meeting point in Arunachal Pradesh. The meeting followed exchanges between local commanders and broader diplomatic discussions. The two governments have not publicly announced a settlement covering the locations identified by Kapur. The September meeting was notable because corps commander discussions connected with the China boundary had previously mainly concentrated on the western sector, especially eastern Ladakh.

The diplomatic contacts included a meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs on August 6 and talks between the countries’ special representatives on the boundary question in Beijing on August 26. National Security Adviser Ajit Doval represented India at the latter discussions.

Earlier, government officials had maintained that the Army and ITBP were equipped to monitor Chinese activity and respond to developments in the sector. They said encounters could arise from differing perceptions of the LAC and were addressed through established protocols. Kapur's account establishes that confrontations remain active, although it does not determine responsibility for their occurrence.

China claims Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory, a position rejected by New Delhi. The unresolved boundary disagreement has complicated efforts to stabilise relations even as senior representatives from both countries maintain diplomatic and military channels. There was no independently verified Chinese response to Kapur's Thursday comments.

Kapur used the ceremony to outline changes to the ITBP's operational capabilities, including the expansion of its Shaurya commandos into a specialised high-altitude fighting formation. Teams have already been established in border battalions, with plans to build a dedicated battalion. He said mountain operations remained central to the force's responsibilities.

The director general also called for replacement of ageing weapons, saying personnel had continued using equipment based on designs familiar to officers who entered service decades ago. He argued that modernisation was necessary to meet challenges from a military whose weapons and infrastructure had undergone extensive development.

Uncrewed aerial systems constitute another priority. Kapur said the ITBP had spent 70 per cent of a ₹400-crore modernisation allocation on drones and reserved ₹1,000 crore for similar equipment under a further proposed programme valued at ₹3,500 crore to ₹4,000 crore.

Drone platoons have been formed in border-guarding battalions, while the force is training pilots and producing some systems internally. Kapur emphasised counter-drone capabilities alongside surveillance and deployment, citing changes in warfare that have increased the vulnerability of exposed positions.

He also described pilot projects for underground structures at border outposts. Such shelters, he said, would provide protection against attacks on positions above ground. Plans envisage expanding the structures across the force's forward network after initial designs are assessed.

The ITBP, established in 1962, performs border-guarding duties under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Its deployment covers remote, high-altitude stretches where weather limits access and makes sustained patrolling difficult, particularly outside the June-to-October operating period in parts of Arunachal Pradesh.

US polls register widespread dissatisfaction with Trump leadership

A clear majority of Americans believe the United States is heading in the wrong direction, with fresh opinion polls showing President Donald Trump facing growing public dissatisfaction ahead of November's congressional elections.

A national survey conducted by ABC News, The Washington Post and Ipsos found that 70 per cent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, while another survey by NBC News Decision Desk placed the figure at 71 per cent. Both findings underline widespread unease over economic conditions, government policies and the direction of Trump's presidency.

The findings come as separate national polls register some of the lowest approval ratings of Trump's second term. A CNN survey conducted by SSRS between October 15 and 18 found that just 32 per cent approved of his performance, while 67 per cent disapproved.

A New York Times and Siena College survey placed presidential approval at 36 per cent among likely voters, against 59 per cent disapproval. Although individual surveys differ in methodology and sampling, their findings consistently indicate substantial public dissatisfaction with the administration.

Economic concerns dominate the negative assessments. Rising household expenses, petrol prices and inflation have weakened public confidence in Trump's handling of an issue that remains central to voters' political preferences.

The ABC News, Washington Post and Ipsos survey found that approximately seven in ten Americans considered petrol unaffordable. Half or more described every household purchase category examined in the survey as unaffordable, illustrating the pressure facing consumers.

The survey also found that Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans by 14 percentage points to handle inflation and the cost of living. Democrats enjoyed a nine-point advantage on managing the broader economy, representing a significant shift in public perceptions of the parties' economic competence.

Trump's handling of the conflict with Iran has emerged as another source of dissatisfaction. The New York Times and Siena College survey found that 65 per cent disapproved of his management of the conflict, while 73 per cent disapproved of his handling of petrol prices.

The economic consequences of military operations have become politically significant as higher energy costs affect household budgets. Public attitudes towards the conflict reflect concerns about both American involvement overseas and its domestic financial consequences.

The findings carry implications for Republicans seeking to retain control of Congress in the November 3 midterm elections. The ABC News, Washington Post and Ipsos survey showed Democratic candidates leading Republicans by 52 per cent to 44 per cent among likely voters.

Independent voters appeared particularly important to that advantage. The same survey found that 56 per cent of independent likely voters supported Democratic congressional candidates, compared with 35 per cent backing Republicans.

Another national survey conducted by CNN and SSRS placed Democrats ahead by ten percentage points on the congressional ballot, with 49 per cent supporting Democratic candidates and 39 per cent favouring Republicans.

Nevertheless, national polling cannot establish the outcome of individual congressional contests. Candidate characteristics, district boundaries, local issues and differences in voter turnout can produce results that diverge substantially from nationwide preferences.

The administration continues to retain support among a substantial section of Republican voters, particularly on immigration and border security. The NBC News Decision Desk survey found immigration remained Trump's strongest policy area, although approval of his approach stood at 43 per cent.

Republicans also retained an advantage on crime in the ABC News, Washington Post and Ipsos survey, with Americans trusting the party over Democrats by five percentage points.

Public dissatisfaction extends beyond the president personally. The survey found that 63 per cent held an unfavourable opinion of the Republican Party, compared with 54 per cent expressing an unfavourable view of Democrats.

The findings indicate that neither major party commands universal public confidence, even as Democrats gain ground on economic management and congressional voting preferences.

Voter enthusiasm presents another challenge for Republicans. The ABC News, Washington Post and Ipsos survey found that 72 per cent of Democratic voters were absolutely certain to vote, compared with 65 per cent of Republican voters.

The survey also identified differences in preferred voting methods. Republicans led among those planning to cast ballots personally on election day, while Democrats held advantages among voters intending to participate through early voting or postal ballots.

The ABC News, Washington Post and Ipsos survey interviewed 2,545 adults between October 9 and 13 through the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Its overall margin of sampling error was approximately two percentage points, with larger margins applying to individual demographic groups.

US technology workers return to India in growing numbers

An estimated 12,700 technology professionals returned from the United States to India during the first nine months of 2026, as tighter immigration policies under President Donald Trump and uncertainty over employment prospects accelerated the movement of skilled workers.

Data compiled by staffing firm Xpheno indicates that the number of returnees could surpass the record 15,100 recorded throughout 2025. The figures highlight a sustained increase in professionals relocating from the US, although the number travelling in the opposite direction remains higher.

Xpheno recorded 7,200 returnees in 2023 and 9,800 in 2024, before the figure climbed sharply last year. The latest tally represents approximately 84 per cent of the previous annual record, with three months remaining when the September figures were compiled.

Kamal Karanth, co-founder of Xpheno, expects the annual total to exceed last year's level. He indicated that changes affecting the H-1B visa programme could accelerate the movement and potentially reverse the traditional imbalance between professionals leaving India and those returning.

Nearly 14,500 technology professionals moved from India to the US between January and September, compared with 12,700 travelling back, according to Xpheno. The difference suggests that outward migration continues, but the gap between the two flows has narrowed substantially.

The figures cover white-collar technology professionals moving between the two countries and are not restricted to H-1B visa holders. They therefore reflect broader workforce mobility rather than departures directly attributable to individual immigration measures.

Trump's administration has tightened scrutiny of employment-based immigration, introducing additional costs and restrictions affecting employers seeking overseas talent. The changes have increased uncertainty for technology workers whose ability to remain employed in the US depends on visa sponsorship.

The administration maintains that stronger immigration controls are necessary to protect domestic employment and prevent misuse of programmes intended to address specialised labour shortages. Technology employers, however, have warned that restrictions can complicate recruitment and retention of skilled personnel.

Recruitment specialists identify immigration uncertainty, redundancies across major US technology companies and changing career opportunities as factors influencing relocation decisions. Individual circumstances differ, making it difficult to establish how many workers returned specifically because of government policy.

Karanth cautioned that professionals returning to India face considerable difficulties securing suitable employment. Domestic technology recruitment has remained uneven following the expansion of hiring during 2021, leaving employers selective about additional appointments.

Neeti Sharma, chief executive of TeamLease Digital, said employers increasingly prioritise specialised capabilities and relevant experience rather than overseas employment credentials alone. Demand is concentrated in artificial intelligence, machine learning, data management and product leadership.

Cloud computing, cybersecurity and enterprise applications of artificial intelligence also feature among the skills sought by employers. Professionals possessing these capabilities may find stronger opportunities than candidates whose experience does not match current business requirements.

Compensation presents another obstacle. Recruiters estimate that returning professionals may receive only 25 to 33 per cent of their previous US salaries, depending on their responsibilities, experience, employer and location.

Xpheno's compensation assessment places the average annual earnings of a full-stack engineer employed in the US on an H-1B visa at approximately $105,000. Salaries for such positions generally range between $70,000 and $150,000.

Comparable professionals occupying the highest-paying segment of India's employment market may earn between $20,000 and $32,000 annually. These differences can complicate relocation decisions, particularly for workers accustomed to substantially higher dollar-denominated compensation.

Recruiters say employers generally follow domestic salary structures rather than matching overseas remuneration. Candidates consequently face decisions involving lower earnings, different career opportunities and the financial implications of relocating their households.

Sharma estimates that professionals working in applied artificial intelligence can command annual salaries ranging from approximately Rs 16 lakh to Rs 35 lakh, although experienced specialists in senior positions may receive substantially higher packages.

Global capability centres operated by multinational companies offer another employment avenue for returnees. These facilities recruit specialists across engineering, product development, analytics and technology operations, but overseas applicants compete with experienced professionals already working in India.

Xpheno's assessment draws on its candidate database, recruitment management systems and employment platforms covering domestic and international hiring. The firm uses these records to identify patterns in professional mobility, experience and compensation across the two markets.

The estimates represent observed recruitment and workforce movements rather than a government census of returning citizens. They consequently provide an industry-level indication of changing migration patterns, with the figures covering a defined segment of technology employment rather than every occupational category.

The September assessment also distinguishes movements between countries from changes in visa status, an important consideration because professionals may relocate for personal, career or financial reasons without losing their legal eligibility to work in the United States.

Rahul Gandhi questions BJP over Puri Epstein photograph

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday linked US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Mumbai visit to a photograph showing Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri with Jeffrey Epstein, raising an unsubstantiated suggestion of political blackmail.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha directed his remarks at workers of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, questioning whether someone was being pressured as the photograph circulated during Rubio’s visit.

“Rubio goes to Mumbai. The US DOJ releases a picture of Epstein and Puri. Dear BJP and RSS workers, which anti-national traitor do you think they're blackmailing?” Gandhi wrote on X.

Gandhi offered no evidence that the United States was blackmailing anyone, or that Rubio’s visit had any connection with the photograph. The image was contained in material made public by the US Department of Justice in January, rather than newly released during the secretary of state’s trip.

The photograph shows Puri seated across a table from Epstein, the disgraced American financier who died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. No other individual is visible within the frame, although the image alone cannot establish whether others attended the meeting.

Puri, the minister for petroleum and natural gas, has previously acknowledged meeting Epstein but maintained that their contact was professional. He said in February that he encountered Epstein on three or, at most, four occasions through work associated with the International Peace Institute and its Independent Commission on Multilateralism.

“My boss in the IPI, Terje Rod-Larsen, was the person who knew this particular infamous person Mr Epstein,” Puri said while explaining that he had attended meetings as part of an institutional delegation.

Puri’s office has maintained that the photograph does not contradict his explanation. It said he could not recall which meeting was pictured or whether other participants had been present before or after the moment captured.

Congress leaders nevertheless challenged his account. Party spokesperson Pawan Khera said documents available through the US Justice Department indicated substantially more communication than the minister had described, alleging at least 62 emails between Puri and Epstein from 2014 to 2017.

Khera also claimed that records suggested 14 meetings and other interactions, including individual encounters. Those figures were allegations advanced by Congress, rather than findings establishing misconduct. He called for an investigation and asked Puri to explain the nature and extent of the exchanges.

Congress general secretary K C Venugopal separately accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government of failing to address questions surrounding Puri’s association with Epstein. His criticism focused on ministerial accountability, but the photograph itself does not demonstrate involvement in Epstein’s crimes. Venugopal also questioned the government’s response to demands for an explanation from a Cabinet minister.

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra also questioned the minister’s account of delegation meetings after the photograph appeared online. Her intervention added to opposition demands for clarification about who attended the encounters and the circumstances in which they took place.

Rubio was in Mumbai for meetings and public engagements as Washington and New Delhi continued discussions on trade and their strategic relationship. During the visit, he said the two countries were close to finalising a trade agreement, describing the remaining negotiations as a matter of weeks rather than months.

He also urged greater purchases of American energy, technology and defence equipment. Neither those remarks nor the visit provided evidence supporting Gandhi’s suggestion of blackmail, and the Congress leader did not identify an alleged target in his post.

The timing of the photograph’s renewed circulation became a central feature of the opposition attack. However, the distinction between the Justice Department’s earlier publication of the material and its appearance on social media this week is significant to assessing Gandhi’s assertion about its release.

Epstein’s connections with influential figures have drawn scrutiny because of his sexual abuse of girls and the criminal proceedings surrounding his activities. Association or a photograph with Epstein does not, by itself, establish knowledge of or participation in those offences.

Puri has said his interactions took place after his tenure as India’s permanent representative to the United Nations and before he entered the Union Cabinet in 2017. He has denied that the meetings had any connection with Epstein’s criminal conduct. His account places the encounters within the activities of the institute, where he worked following his diplomatic career.

US visa cancellations surpass 300,000 under Trump administration

The Trump administration has revoked more than 300,000 United States visas since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, the State Department announced on Tuesday, signalling a sharp expansion of immigration enforcement affecting legal entry to the country.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said the government had cancelled visas more quickly than any previous administration, presenting the figure as evidence of its determination to exclude foreign nationals accused of criminal activity, fraud or threats to national security.

“With over 300,000 revocations, the Trump administration has revoked more visas at a faster pace than any administration in history,” Pigott said. The historical comparison was an administration claim, and the department did not release a comprehensive breakdown allowing independent assessment against previous presidencies.

The new total marks a substantial increase from the more than 175,000 revocations disclosed by the department on 10 August. A further figure of approximately 250,000 was cited in September, indicating that tens of thousands of additional visas have been cancelled within weeks.

Pigott said the administration had “zero tolerance for foreigners here on visas who break the law, commit fraud, or undermine our national security”. He said officials would continue taking action to protect the country's borders and security.

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar reinforced the message, writing on X that visa holders must respect US laws or lose the privilege of travelling to the country. She linked the enforcement programme to the priorities of Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

A State Department official identified criminal conduct, public safety concerns and immigration violations, including fraud and misrepresentation, among the grounds for cancellation. The department has not published a full nationality breakdown or a detailed account of how many revocations involved each category.

Officials also identified more than 4,000 revocations connected with people accused of participating in or facilitating birth tourism, a term used for travel undertaken to give birth in the United States. The administration has made combating that practice part of its wider visa enforcement programme.

The figures cover visa revocations rather than deportations. Cancelling a visa can prevent its holder from using that document to seek admission to the United States, but does not necessarily establish that the person has been removed from the country. Immigration status and removal proceedings involve separate legal questions.

The enforcement drive forms part of Trump's broader effort to restrict immigration, which has extended beyond unauthorised border crossings to foreign nationals entering through established visa programmes. The administration maintains that tougher scrutiny is necessary to safeguard public safety and address abuses of immigration rules.

Civil liberties organisations have challenged elements of the policy, arguing that some enforcement decisions undermine free expression and procedural protections. Their concerns have been particularly acute where visa decisions followed political protests or statements made on social media rather than allegations of ordinary criminal conduct.

Visa cancellations involving foreign nationals who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations have attracted criticism from rights advocates. They contend that immigration powers should not be used to punish lawful political expression. The administration has defended its authority to consider national security and foreign policy interests when assessing foreign visitors.

Scrutiny has also focused on action against foreigners over online comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Critics say such cases risk deterring political speech, while administration officials have insisted that foreign nationals do not possess an unconditional entitlement to enter or remain in the United States.

The State Department has expanded social media screening and other vetting measures for visa applicants. Supporters view these checks as safeguards against fraud and security risks; opponents warn that broad assessments of online activity can be difficult to challenge and may penalise opinions rather than unlawful behaviour.

The administration has also imposed additional costs and restrictions affecting some employment visa routes, widening the consequences of its immigration agenda for employers and prospective workers. Those measures are separate from the cumulative revocation total announced this week.

For visa holders, the distinction between a cancelled travel document and lawful immigration status remains important. Individual consequences depend on the circumstances of each case, including whether the person is abroad, already admitted to the United States or subject to separate immigration proceedings. The department has not specified how many affected individuals were inside the country when cancellations occurred.