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.

Delhi magistrate releases CJP activists after custody challenge

A Delhi Special Executive Magistrate ordered the release of Cockroach Janta Party activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday after they withdrew their challenge to judicial custody before the Delhi High Court.

The development followed the High Court's decision to entertain urgent petitions concerning the two activists and All India Students' Association president Neha Bora, who separately challenged a police notice requiring her to explain why she should furnish a Rs 10,000 peace bond.

Justice Subramonium Prasad heard Das and Ranka's petition during the court's Dussehra vacation but suggested they first pursue the matter before the Special Executive Magistrate, who was due to reconsider the sureties offered for their release.

Their lawyer, Abhik Chimni, subsequently withdrew the High Court petition. Later on Wednesday, the magistrate accepted their sureties and directed their release, ending seven days in judicial custody following a confrontation over access to the Jantar Mantar protest site.

The magistrate's decision followed a police request to extend their detention by another three days. The two activists had been held since October 14, with their original five-day remand extended by two days on October 19.

The release did not terminate the preventive proceedings. Das and Ranka were directed to appear again before the magistrate on October 23, while the inquiry into their alleged breach of peace conditions remained pending.

Bora's separate petition was adjourned until Thursday morning after Chimni told the High Court that he needed to attend the magistrate's proceedings involving Das and Ranka. Her challenge therefore remained unresolved at the end of Wednesday's hearings.

The AISA president is contesting a notice dated October 17, issued under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It required her to appear before the magistrate on October 19 and explain why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000, backed by one surety, to maintain peace during the inquiry.

Bora was detained on October 16 while travelling to a gathering at Mandi House and released the following morning. She has alleged that police took her to an undisclosed location before holding her overnight at RK Puram police station.

Her petition argues that the preventive proceedings interfere with constitutionally protected speech, assembly and personal liberty. Those allegations have not been determined by the High Court.

The notice refers to alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, participation in protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory restrictions and encouragement of a demonstration at Connaught Place. The police contend that the circumstances warranted preventive action to avert a disturbance of public order.

Section 126 permits an executive magistrate to initiate proceedings where information suggests that a person may breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity. The notice begins a process in which the person concerned can contest the grounds and the proposed bond.

Das and Ranka's case arose from an October 13 protest at Jantar Mantar, where police accused demonstrators of crossing barricades and entering an area no longer designated for protests. The activists had sought to display the national flag and raise slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Police maintained that the activists had breached peace bonds executed earlier in October. The magistrate's October 19 order expressed concern that they might again defy restrictions, while their counsel disputed the continued detention and challenged the rejection of proposed sureties.

During Wednesday's High Court hearing, Justice Prasad questioned the circumstances of the alleged breach and indicated that the magistrate should first examine the fresh surety arrangements. The court did not decide the underlying legality of the preventive action after the petition was withdrawn.

The earlier magistrate's order had cited discrepancies involving identification documents submitted by sureties and questioned whether they could ensure the activists' attendance. Defence counsel maintained that the detention should not continue merely because the authorities found the proposed guarantees inadequate.

The proceedings concerning Bora and the two CJP activists arose from separate police actions, although both were connected to demonstrations challenging the Chief Election Commissioner. Their petitions raised distinct questions: the basis for initiating preventive bond proceedings against Bora and the continued custody of Das and Ranka after their sureties were rejected.

The next magistrate hearing for Das and Ranka is scheduled for Friday afternoon, when they and their sureties have been directed to attend. The court has not yet issued a final determination on the underlying allegations.

Delhi High Court bars release of PM flight records

The Delhi High Court has overturned a Central Information Commission order requiring the Indian Air Force to disclose records of foreign visits undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, citing national security and personal safety concerns.

Justice Amit Mahajan, in a judgment delivered on October 15, held that disclosure of sensitive flight information could compromise security arrangements surrounding the Prime Minister and potentially endanger his life. The court upheld the Air Force's refusal to release the documents under the Right to Information Act.

The judgment allowed a petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer of the Directorate of Personal Services at Air Headquarters, challenging the commission's July 8, 2020, directive to provide certified copies of Special Flight Returns, Part II, relating to the prime ministers' overseas journeys.

The court ruled that the commission had erred in ordering disclosure even after directing the removal of names and identifying particulars of security personnel. Such redactions, it observed, would not necessarily eliminate the risks associated with releasing operational information.

The records contain details concerning aircraft, aircrew, passengers, flight references and security personnel accompanying the Prime Minister. The Air Force argued that these particulars, when combined with information already publicly available, could reveal patterns of security deployment and arrangements for official travel.

Justice Mahajan accepted the security concerns and held that the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act were applicable. These provisions protect information whose disclosure could prejudice national security or endanger an individual's life or physical safety.

The court also rejected the argument that expenditure of public money on overseas visits automatically justified disclosure of the requested documents.

“The mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the Hon'ble Prime Minister does not, by itself, justify disclosure of information which may compromise the security arrangements put in place for such visits,” the judgment stated.

The proceedings originated from an RTI application submitted on June 5, 2018, by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra. He sought information about foreign visits undertaken by prime ministers aboard Air Force aircraft from April 1, 2013, until the date of his application.

Batra maintained that the information concerned the use of public resources and was therefore of substantial public interest. He specifically sought details of private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel responsible for protection.

The Air Force opposed disclosure, arguing that the documents contained operational and security information extending beyond passenger identities. It maintained that removing individual names would not prevent sensitive details from being reconstructed through comparison with other available information.

Justice Mahajan observed that neither the High Court nor the information commission could substitute its assessment for that of competent security agencies regarding potential threats arising from disclosure.

The judgment emphasised that determining whether particular information could jeopardise national security or the Prime Minister's physical safety fell primarily within the responsibilities of agencies entrusted with protecting the country's highest executive office.

The court further held that the right to information was not absolute and must operate within statutory limitations protecting security and other legally recognised interests.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Supreme Court of India versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Justice Mahajan examined the scope of exemptions relating to national security and threats to personal safety.

The court found that Batra had not established sufficient grounds to require disclosure despite the identified security concerns. It consequently concluded that the Air Force had legitimately invoked the statutory exemptions.

The commission's original direction followed Batra's unsuccessful departmental appeal against the Air Force's refusal to provide copies of the Special Flight Returns. The first appellate authority had rejected his appeal in September 2018, prompting him to approach the commission.

During the initial RTI proceedings, the Air Force had supplied certain information about official overseas travel. It stated that Manmohan Singh had undertaken no journeys aboard Air Force aircraft between April 1, 2013, and May 25, 2014.

The Air Force also provided information concerning Modi's journeys, identifying three visits aboard its aircraft during a specified period. However, it maintained its refusal to furnish the underlying Special Flight Returns, distinguishing general travel information from detailed operational records.

The High Court's order disposed of the pending applications connected with the Air Force's petition, registered as W. P.(C) 10165/2020.

UN experts demand independent probe into protest policing

More than 20 United Nations human rights experts have called for an independent investigation into alleged excessive police force and arbitrary detentions during youth-led protests across India, expressing concern over restrictions on peaceful demonstrations.

The experts, issuing a joint statement in Geneva on Tuesday, criticised what they described as a repeatedly heavy-handed police response to demonstrations in New Delhi and other cities over the past three months. They urged authorities to protect peaceful assembly and ensure accountability for alleged human rights violations.

The statement called for an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the conduct of law enforcement agencies and affiliated forces, alongside justice and reparations for victims of established abuses.

The experts demanded an immediate end to excessive force, blanket restrictions on public gatherings, misuse of digital surveillance and disruptions to internet services.

They said security personnel had reportedly used batons against unarmed students and prevented thousands of demonstrators from participating in protests, despite the largely non-violent character of the gatherings.

According to information received by the experts, more than 7,000 young people, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and political activists were allegedly detained in New Delhi and transferred to distant detention facilities.

The statement alleged that detainees had their mobile phones confiscated and protest-related material deleted. Most were reportedly released within 24 hours, including several protest organisers.

The experts also expressed concern about injuries sustained by demonstrators and allegations of ill-treatment, sexual violence and other forms of gender-based abuse during protests and detention.

Their intervention follows demonstrations organised by student associations, opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party against changes to electoral rolls and government decisions affecting education.

The protests have intensified over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which critics say has resulted in the deletion of approximately 130 million names.

Protest organisers allege that the exercise disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities, including Muslims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Election Commission maintains that revisions are intended to remove duplicate and ineligible entries and improve electoral accuracy.

Demonstrators have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the electoral authorities of compromising the fairness of the voting process. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and election authorities have rejected allegations of politically motivated manipulation.

Police have defended restrictions on demonstrations by citing public order concerns, prohibitory regulations and alleged violations of conditions governing assemblies.

The UN experts nevertheless maintained that restrictions on peaceful gatherings must satisfy international legal requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.

They expressed particular concern over the reported invocation of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which permits authorities to issue preventive orders under specified circumstances.

According to the statement, these powers had allegedly been used to impose broad assembly restrictions, disrupt public transportation and facilitate internet shutdowns.

The experts warned that indiscriminate restrictions could undermine fundamental protections covering freedom of expression, personal liberty and peaceful assembly.

Human Rights Watch separately accused police of using unnecessary force against protesters and detaining people without adequate justification. Its Asia director, Elaine Pearson, urged authorities to engage with demonstrators over concerns about electoral fairness rather than suppress peaceful participation.

Amnesty International, CIVICUS, Front Line Defenders and South Asians for Human Rights also demanded the release of people arbitrarily detained for exercising their right to peaceful assembly.

Their joint intervention highlighted alleged mistreatment of journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders, alongside restrictions affecting communication and movement.

The UN experts said allegations of sexual violence and gender-based abuse required particular scrutiny, including consideration of the different consequences that policing measures could have for women participating in demonstrations.

They also cautioned against the misuse of biometric technologies and other surveillance measures to identify, monitor or intimidate people exercising their rights.

The statement referred to an earlier incident in March involving 10 student and labour-rights activists who were reportedly detained by plain-clothes officers in New Delhi.

Those activists were allegedly held without outside communication for more than 24 hours and subjected to threats, coercion and ill-treatment before being released following habeas corpus proceedings.

The experts said the March allegations formed part of their wider concerns about restrictions on civic participation and the treatment of student activists.

The signatories are independent human rights specialists appointed under United Nations Human Rights Council procedures. They examine alleged violations and communicate concerns to governments but do not exercise judicial authority or issue legally binding rulings.

Their statement also urged authorities to examine the gender-specific consequences of restrictions on peaceful assembly and alleged reprisals against protesters, including the treatment of women during detention and police questioning.

Uttar Pradesh election office acknowledges duplicate voter card generation

Uttar Pradesh’s election authorities have acknowledged that repeated registration applications can generate multiple voter identity cards, while directing officials to eliminate duplicate electoral roll entries before the next draft is published.

Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinwa has instructed district election officials to identify voters registered more than once during the Special Intensive Revision and resolve such cases through prescribed procedures. The directions follow a public clarification by his office that the issue of multiple Electors Photo Identity Cards, or EPICs, arising from repeated applications has persisted for years.

The office said it periodically conducts deduplication through ECINET, the Election Commission’s digital platform, and is developing checks to detect multiple applications from the same person when they are submitted. Such screening would allow officials to identify repetition before separate cards are generated rather than relying exclusively on subsequent corrections.

Rinwa told officials at a virtual review meeting on Monday that booth-level officers should identify duplicate entries and ensure their prompt resolution using Form 7, the prescribed application for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll. He said cases must be handled according to electoral rules.

The exercise is intended to improve the accuracy of the draft electoral roll scheduled for publication on November 12. Rinwa asked electoral registration officers and other district officials to treat duplicate entries as a priority and warned that negligence in carrying out assigned responsibilities would invite action.

The clarification arose from an exchange on social media platform X between the Uttar Pradesh election office and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair. Zubair questioned how one voter could receive four EPICs despite, he alleged, submitting only two applications after finding the person's name missing from the draft roll.

The election office disputed that description. It maintained that the individual had submitted four applications, not two, and challenged Zubair to provide the reference numbers of the two applications he cited. The office offered to produce the reference numbers for the remaining applications to support its account.

At the same time, the office acknowledged the broader administrative problem. It said multiple forms submitted by one person could result in multiple EPICs and described this as a longstanding difficulty. It maintained that periodic deduplication was already being undertaken, while work continued on identifying repeat submissions at the initial application stage.

The exchange distinguishes between the number of identity cards issued and the accuracy of the underlying voter register. An EPIC is an identity document associated with electoral registration, while eligibility to vote depends on inclusion in the relevant electoral roll. Possession of several cards does not itself establish that a person has cast multiple votes.

The office did not disclose how many duplicate cards had been generated across Uttar Pradesh, how many corresponding entries remained on electoral rolls or how many cases had been resolved through ECINET. It also gave no definite date for introducing the proposed application-stage checks.

The dispute has emerged during heightened scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision, an exercise intended to verify electoral records and address entries requiring correction. Questions about repeated applications have added to concerns over the reliability of registration processes and the safeguards used to distinguish genuine voters from duplicated records.

Election authorities must also address the separate problem of eligible residents whose names are absent from the register. Rinwa instructed field officials to conduct an extensive awareness campaign and help eligible citizens apply for inclusion, emphasising that correcting duplicate records should not displace efforts to register qualified voters.

Officials are preparing a special campaign day on October 24 as part of that enrolment effort. District election teams and electoral registration officers have been asked to coordinate arrangements, assist applicants and address outstanding registration issues ahead of the scheduled publication of the draft roll.

The instructions place responsibility for identifying questionable entries on officials working at constituency and polling booth levels. Their verification work is expected to complement digital checks, particularly where repeated applications contain overlapping personal details. Electoral registration officers remain responsible for determining whether an entry requires correction or deletion under established procedures.

Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion on the electoral roll, while Form 7 provides a mechanism for objections and deletions. The latter requires examination under the applicable rules, rather than treating a flagged duplication as automatic grounds for removing a voter’s name.

Race Course mosque eviction faces wider political opposition

The eviction notice served on Delhi's historic Race Course mosque has drawn objections from political and religious leaders, while Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind prepares to challenge the six-day deadline before the Delhi High Court.

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen president Asaduddin Owaisi, Aam Aadmi Party legislator Amanatullah Khan and Kashmir's chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq raised concerns on Tuesday over the proposed action against the mosque near Prime Minister Narendra Modi's official residence at 7 Lok Kalyan Marg.

The Land and Development Office (L&DO) issued the notice on October 19, describing the premises as unauthorised and directing their vacation within six days. The department maintains that the structure occupies government land, while mosque representatives contend that it is a legally recognised Waqf property.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind said it would approach the Delhi High Court to contest the notice. The organisation indicated that Shoaib Jamai, the AIMIM's Delhi president, was expected to pursue proceedings on behalf of the mosque committee.

The proposed litigation follows an earlier unsuccessful attempt to challenge the matter, which the organisation said was rejected because the petitioner lacked the appropriate standing.

Owaisi urged Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju to intervene, questioning why the Delhi Waqf Board had failed to challenge the proposed action despite the mosque's claimed registration as Waqf property in 1977.

He also pointed to the absence of a constituted Delhi Waqf Board since 2023 and questioned why its chief executive officer had not taken steps to protect the property.

Owaisi argued that the mosque qualified for protection under provisions concerning Waqf properties established through longstanding religious use. His interpretation forms part of the dispute surrounding the amended Waqf legislation.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq described the six-day deadline as "deeply disturbing" and questioned the reported failure of Waqf authorities to defend the mosque.

He linked the controversy to his opposition to amendments governing Muslim religious endowments, particularly provisions expanding government involvement in their administration.

Amanatullah Khan, the Okhla legislator and former Delhi Waqf Board chairman, questioned the proposed eviction, citing the mosque's existence before Independence and its inclusion in the New Delhi Municipal Council's notified heritage list.

He said he had contacted the mosque's imam and intended to visit the premises.

The Jamiat delegation met Rijiju on Monday and submitted a memorandum seeking protection for the mosque and its adjoining graveyard. It requested restoration of essential services, unrestricted access for worshippers and intervention against demolition while the property's legal status remains contested.

The organisation also sought information from the Delhi Waqf Board and the New Delhi Municipal Council regarding the mosque's official classification.

Imam Mohammed Harun alleged that electricity and water connections had been disconnected and access to the mosque restricted. He said repeated approaches to the Waqf Board over six months had failed to secure effective assistance.

Harun, who has been associated with the mosque for nearly four decades, maintained that the building was legally established and should not be treated as an encroachment. He questioned the disruption of basic facilities before the dispute had been resolved.

The mosque's representatives have cited an entry in the 1977 Delhi Gazette to support their claim of Waqf recognition. They have also referred to a 2021 survey which, according to their account, did not classify the religious structure as unauthorised.

The New Delhi Municipal Council's heritage register contains an entry identifying the property as "Mosque and Campus, Race Course". However, the extent to which heritage recognition affects the land authority's eviction powers remains a matter requiring legal determination.

The notice also forms part of a wider land clearance dispute affecting a neighbouring settlement. The Delhi High Court has permitted authorities to relocate approximately 700 families from the area to Savda Ghevra, a government resettlement colony roughly 45 kilometres away.

The court directed that arrangements for education, transport and sanitation be provided at the relocation site. A six-week period allowed for vacating the affected area expired on October 6.

The proceedings concerning the settlement and the objections raised on behalf of the mosque involve distinct questions about occupation, land ownership and the legal protection available to the respective occupants.

The Jamiat has requested that no demolition-related action be undertaken against the mosque or its graveyard pending examination of the relevant documents and claims.

Its memorandum also asked the authorities to facilitate prayers and restore access to the premises. The mosque committee maintains that worshippers should be permitted to use the religious site while the dispute remains unresolved.

The adjoining graveyard is included in the organisation's request for protection, alongside the mosque building and its surrounding premises.