Kwatra rebukes Jayapal over electoral roll allegations

India's ambassador to the United States, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, on Thursday rejected Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal's criticism of the country's electoral roll revision, describing her intervention as unacceptable interference in domestic affairs.

Kwatra responded after Jayapal, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from Washington state, expressed alarm over the removal of approximately 130 million names from voter lists during the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

“The remarks by @RepJayapal on India’s electoral and political processes are unacceptable interference in India’s internal affairs,” Kwatra wrote on X on October 15.

He defended the country's electoral institutions, saying India was a vibrant democracy with independent constitutional bodies and a longstanding record of free and fair elections. Nevertheless, he offered to discuss the matter with Jayapal to address what he described as her misconceptions.

The diplomatic exchange followed Jayapal's public criticism of the electoral exercise and her endorsement of peaceful demonstrations challenging the handling of voter registration. Her remarks placed the dispute over electoral rolls before a wider American political audience as opposition protests continued across India.

Jayapal said she was deeply concerned about what she characterised as the government's removal of 130 million people from voting registers. She drew a comparison with efforts by President Donald Trump's administration in the United States that, in her assessment, threatened voting rights.

The Congresswoman also expressed support for non-violent resistance to what she called anti-democratic efforts, arguing that citizens should be able to participate in free and fair elections. Her allegations concerned the consequences of the revision rather than any specific finding of misconduct by a court.

The figure of 130 million has become central to the controversy surrounding the SIR. However, the removal of names from electoral rolls does not, by itself, establish that every person affected was eligible to remain registered or that each deletion was improper.

The Election Commission says the revision is intended to identify duplicate entries, deceased voters and people who have moved, while ensuring that electoral registers accurately reflect eligible residents. Opposition parties and voting rights campaigners contend that documentation requirements and administrative errors have also excluded legitimate voters.

Disagreements over the exercise have intensified because people whose names are omitted may have to navigate claims, objections or appeals before their registration is restored. Critics warn that those procedures can be especially difficult for migrant workers, poorer households and elderly citizens who lack readily available documentation.

The dispute has prompted demonstrations demanding greater transparency and accountability from the Election Commission, headed by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Opposition leaders have accused the poll authority of acting in a manner favourable to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, allegations that remain contested.

India's government and electoral authorities have defended the need for accurate registers, maintaining that the revision serves the integrity of elections. The central question is whether safeguards are sufficient to prevent eligible citizens from losing their voting rights during the process.

The Supreme Court has also been drawn into litigation over electoral revisions. Petitioners have challenged aspects of the exercise and sought judicial scrutiny of procedures governing voter registration and deletion, making the treatment of affected electors a matter of continuing legal examination.

On Thursday, the court issued notices to election officials in proceedings involving opposition petitions. The litigation adds a separate institutional dimension to the political dispute, although the issuance of notice should not be mistaken for a judicial determination that the allegations have been proved.

Kwatra's response did not set out a detailed numerical rebuttal to Jayapal's estimate or address individual cases of allegedly wrongful deletion. Instead, his statement emphasised India's constitutional institutions and rejected the legitimacy of outside political criticism of the electoral process.

The controversy has also raised questions about how electoral authorities communicate changes to voter lists, particularly where large numbers of deletions are involved. The distinction between draft omissions, final deletions and successful reinstatements remains important when assessing their impact.

Jayapal, who represents a district in Washington state, has spoken on democratic rights and civil liberties in both American and international contexts. Her intervention was made publicly on X rather than through a formal congressional resolution or an announced legislative initiative.

Kwatra's invitation to a constructive conversation left open the possibility of direct engagement between the ambassador and the Congresswoman, despite his objection to the language and implications of her remarks.

Congress rebukes poll panel over readable electoral rolls

The Congress on Thursday accused the Election Commission of belatedly reversing its position on providing readable electoral rolls to political parties, describing the decision as inadequate and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Congress general secretary K C Venugopal said the notification allowing parties access to readable voter lists could not undo what he alleged was extensive damage to electoral integrity under the directions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

The criticism followed the Commission's announcement that political parties would, for the first time, receive readable electoral rolls at both draft and final stages, in printed and electronic formats, during the annual special summary revision of voter lists.

Venugopal described the decision as “too little, too late” and accused the election authorities of ignoring longstanding opposition demands for greater transparency in voter registration and deletion procedures.

“We have been demanding machine readable voter rolls since 2025. Transparency is the bare minimum, not something that absolves you of past crimes,” Venugopal wrote on X.

Addressing Kumar directly, the Congress leader demanded that he resign and cooperate with efforts to establish responsibility for alleged electoral irregularities. He claimed that the Commission's latest notification represented an acknowledgement of the opposition's concerns, although no such admission accompanied the announcement.

Venugopal alleged that electoral roll revisions had disenfranchised 13 crore people, describing the purported scale of voter exclusion as an act of treason. The allegation remains disputed, and the Commission has not accepted the Congress party's characterisation of the exercise.

He also demanded a comprehensive overhaul of election administration, including reversal of the special intensive revision, known as SIR, and changes to the procedure governing appointments to the Election Commission.

The Commission's announcement came alongside instructions for conducting the annual special summary revision across 17 states and Union territories, including jurisdictions scheduled to hold Assembly elections early next year.

The final electoral rolls for the jurisdictions covered by the exercise are scheduled for publication on January 4, providing an updated voter register ahead of the forthcoming electoral calendar.

Election officials explained that the special summary revision is an annual exercise prescribed under electoral law and is particularly significant in states approaching Assembly elections.

The Commission said political parties would receive the draft and final rolls in both hard-copy and electronic formats. Candidates contesting elections would also be provided access to the relevant electoral lists.

Electoral Registration Officers would make copies available for purchase by other eligible persons before polling, extending access beyond political organisations and candidates.

The distinction between readable and machine-readable electoral records has become central to the opposition's complaints about transparency. Digitally searchable information can assist parties in examining entries, identifying potential duplication and checking whether names have been removed or altered.

However, the precise technical specifications of the electronic rolls, including their suitability for automated analysis, were not established in the details accompanying Thursday's announcement.

That distinction matters because electronic copies do not necessarily provide the same functionality as structured datasets that can be searched, compared and analysed systematically.

Congress has argued that access to such information is essential for scrutinising electoral revisions and identifying discrepancies that might otherwise escape examination through conventional inspection of printed registers.

The party's criticism forms part of its broader challenge to the Commission's handling of the special intensive revision, which has generated disputes over voter eligibility, documentation requirements and deletions from electoral registers.

Opposition leaders maintain that eligible citizens must not lose voting rights because of administrative errors or insufficient opportunities to correct disputed entries.

The Commission has defended electoral roll revision as a necessary statutory exercise intended to maintain accurate registers by removing ineligible, duplicate and outdated entries while ensuring eligible citizens can enrol.

The disagreement also concerns institutional accountability. Congress has repeatedly questioned whether the election authorities have adequately addressed complaints raised by political parties about the accessibility and reliability of voter information.

Thursday's announcement covers jurisdictions where the intensive revision has already been completed. Assam underwent a different special revision process because of legal considerations affecting the exercise there.

The Commission has also instructed election officials to encourage eligible young people turning 18 on or before January 1 to submit enrolment applications.

That measure is intended to facilitate participation by first-time voters ahead of Assembly elections scheduled in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa, Manipur and Punjab.

Trump nears decision on Russian energy sanctions

US President Donald Trump is expected to decide within 10 days whether to invoke sanctions provisions that could expose India and other purchasers of Russian oil and gas to tariffs of up to 100 per cent, US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor said on Thursday.

Speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in New Delhi, Gor said legislation approved by Congress empowered Trump to impose penalties on countries purchasing Russian energy or facilitating the circumvention of existing sanctions. He emphasised that the measures were not directed against any particular country.

The ambassador said Trump had not imposed sanctions on any country under the legislation and was required to make a determination within 30 days of its passage. He expected the White House to clarify its position shortly.

Gor described the legislation as an instrument intended to increase pressure on Moscow over the war in Ukraine rather than penalise countries maintaining energy relationships with Russia.

“The goal is not to punish anyone,” Gor said, explaining that Washington wanted to bring the conflict to an end.

His remarks offered some reassurance to New Delhi, although they left unresolved whether India could receive exemptions or face additional trade restrictions. Gor said any decision concerning sanctions relief would ultimately rest with Trump.

The legislation, known as the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, provides for substantial tariffs against countries engaging in specified transactions involving Russian energy. Gor said it had attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, securing 86 votes in the 100-member US Senate.

The potential penalties have attracted attention because India remains an important purchaser of Russian crude. Any additional tariffs could complicate energy procurement decisions and commercial relations between Washington and New Delhi.

Gor nevertheless indicated that Washington did not expect countries purchasing Russian petroleum to terminate their imports immediately. He presented the sanctions framework as part of a broader diplomatic effort to influence Russia's conduct.

The distinction between possessing sanctions authority and exercising it remains important. Although the legislation establishes mechanisms for punitive measures, their application depends on presidential determinations and the relevant statutory provisions.

New Delhi has raised concerns about the possible consequences of the legislation for bilateral relations and international energy markets. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri conveyed those concerns during discussions with a bipartisan congressional delegation visiting India.

The uncertainty comes as Washington and New Delhi pursue negotiations intended to resolve outstanding trade disagreements and establish a broader commercial agreement.

Gor said substantial progress had been achieved in those negotiations, with the principal issues largely settled and officials working through the remaining details.

“We are very close to landing it,” he said, expressing confidence that both governments would conclude the agreement.

The ambassador characterised the pace of negotiations as exceptionally fast, although he acknowledged the complexity of reconciling the commercial interests of two large economies.

Discussions have involved tariff rates across thousands of products, requiring negotiators to address sector-specific concerns while developing an agreement acceptable to both governments.

Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal separately indicated that the first phase of the bilateral trade agreement had been finalised and was undergoing legal drafting.

The progress on trade provides a potentially important diplomatic backdrop to Trump's forthcoming sanctions determination. Nevertheless, Gor did not announce any exemption for India or establish a formal connection between the negotiations and the sanctions decision.

The ambassador also reaffirmed Washington's interest in strengthening economic engagement with India, describing the country as a trusted partner and identifying closer commercial cooperation as a priority.

His comments preceded a scheduled visit by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose engagements are expected to include discussions with government representatives and business leaders.

Rubio's programme is expected to cover commercial opportunities and broader bilateral cooperation at a time when energy security, market access and geopolitical disagreements remain prominent concerns.

Gor highlighted opportunities for American businesses in India's expanding technology sector, including investments in data centres and semiconductor manufacturing.

He also identified defence, information technology and artificial intelligence as areas where cooperation could strengthen economic links between the two countries.

The ambassador argued that investment and employment generated through commercial partnerships could benefit both economies, reinforcing Washington's interest in maintaining engagement despite unresolved trade questions.

The forum, held in New Delhi from October 13 to 15, brought together government representatives, business executives and policymakers to discuss international economic challenges, investment priorities and changing geopolitical relationships.

Supreme Court questions removal of Jantar Mantar protest status

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police over the removal of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue, questioning whether the decision followed an independent assessment or was influenced by its earlier observations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices on Thursday while considering petitions arising from protests over the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The judges said they would examine whether the authorities had properly considered the suitability and effectiveness of the central Delhi location for public demonstrations.

The challenge concerns a standing order issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar on October 11, replacing Jantar Mantar with three designated protest locations: Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in east Delhi. The decision has prompted legal objections over access to government institutions and the practical exercise of the right to peaceful assembly.

The bench sought clarification on the relationship between the police decision and observations made by the Supreme Court on October 9 about identifying alternative locations for demonstrations. Those observations had called for consideration of suitable spaces with facilities for protesters, rather than expressly directing that Jantar Mantar be removed from the approved list.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the denotification was not based on its earlier observations. He said a committee constituted by the Union Home Ministry had examined the issue and submitted a detailed report before the court raised the question of alternative protest venues.

That explanation differed from the position presented by Delhi Police before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. During proceedings concerning permission for a demonstration, the police had linked their decision to the Supreme Court's October 9 order. The apparent discrepancy became a central issue in Thursday's hearing.

The Supreme Court did not restore Jantar Mantar's designated status or rule on the legality of the police order. Its notice requires the authorities to respond to the challenge, leaving the substantive questions concerning the decision and its constitutional implications open for examination.

The petition, filed by advocate Swaty Singh, argues that removing Jantar Mantar as a protest venue infringes constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly. It invokes Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), while acknowledging that these freedoms may be subject to lawful restrictions in the interests of public order.

The petitioner maintains that the location of a demonstration is integral to its effectiveness. Moving assemblies away from government offices, the plea argues, could diminish protesters' ability to communicate grievances to the institutions whose decisions they seek to challenge.

Senior advocate Mukta Gupta submitted that protest venues should be sufficiently close to government establishments for demonstrators to make themselves heard. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also sought restoration of Jantar Mantar's status, drawing attention to the authorities' earlier reliance on the Supreme Court's observations.

The dispute has developed alongside demonstrations opposing the Election Commission's SIR exercise. Opposition parties and protest organisers have questioned the revision process, alleging that eligible voters risk exclusion from electoral rolls. Those allegations form part of a wider set of legal and political challenges and have not been resolved by the court's notice concerning Jantar Mantar.

Separate proceedings before the Delhi High Court concern a request by Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib for permission to demonstrate at Jantar Mantar. Delhi Police argued that the request had lost its basis following the site's denotification, but the High Court sought responses on other objections to the restrictions governing demonstrations.

Those objections include the manner in which permission requests are assessed and the requirement to apply at least ten days before a proposed protest. The High Court has listed the matter for further consideration in November.

The Supreme Court's consideration also takes place against the backdrop of its earlier rulings on public assembly, including a 2018 judgment examining restrictions on protests at Jantar Mantar. That decision addressed the need to balance citizens' rights to demonstrate with the interests of residents, public order and access to shared spaces.

The new police order identifies Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as the authorised alternatives, but the petition contests whether their availability adequately addresses the loss of a venue situated close to central government offices. The designated locations differ in their accessibility and proximity to the institutions targeted by demonstrations.

MEA disputes UN rights office criticism of Delhi protests

The Ministry of External Affairs on Wednesday rejected the United Nations Human Rights Office's criticism of police action during Delhi protests, describing its concerns as unwarranted and unacceptable interference in India's internal affairs.

Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal accused the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of applying selective standards when assessing demonstrations and law enforcement responses across countries. He warned that such an approach could damage the organisation's credibility and weaken confidence in multilateral institutions.

Addressing a media briefing in New Delhi, Jaiswal said the UN body had failed to respond consistently to comparable developments elsewhere, despite publicly questioning the handling of demonstrations in the capital.

He said the concerns expressed by OHCHR were unwarranted and unacceptable because they amounted to interference in India's internal affairs. The spokesperson also questioned why the organisation had not adopted similar public positions concerning protests and policing in other parts of the world.

Jaiswal warned that continued selectivity could lead to a loss of faith in multilateralism while undermining the standing of the human rights office. His remarks reinforced the government's objections to international criticism of security measures imposed during demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The OHCHR had expressed concern on October 10 over reports of mass detentions involving demonstrators, protest organisers, civil society representatives, lawyers and journalists before and during large demonstrations in Delhi.

UN Human Rights spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan called on authorities to respect the right to peaceful assembly and ensure that restrictions complied with the principles of necessity and proportionality. The office also sought the immediate and unconditional release of people it described as arbitrarily detained.

The demonstrations were organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and other groups protesting alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Protest organisers accused the Election Commission of undermining electoral fairness and demanded Kumar's resignation.

The government and the Election Commission have rejected allegations of electoral manipulation. Police authorities have maintained that restrictions on demonstrations were necessary to protect public order and prevent disruption.

Wednesday's intervention followed an earlier response from the ministry, which defended constitutional protections for peaceful assembly while maintaining that exercising those rights remained subject to public safety requirements.

The ministry argued that citizens could seek remedies through the courts and that law enforcement agencies operated within established legal procedures. It also pointed to the country's independent judiciary and free media as safeguards against violations of fundamental rights.

Those assurances have faced scrutiny following complaints about detentions, restrictions on movement and alleged mistreatment of journalists covering demonstrations.

The Supreme Court has examined restrictions affecting public transport and other services during the protests, raising questions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting constitutional freedoms.

Delhi Police has defended its measures before the court, citing intelligence assessments and alleged violations of undertakings by protest organisers. The police submitted an unconditional apology in proceedings concerning compliance with judicial directions while maintaining that their actions were undertaken in good faith.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation separately informed the court that restrictions on entry and exit at certain stations were introduced following police instructions. It denied that services had been completely suspended across the network.

The corporation stated that 271 trains completed 4,157 trips on October 10, while access restrictions affected 45 of its 303 stations. It also submitted an unconditional apology in response to contempt proceedings concerning the implementation of the court's directions.

The competing positions have placed the legal boundaries of protest restrictions under examination, alongside the diplomatic disagreement over whether international human rights scrutiny constitutes interference in domestic affairs.

The OHCHR's intervention focused on the treatment of protesters and others detained during the demonstrations. Its concerns addressed the application of internationally recognised protections for peaceful assembly rather than the political demands advanced by protest organisers.

The ministry's response, meanwhile, challenged the consistency of the organisation's public interventions without identifying specific incidents abroad during Wednesday's briefing.

Earlier ministry statements had referred to violent responses to protests in neighbouring countries and law enforcement actions elsewhere that, it argued, had not attracted comparable criticism.

The government has maintained that restrictions on public gatherings must be assessed against security requirements, while the UN human rights office has emphasised that limitations on peaceful assembly must satisfy established human rights standards.

The demonstrations centred on allegations concerning electoral roll revisions, with protesters seeking accountability from the Election Commission and authorities imposing security restrictions around designated gathering points.

Police also restricted access to Jantar Mantar, a traditional protest venue in central Delhi, during the mobilisation.

Lokur faults courts over Delhi police excesses

Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur has criticised constitutional courts for failing to adequately protect fundamental rights amid sweeping police restrictions and detentions during protests in Delhi.

Lokur questioned why the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court had not intervened more decisively against alleged unlawful police actions affecting protesters, lawyers, journalists and ordinary citizens. He said judicial inaction risked allowing restrictions on personal liberty and peaceful assembly to become normalised.

The former judge argued that both courts possessed sufficient constitutional authority to initiate proceedings independently, without waiting for affected citizens to approach them individually.

“Why it doesn’t exercise it in a situation like this, which involves personal liberty… is really difficult to answer,” Lokur said, referring to the Supreme Court’s power to take suo motu cognisance of rights violations.

His criticism followed extensive security operations surrounding demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Protest organisers have accused the authorities of suppressing peaceful dissent, while police maintain that preventive measures were necessary to preserve public order.

Lokur cited detentions extending beyond demonstration venues, including actions against political activists travelling to Delhi and individuals taken into custody at their residences.

He specifically questioned the detention of Cockroach Janta Party leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who were intercepted aboard an aircraft, and commentator Dhruv Rathee, who was detained at his Gurugram residence.

“Obviously all this is illegal,” Lokur said, expressing concern about the legal justification for such preventive action.

Delhi Police have defended their operations, maintaining that preventive arrests followed applicable legal procedures. Police have also accused some demonstrators of obstructing officers, breaching restrictions and attempting to enter prohibited protest areas.

Das and Ranka were subsequently remanded to five days of judicial custody following another confrontation at Jantar Mantar. Police alleged that protesters violated restrictions and obstructed personnel performing official duties.

Lokur also raised concerns about the treatment of lawyers, particularly senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who alleged that police forcibly detained him during the demonstrations.

The Delhi High Court Bar Association condemned the detention of legal professionals and alleged excessive police force. Its resolution stressed the importance of protecting citizens exercising constitutional rights.

Journalists covering the protests have similarly alleged detention, assault and interference with their professional duties. Press organisations demanded accountability after reporters said they were detained despite displaying identification.

The Supreme Court has issued directions intended to safeguard peaceful assembly, prevent unlawful detention and protect access to essential services. Chief Justice Surya Kant also intervened following complaints about lawyers detained near the court premises.

Nevertheless, Lokur questioned whether judicial directions were producing effective protection when allegations of police misconduct continued.

He argued that contempt proceedings against individual officers could not adequately address repeated violations if broader institutional practices remained unchanged.

“Why are the courts allowing this to happen?” he asked.

The former judge also criticised restrictions affecting public transport, commercial activity and telecommunications. Security measures included widespread barricading, closures of Metro stations, disruption of railway services and internet restrictions in parts of central Delhi.

Lokur contrasted these disruptions with judicial concerns about inconvenience to commuters during the Shaheen Bagh protests, when restrictions on prolonged occupation of public roads were justified partly by the need to maintain public access.

He questioned why comparable disruption attributed to police arrangements appeared to attract a different institutional response.

“The standards are very different,” he said, questioning the apparent inconsistency.

Lokur further warned that making peaceful public gatherings dependent on police permission could create a restrictive system undermining the practical exercise of constitutional freedoms.

He described the danger as a return to a permission-based regime in which citizens must seek administrative approval before exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The former judge urged constitutional courts to give priority to petitions involving personal liberty, hear arguments fully and deliver judgments without avoidable delay.

He also identified delays in adjudicating electoral bonds, anti-defection disputes and voting rights petitions as examples of judicial processes affecting public confidence.

Lokur, who served on the Supreme Court between 2012 and 2018, currently chairs the United Nations Internal Justice Council and serves on the Supreme Court of Fiji’s non-resident judicial panel.

IDBI stake sale sparks Akhilesh Sitharaman political clash

Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman clashed on Wednesday over the government's decision to sell a controlling stake in IDBI Bank to Canada's Fairfax Financial Holdings, triggering a political dispute over privatisation and banking reforms.

Yadav accused the BJP-led government of putting national assets up for sale, while Sitharaman countered that the Samajwadi Party had supported the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government when public sector banks accumulated substantial bad loans.

The confrontation followed the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs' approval of the sale of a 60.72 per cent stake in IDBI Bank to a Fairfax subsidiary for Rs 52,878 crore, one of the country's largest banking transactions involving foreign investment.

Yadav criticised the decision through a social media post, suggesting that the government was disposing of public assets before losing power.

"Now, all that's left is for the government to sell itself," he remarked, comparing the administration's privatisation programme to a commercial clearance exercise.

He suggested that the BJP government was preparing a "Season End Sale" of national assets because it anticipated the closure of its political operations.

Sitharaman responded by questioning the opposition leader's silence during the UPA administration, which received support from the Samajwadi Party.

"The UPA left banks in a pathetic condition," she said, arguing that Yadav had failed to challenge his political allies when financial institutions were facing serious difficulties.

The finance minister accused parties associated with the opposition INDIA bloc of weakening public sector banks through politically influenced lending and favouritism.

She specifically referred to what she described as "phone banking" and "crony capitalism", alleging that lending decisions under previous administrations had contributed to the deterioration of bank balance sheets.

Sitharaman maintained that IDBI Bank had extended loans during the UPA period whose principal and interest remained difficult to recover.

She credited the National Democratic Alliance government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi with restoring the banking system through capital injections, regulatory measures and greater transparency.

The minister also accused Yadav of displaying selective concern for public sector banking institutions after their financial condition had improved.

The exchange highlighted conflicting political positions on the transfer of government-controlled financial assets to private investors, although the approved transaction involves the sale of holdings belonging to both the Centre and Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).

Under the arrangement, the government will sell 30.48 per cent of IDBI Bank's equity, while LIC will dispose of another 30.24 per cent.

Following completion, the Centre will retain approximately 15 per cent and LIC about 19 per cent, leaving them with a combined minority holding of 34 per cent.

Fairfax's acquisition vehicle, 10955230 Canada Inc., emerged as the successful strategic buyer following a competitive bidding process.

The approved purchase price is Rs 81 per share, exceeding the benchmark valuation of Rs 75.99 established through independent assessments commissioned for the transaction.

Government officials said the winning offer met the valuation requirements and represented an acceptable price for transferring management control.

Sitharaman described the transaction as strategic restructuring rather than a complete withdrawal of government investment, emphasising that both existing institutional shareholders would retain substantial interests.

The finance ministry expects the transaction to attract foreign capital and strengthen the lender's capacity to expand its operations.

Fairfax, headed by Prem Watsa, has separately confirmed its selection as strategic buyer. Completion remains subject to regulatory approvals, including scrutiny by the Reserve Bank of India.

The transaction is expected to be completed during the financial year ending March 2027, provided the necessary approvals and contractual requirements are satisfied.

IDBI Bank's financial performance has improved substantially since the period when mounting bad loans prompted regulatory intervention.

The Reserve Bank placed the lender under its Prompt Corrective Action framework in May 2017, imposing restrictions because of deteriorating asset quality and losses.

Those restrictions were lifted in March 2021 following improvements in the bank's financial position, subject to continuing regulatory monitoring.

Government figures show that IDBI Bank's gross non-performing asset ratio declined from 31.78 per cent in September 2018 to 2.32 per cent in March 2026.

Its net non-performing asset ratio fell from 17.30 per cent to 0.15 per cent over the same period.

The bank reported a net profit of Rs 9,513 crore for the financial year ending March 2026, reflecting its improved profitability before the proposed ownership transfer.

AAP demands apology over Rekha Gupta Ram remark

Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta faced demands for a public apology on Wednesday after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) circulated a video apparently showing her mistakenly referring to the killing of Lord Ram while addressing a religious gathering.

The controversy erupted over remarks delivered at a Ramlila programme in Keval Park, Azadpur, on Tuesday evening. Gupta appeared to say that every Ram must be killed before society could be cleansed, prompting AAP leaders to accuse her of insulting Hindu religious sentiments.

Delhi AAP president Saurabh Bharadwaj shared a short video clip of the speech on social media, describing the statement as blasphemy and demanding that the Chief Minister apologise to Hindus across the country.

The disputed Hindi remarks translate approximately as: “Until every Ram is killed, until society becomes completely clean.” The wording appeared inconsistent with the religious context of the gathering, where the traditional narrative celebrates Lord Ram's victory over the demon king Ravana.

The available clip does not establish that Gupta intended to advocate violence against Lord Ram or his followers. The apparent substitution of Ram for Ravana has nevertheless become the centre of a political confrontation between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition AAP.

Bharadwaj argued that the statement was particularly objectionable because it was delivered from a Ramlila stage, where the ideals associated with Lord Ram are celebrated through performances depicting the victory of good over evil.

He accused the BJP of invoking religious symbolism for political advantage while failing to respect the principles it publicly champions. His allegations represented the opposition party's interpretation of the episode rather than evidence of Gupta's intentions.

AAP issued a formal statement on Wednesday demanding an apology and alleging that the Chief Minister's words had offended Hindu devotees. Bharadwaj said the remarks amounted to an insult to the faith and questioned why other people present on the stage had not intervened.

The party also circulated the disputed footage through its official social media account, intensifying criticism of Gupta and questioning the BJP's commitment to the religious values it promotes.

AAP MLA Kuldeep Kumar joined the criticism, alleging that the statement exposed a contradiction between the BJP's religious messaging and its conduct in government. He demanded an apology from the Chief Minister and the party leadership.

Former Model Town legislator Akhilesh Pati Tripathi similarly criticised Gupta, arguing that a Ramlila platform should promote the teachings of Lord Ram rather than become associated with language suggesting his destruction.

The opposition's reaction extended beyond AAP. Congress leader Priyanka Kakkar criticised Gupta and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, invoking the concept of Ram Rajya, or governance based on the ideals traditionally associated with Lord Ram.

Her comments linked the verbal controversy to broader opposition criticism of the BJP's political use of religious symbolism. However, the dispute itself centres on the precise wording of Gupta's speech and whether the statement constituted an inadvertent mistake.

No formal clarification from Gupta addressing the disputed phrase had been established when the controversy was reported. The absence of an explanation left the opposition's demand for an apology unanswered publicly.

Gupta attended the Ramlila celebration organised by Shri Adarsh Kala Kendra at Keval Park on October 13. BJP legislator Rajkumar Bhatia was also present at the programme.

The Chief Minister participated in other religious celebrations in Delhi that evening, including events in Rohini. Her engagements formed part of public appearances associated with the festive season.

The Ramlila tradition dramatises episodes from the Ramayana, particularly the confrontation between Ram and Ravana. References to defeating Ravana commonly symbolise the elimination of evil, making the distinction between the two names central to interpreting the disputed statement.

The controversy also illustrates how short recordings of political speeches can rapidly become flashpoints when circulated by rival parties. While the words attributed to Gupta have been widely reproduced, the opposition's assertion that they demonstrate hostility towards Lord Ram remains an allegation.

Bharadwaj's statement additionally criticised the Delhi administration over demolitions, employment and police action against protesters, linking those grievances to his broader attack on the BJP government.

Those accusations were separate from the Ramlila speech and did not establish the Chief Minister's intended meaning.

The disputed recording circulated on Wednesday was approximately nine seconds long, showing only a brief portion of Gupta's address at the Azadpur gathering.

Govind Mohan submits apology over Delhi protest restrictions

Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan has tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the Supreme Court over alleged violations of its October 9 directions restricting administrative curbs in Delhi, while denying any wilful or deliberate disobedience.

Mohan, responding to a contempt notice through an affidavit, maintained that measures imposed during the October 10 protests were necessary to preserve public order. He requested the court to discharge the contempt notice, arguing that the authorities had acted in good faith under exceptional circumstances.

The affidavit, submitted late Wednesday, defended the temporary suspension of cellular internet services within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hills, the administrative centre of New Delhi. The restrictions operated for 24 hours, beginning at 10 pm on October 9 and ending at 10 pm the following day.

Mohan stated that Delhi Police had sought the suspension because of apprehensions about disturbances during demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The request was considered proportionate to the anticipated security situation, he submitted, emphasising that the restrictions were geographically limited and imposed for a defined period.

The Home Secretary clarified that the suspension covered cellular internet connectivity alone. Broadband connections, Wi-Fi networks and other telecommunications services were not included in the shutdown order.

He also requested modification of the Supreme Court's October 11 direction requiring uninterrupted internet facilities, seeking recognition that temporary suspensions could be authorised in exceptional circumstances, subject to statutory requirements and safeguards.

The submission places before the court a distinction between the government's acknowledgement of judicial authority and its defence of emergency security measures. Whether those measures complied with the earlier directions remains a matter for judicial determination.

The Supreme Court issued contempt notices on October 11 to Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D Thara after examining allegations that authorities had disregarded its October 9 directions concerning public transport during the demonstrations.

A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana found that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring explanations from the officials concerned. That preliminary finding did not amount to a determination that contempt had been committed.

The proceedings followed a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleging that restrictions on Metro operations had violated the court's prohibition against a complete shutdown of public transport.

The judges directed the officials to submit counter-affidavits and compliance information explaining how the October 9 order had been implemented.

Delhi Police separately defended its actions, maintaining that intelligence assessments had indicated threats to public safety and that protest organisers had breached earlier undertakings. Police authorities also offered an unconditional apology while asserting that their decisions were taken lawfully and without an intention to disregard judicial instructions.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, responding to the same proceedings, maintained that its train services had continued operating despite restrictions on passenger access at selected stations.

Its affidavit stated that 271 trains completed 4,157 scheduled trips on October 10. Entry and exit restrictions affected 45 of the network's 303 stations, representing approximately 15 per cent of the total.

The corporation said these limitations followed police instructions and did not constitute a complete suspension of Metro operations. It also offered an unconditional apology while disputing allegations that the network had been shut down.

During the October 11 hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that Metro services had continued and that restrictions at affected stations had been lifted by 10 pm on October 10.

The court nevertheless required explanations concerning the implementation of its directions, which were intended to ensure that security arrangements did not unnecessarily obstruct essential transport services or lawful movement.

Separate proceedings before the Supreme Court addressed allegations of unlawful detention of demonstrators, including political leaders, and restrictions affecting lawyers and journalists during the protests.

The judges also directed that internet facilities should function unhindered and emphasised the need to preserve access to courts and essential services.

The demonstrations centred on demands concerning the Election Commission and its electoral roll revision exercise. Authorities had denied permission for the proposed gathering at Jantar Mantar, citing public order concerns and anticipated mobilisation.

The Home Secretary's four-page affidavit specifically addressed the cellular internet suspension and the government's request for judicial permission to impose comparable restrictions when legally justified by public safety requirements.

Lavasa questions voter deletions based on citizenship suspicions

Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa has accused the Election Commission of removing voters from electoral rolls on suspicion of doubtful citizenship rather than established evidence, raising concerns about the legality and fairness of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Addressing a citizens' convention in Kolkata virtually on Tuesday, Lavasa said the revision exercise had shifted the commission's emphasis from enrolling eligible citizens to identifying people for exclusion. He questioned whether statutory safeguards had been followed and whether officials legally responsible for maintaining electoral rolls had been allowed to exercise their powers.

Lavasa alleged that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who possess statutory authority to decide voter deletions, were denied access to ECINET, the commission's centrally controlled digital system. He described this restriction as illegal, arguing that decisions affecting electoral eligibility could not bypass the officials empowered under election laws.

The former commissioner said established procedures allowed appeals against decisions by registration officers to higher electoral authorities. Centralised control of the revision process, he argued, had undermined accountability and complicated the established mechanism for challenging exclusions.

Lavasa maintained that the commission's constitutional responsibility was to register eligible citizens and conduct elections according to schedule. He said the SIR exercise had created exceptional anxiety among voters who were uncertain whether their names would survive the verification process.

The controversy has intensified following widespread protests against alleged irregularities in electoral roll revisions. Opposition parties have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the commission of compromising electoral fairness. The commission has rejected allegations of political bias and defended its procedures.

Lavasa said the commission had introduced unprecedented distinctions between voters based on their dates of birth, linking documentation requirements to citizenship provisions. He questioned whether such classifications were consistent with the commission's responsibility to facilitate electoral participation.

Article 326 of the Constitution establishes adult suffrage for citizens aged at least 18, subject to specified legal disqualifications. Lavasa argued that verification procedures should not reverse the presumption underlying the inclusion of eligible voters.

Referring specifically to West Bengal, he said nearly six million electors had faced adjudication during the revision exercise, apart from those omitted from draft rolls. He questioned the feasibility of resolving such a substantial number of cases before the state's Assembly elections.

According to Lavasa, approximately 3.3 million names were restored following adjudication, demonstrating the scale of disputes surrounding the exercise. The figures underline the importance of distinguishing provisional omissions, contested registrations and final deletions when assessing the impact on voting rights.

The Election Commission informed the Supreme Court that approximately 3.83 million appeals had been filed before electoral tribunals. Around 130,000 had been decided, while 2.22 million appeals concerned excluded voters and another 1.61 million challenged inclusions.

Lavasa also questioned the transparency of decision-making within the three-member commission, following disclosures of disagreements involving election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

He said the absence of accessible minutes of commission meetings made it difficult to determine whether significant decisions had been adopted unanimously or by majority. Such uncertainty, he argued, weakened confidence in an institution expected to operate independently.

The commission has maintained that differing opinions and observations are normal features of institutional deliberations. It has asserted that its orders carry legal authority and follow established statutory procedures, while commissioners and officials remain entitled to offer suggestions for improving electoral administration.

Lavasa warned that public confidence in election outcomes depended on the perceived neutrality of the authority supervising them. He compared the commission's role to that of an umpire whose impartiality was essential for acceptance of the result.

The convention was organised by CPI(M) leader and lawyer Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and former bureaucrat Jawhar Sircar. Actor and activist Prakash Raj also addressed participants, criticising the revision process and alleging that voter exclusions had affected electoral fairness.

Raj accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of benefiting politically from the disputed exercise. His allegations remain contested, with the Election Commission maintaining that revisions are intended to ensure accurate electoral registers.

Separately, the commission told the Bombay High Court that absence from a draft SIR roll did not necessarily constitute final deletion. Its counsel explained that the intensive revision involved fresh enumeration and that eligible applicants could seek inclusion through prescribed procedures.

The clarification arose during proceedings concerning electoral registration in Goa, where a petitioner challenged the treatment of applications involving changes of address. The court reserved its judgment after hearing arguments about the applicable registration forms and procedural requirements.

Supreme Court halts Rahul Gandhi defamation trial

The Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, granting him interim relief while examining his challenge to a Bombay High Court ruling.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Aparesh Kumar Singh issued notices to the Maharashtra government and complainant M H Shrishrimal, directing them to respond within four weeks. The judges ordered that further proceedings before the trial court remain stayed until the matter is considered again.

Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and MP for Raebareli, approached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court declined on September 8 to set aside summons issued against him by a Mumbai magistrate in 2019.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gandhi, referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments during Tuesday's hearing and submitted that the applicable legal principles were already settled. The bench issued notice without delivering a final ruling on the validity of the complaint or the summons.

The case originated in a complaint lodged by Shrishrimal, a Bharatiya Janata Party member, concerning political statements Gandhi allegedly made about Modi during a public meeting in Rajasthan on September 20, 2018. The remarks were made against the backdrop of the controversy surrounding the Rafale fighter aircraft agreement.

The expressions cited in accounts of the complaint include “commander-in-thief” and “choron ke sardar”, a Hindi phrase meaning leader of thieves. The complainant maintained that the remarks were defamatory towards Modi and adversely affected people associated with him, including BJP members.

Shrishrimal argued that his association with the BJP gave him grounds to pursue the complaint because the allegations against its leader had also aggrieved party supporters. That contention forms part of the dispute over whether he was entitled to initiate criminal defamation proceedings concerning remarks directed at another person.

The Girgaum magistrate issued process against Gandhi on August 28, 2019, following the complaint. Gandhi subsequently challenged the summons before the Bombay High Court, questioning whether the criminal proceedings could be maintained on the basis advanced by Shrishrimal.

The High Court dismissed his petition on September 8, leaving the magistrate's summons in place. It nevertheless continued protection granted in 2021, directing the magistrate to defer hearing the complaint for six weeks to allow Gandhi to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Tuesday's order extends that procedural protection through a stay imposed by the country's highest court. It prevents the magistrate from advancing the case while the Supreme Court considers the challenge, but does not amount to an acquittal or dismissal of the complaint.

The distinction is significant because Gandhi's appeal concerns the legal basis on which the proceedings were permitted to continue. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the High Court was correct to refuse intervention or whether the summons should ultimately be quashed.

The complainant and the Maharashtra government will now have an opportunity to place their positions before the bench. Their responses may address the maintainability of the complaint, the reasoning adopted by the High Court and the legal authorities relied upon by Gandhi's counsel.

The proceedings also involve the question of how criminal defamation provisions apply when political criticism targets a public figure but the person filing the complaint claims injury through political association. The Supreme Court did not resolve that question at Tuesday's preliminary hearing.

The original complaint alleged that Gandhi's statements prompted criticism of Modi across television and social media. Those assertions remain allegations advanced by Shrishrimal rather than findings made by the Supreme Court.

The dispute has followed Gandhi through successive stages of litigation, from the magistrate's decision to summon him to the High Court's refusal to intervene. The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is his challenge to that refusal, rather than any determination of criminal liability.

At the hearing, the judges confined their immediate intervention to issuing notice and protecting the status of the trial. No final assessment of the allegedly defamatory words was announced. The parties therefore remain free to argue their respective positions when the appeal returns before the bench for further consideration.

The bench listed the matter for further hearing after four weeks, matching the period allowed for responses from the state government and Shrishrimal. The underlying complaint remains pending before the Girgaum magistrate, subject to the Supreme Court's interim direction.

Woman detained after alleged attack on Mamata Banerjee

Kolkata Police have detained a woman following an alleged attempt to attack former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee near her Kalighat residence, although investigators have not confirmed claims by Trinamool Congress leaders that the suspect carried a knife.

The incident occurred on Tuesday evening, October 13, when Banerjee was attending a Durga Puja inauguration in her neighbourhood. Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen subsequently lodged a complaint alleging that the woman behaved aggressively, attempted to approach Banerjee and threatened her safety.

Police acknowledged an altercation involving the woman but did not substantiate allegations of an attempted knife attack. Officers are examining the circumstances and reviewing available video footage to establish what happened.

The police identified the detained woman as Anusua Saha, aged 38, while Sen's complaint named her as Tannishtha Saha. The discrepancy between the identities given by investigators and party representatives remained unresolved publicly.

Sen alleged that the woman approached Banerjee around 6 pm near the Milan Sangha Durga Puja pandal. The complaint described her as a civic volunteer and claimed she appeared intoxicated, used abusive language and attempted to breach the security arrangements surrounding the former chief minister.

The allegations included a claim that the woman possessed a knife and attempted to approach Banerjee violently. Party workers also alleged that Banerjee's saree was pulled during the confrontation, although police have not independently confirmed that account.

Sen stated that the woman claimed to be Banerjee's niece while attempting to enter the security cordon. When prevented from approaching the leader, she allegedly moved towards another entrance and subsequently lay on the road, shouting abuses.

Trinamool workers intervened and handed the woman over to police. Banerjee was escorted away by supporters who formed a protective cordon around her. No injuries were reported.

The complaint has raised questions about security arrangements for Banerjee, who continues to receive Z-plus protection despite no longer holding the chief minister's office. Party representatives demanded an investigation into how an unidentified person allegedly approached her during a public engagement.

Sen submitted photographic and video material to support the allegations. Investigators are expected to examine the recordings alongside statements from witnesses and personnel responsible for security at the location.

Trinamool leader Kunal Ghosh alleged that the incident appeared to have been planned. He claimed the woman fell before Banerjee, shouted abuses and attempted to strike her foot while carrying a knife.

His assertion of premeditation has not been established by investigators. Police have not publicly identified a motive or confirmed that the detained woman intended to cause physical harm.

Trinamool Rajya Sabha member Saket Gokhale criticised the West Bengal administration over the incident, questioning whether adequate protection had been provided to the former chief minister. Party representatives also suggested that the possibility of a political conspiracy should be investigated.

Those allegations remain political claims rather than findings supported by publicly disclosed police evidence. No connection between the detained woman and any political organisation has been established.

The incident occurred amid tensions between Banerjee's political faction and the state's governing establishment following the change of administration in West Bengal. The disagreement over security arrangements has added another dispute to relations between the rival political camps.

The controversy also centres on whether the woman's alleged possession of a knife constituted a genuine threat or whether the confrontation was primarily a disturbance involving an individual attempting to approach a protected political leader.

Police have confirmed that the woman was taken into custody for questioning, but their initial description did not establish the presence of a weapon. That distinction remains significant because the party's complaint alleges an attempted armed assault.

A formal complaint does not itself establish criminal responsibility. Investigators must determine whether the available evidence supports allegations of assault, intimidation or other offences arising from the confrontation.

The timing of the encounter also differs slightly between accounts, with descriptions placing Banerjee either on her way to the pandal or returning from the inauguration. Both accounts locate the disturbance in the immediate vicinity of her Kalighat residence.

The Milan Sangha celebration was among the neighbourhood Durga Puja events Banerjee was attending. The confrontation drew party workers and security personnel into the street, where the woman was restrained before police assumed custody.

Delhi Police file four cases over protest misinformation

Delhi Police have registered four criminal cases over allegedly fabricated social media posts about demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while securing the removal of about 500 posts and examining accounts suspected of operating from Pakistan.

The action, disclosed on Tuesday, follows online claims about deaths and police firing during protests over electoral roll revisions. Investigators say some material was designed to spread rumours, inflame public sentiment and disrupt law and order. The allegations against individual account operators remain under investigation.

Police officials said the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations unit was examining the circulation of misleading photographs, altered videos and artificially generated content. Investigators are seeking to establish who created the material, how it spread and whether accounts operating outside the country coordinated its distribution.

A preliminary assessment identified posts linked to handles believed to be based in Pakistan. Police said several such accounts had been deactivated, but did not publicly identify their operators or provide evidence establishing coordination with any government agency. The geographical origin and responsibility for individual posts have not been independently established.

Additional Commissioner of Police Sanjay Bhatia said officers were monitoring online platforms and acting when they encountered material considered false, manipulated or potentially criminal. The scrutiny covers images and videos as well as written claims about confrontations between demonstrators and security personnel.

The police have also approached X seeking removal of objectionable content connected with the demonstrations. Officials described the takedowns as measures to prevent unverified claims from provoking unrest, rather than as findings of guilt against everyone who shared the disputed material.

One allegation attracting particular attention claimed that police had opened fire during an opposition march towards the Supreme Court on Monday, killing five people. Delhi Police publicly rejected the claim and warned users against circulating it. No verified evidence supporting the alleged fatalities has emerged.

The force identified the account @indiantiwari01 in a public warning, accusing it of distributing doctored material, older footage and fabricated narratives. It said spreading malicious rumours could attract criminal proceedings and urged people not to amplify the specific allegation about firing.

Police also said accounts operating from Pakistan had circulated claims of multiple protest deaths on October 10. Investigators are examining whether those messages were subsequently repeated by other users and whether altered footage was presented as documentation of events in Delhi.

The digital investigation is unfolding alongside demonstrations challenging the Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties and protest organisers contend that the exercise risks excluding eligible voters and have demanded Kumar's resignation. The Election Commission has rejected allegations that the revision is intended to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Monday's march, involving opposition leaders and supporters, headed towards the Supreme Court amid substantial police deployment and restrictions on gatherings in central Delhi. Police and protesters have offered competing accounts of confrontations, detentions and the handling of the crowds.

Separate criminal cases have been registered over alleged breaches of prohibitory orders and damage to barricades during the march. Those proceedings concern conduct at protest sites and should not be confused with the four cases concerning allegedly misleading online material.

The response to the demonstrations has also prompted questions about the treatment of journalists and activists. Press organisations have criticised detentions and alleged excessive force, while police have maintained that security measures were necessary to manage gatherings and protect public order.

The online investigation raises a distinct issue: determining whether posts contain demonstrably false assertions, misleadingly edited material or legitimate documentation of contentious events. Authorities have not released a comprehensive public inventory of the removed posts, making it difficult to assess each moderation decision individually.

The distinction is significant because footage from demonstrations can circulate without its original context, while authentic recordings may also become subjects of disagreement. Establishing provenance requires examining timestamps, original recordings and the circumstances of publication.

Officials have not disclosed the precise legal provisions invoked in all four misinformation cases, the number of people formally identified as suspects or whether any arrests have resulted directly from the online investigation. Nor have they provided a detailed breakdown of removals by platform.

Investigators continue reviewing suspicious accounts and archived posts, including material that appeared from October 10 onwards. Police have urged social media users to verify claims before sharing them, particularly messages alleging deaths, shootings or fresh confrontations at protest locations.

Waqf Board disavows compulsory sermons amid Kashmir opposition

The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board has denied ordering compulsory uniform Friday sermons after its proposal for common themes across affiliated mosques and shrines drew objections from Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, opposition politicians and Muslim religious organisations.

Board chairperson Darakhshan Andrabi said no directive had been issued requiring preachers to deliver identical sermons. She maintained that imams and religious scholars remained free to select subjects, while defending discussions about coordinating messages on social problems.

The clarification followed criticism on Tuesday from Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti and the Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), an umbrella organisation headed by Kashmir's chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. They questioned whether an administrative institution should influence what religious leaders say during congregational prayers.

The controversy began after the board proposed constituting a core committee of muftis, imams and khateebs to identify common topics for Friday sermons at institutions under its administration. The stated objectives included religious awareness, moral values, social harmony, unity and public welfare.

Andrabi, a senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader, said the initiative emerged from discussions among religious scholars rather than a political instruction. She pointed to concerns including drug addiction and suicide as subjects on which religious leaders could encourage community awareness.

Her assurance that no binding order existed marked an important distinction between coordinating voluntary discussions and imposing standardised preaching. However, opponents continued to seek clarity about the board's intended role and the authority of any committee established under the proposal.

Abdullah described the plan as an unacceptable attempt by the BJP to interfere in Muslim religious affairs. He demanded that the board's chairperson halt the initiative, arguing that religious instruction should not be determined by political authorities.

The chief minister's objections were echoed by Mufti, who said Friday sermons must respond to the circumstances of individual neighbourhoods and communities. She argued that religious scholars, rather than administrators, were qualified to decide which issues deserved attention during prayers.

Mufti also called for Waqf administration to be placed under the elected Jammu and Kashmir government. She accused the BJP of using the board to influence religious practice, an allegation that Andrabi's explanation disputed.

The MMU rejected the prospect of prescribed sermon content, saying the mosque pulpit represented a religious trust and that guidance belonged to qualified scholars, imams and recognised institutions representing different schools of Islamic thought.

The organisation distinguished voluntary cooperation among scholars on shared social concerns from instructions issued by an administrative body. It said government-linked authorities should not determine religious discourse or require preachers to follow scripted messages.

The MMU urged the Waqf Board to concentrate on managing, maintaining and protecting properties entrusted to it. Its statement raised broader questions about whether the proposed committee would offer optional guidance or exercise authority over sermons.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq's involvement gave the objections a prominent religious voice alongside the political opposition. The disagreement centres on the boundaries between oversight of religious endowments and the independence of clergy responsible for worship and instruction.

People's Conference leader Sajad Lone also opposed interference with mosque sermons, while National Conference figures challenged the idea of centrally selected themes. Former Srinagar mayor Junaid Mattu questioned the implications for constitutional protections of religious freedom.

The board's proposal concerned institutions affiliated with it, rather than an established requirement covering every mosque in Jammu and Kashmir. That distinction matters because independent mosques and religious organisations do not necessarily fall under the same administrative arrangements.

Friday sermons, commonly called khutbas, are delivered during congregational prayers and can address religious obligations alongside social and community matters. Critics of uniform themes contend that local clerics need discretion to respond to conditions affecting their congregations.

The board has maintained that its suggested subjects were intended to encourage constructive discussion rather than restrict religious expression. Andrabi's denial of a compulsory directive leaves the proposed committee's precise procedures and any resulting recommendations to be clarified.

No timetable for implementing common themes has been established in the statements examined, and the board has not identified a compulsory sermon text. The immediate disagreement therefore concerns the proposed mechanism for selecting topics and whether clerics would retain full discretion. The board’s assurances have not resolved those concerns among religious organisations.

The disputed initiative included Jamia mosques, shrines and other affiliated religious institutions, with the proposed committee drawing members from among muftis, imams and khateebs.

Court remands CJP leaders over Jantar Mantar protest

Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka spent his birthday in judicial custody on Wednesday after a Delhi magistrate ordered his detention for five days alongside fellow party leader Saurav Das over alleged violations connected with a protest at Jantar Mantar.

The order followed their arrest on Tuesday after CJP activists entered the barricaded protest venue despite police restrictions. Authorities accused the leaders of trespassing, breaching previously executed peace bonds and obstructing public officials performing their duties.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke marked Ranka's birthday with a message on social media platform X, expressing solidarity with his detained colleague and alleging that police had repeatedly obstructed access to legal counsel since Tuesday morning.

The party's allegations concerning restrictions on lawyers meeting the detained activists have not been independently established. Police have maintained that the arrests followed violations of restrictions imposed on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar.

Ranka and Das were transferred to Tihar Jail following proceedings before an executive magistrate. Their detention represents a further escalation in the confrontation between the youth-led political organisation and Delhi Police over access to one of the capital's established demonstration venues.

Another CJP activist, Ajinkya Shinde, who was detained alongside them, was released after executing a fresh peace bond. Authorities distinguished his position from those of Ranka and Das, who had previously undertaken to maintain public peace.

The CJP legal team indicated that it would challenge the custody order and seek bail for the two leaders. Lawyer Abhish Thela questioned the grounds for police intervention, arguing that the authorities had initiated proceedings without a complaint from an affected private party.

The dispute centres on the government's decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest locations. The change, announced on Monday, followed demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations concerning electoral roll revisions.

CJP activists rejected the restriction and entered the area early Tuesday, carrying the national flag and raising slogans. Police subsequently detained Ranka, Das, Shinde and several other participants after they crossed security barriers surrounding the venue.

Police alleged that some activists gained access through premises adjoining the protest site. Their actions were treated as violations of the restrictions governing public gatherings and of conditions imposed following earlier detentions.

The authorities had designated alternative locations for demonstrations, including Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground. CJP leaders maintained that removing Jantar Mantar's status as a protest venue amounted to an unacceptable restriction on political expression.

Dipke criticised the decision and argued that restrictions on a particular location could not prevent citizens from organising demonstrations elsewhere. His statements formed part of the party's continuing campaign against the Election Commission's handling of electoral roll revisions.

The confrontation followed extensive police action during demonstrations planned for October 10, when CJP leaders were detained after arriving in Delhi. Dipke, Ranka and Das were among those taken into custody as authorities sought to prevent gatherings around Jantar Mantar.

They were subsequently released under conditions requiring them to maintain public peace. The authorities relied on those earlier undertakings when initiating proceedings following Tuesday's confrontation.

The CJP has accused the Election Commission of allowing irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and has demanded Kumar's resignation. The Election Commission and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have rejected allegations that the revision exercise was manipulated for political advantage.

The disagreement over electoral administration has drawn opposition parties into demonstrations demanding greater transparency and accountability. Police have defended restrictions on gatherings as measures necessary to maintain public order and prevent disruption in sensitive areas of the capital.

The CJP's national working committee was expected to consider its response to the custody order, while party representatives prepared legal applications seeking the release of Ranka and Das.

The judicial proceedings have also placed attention on the distinction between preventive police detention and custody authorised by a magistrate. Wednesday's order moved the two activists from police detention into judicial custody for a specified period.

Supporters gathered outside a police station to acknowledge Ranka's birthday while he remained detained. Dipke's public greeting highlighted the party's continuing objections to the police action and its demand that detained members receive access to their lawyers.

The case arose from Tuesday's entry into Jantar Mantar, where security barricades remained in place following the withdrawal of permission for demonstrations at the location.

CJP volunteers breach Jantar Mantar barriers, face detention

Cockroach Janta Party volunteers entered the barricaded Jantar Mantar protest area in Delhi on Tuesday morning, defying a decision to withdraw its designation as an authorised demonstration venue. Party founder Abhijeet Dipke said police detained those involved.

The group, led by CJP figures Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das, climbed an iron gate and a police barricade to reach the restricted location. Footage shared by Dipke showed activists carrying national flags, crossing the barriers and shouting slogans as officers attempted to stop them.

The flash protest came a day after Delhi Police announced that Jantar Mantar would no longer be among the capital's designated locations for demonstrations. The decision followed days of confrontation between police and CJP supporters seeking to gather there over alleged irregularities in electoral rolls.

Dipke identified Ranka, Das and fellow activist Ajinkya among those detained. His account was not accompanied by an immediate detailed police statement specifying the number held, the grounds for their detention or whether they had subsequently been released.

Video of the episode showed several protesters running beyond the gate while officers moved towards them. Some shouted “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Inquilab Zindabad”. The footage captured the brief confrontation but did not establish how many people entered the area or how long the demonstration lasted.

“You cannot denotify the resistance,” Dipke wrote on X, directly challenging Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the change. He also argued that withdrawing Jantar Mantar's official status would not end demonstrations and said protest gatherings could emerge elsewhere across the country.

Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar's order replaced Jantar Mantar with three designated protest venues: Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in east Delhi. The decision followed recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to identify alternative locations for public demonstrations.

The change removes a prominent central Delhi venue from the list of officially approved sites. Protest organisers must now look to the newly specified grounds for events covered by the police designation, although the arrangements for permissions and security remain subject to applicable procedures.

The CJP rejected the decision on Monday, describing it as an arbitrary restriction on the right to protest. Its representatives sought clarity from police about permission for their proposed gatherings and questioned why Jantar Mantar had been withdrawn while their dispute with the authorities remained unresolved.

Police have maintained a substantial presence around Jantar Mantar since Saturday, when the CJP called for a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Officers prevented protesters from entering the area, and several prominent organisers were taken into custody as security restrictions were imposed.

Ranka, Das and Dipke were among CJP leaders detained after arriving in Delhi on Saturday. Tuesday's appearance by Ranka and Das therefore marked another attempt by the organisation to demonstrate at the same location despite police restrictions and the newly announced change to approved venues.

The movement's protests centre on the special intensive revision of electoral rolls, which opposition parties and activists say risks excluding eligible voters. The Election Commission has defended its revision exercise as necessary to maintain accurate voter registers. Allegations of deliberate voter exclusion remain contested.

The dispute has also drawn participation from the opposition INDIA alliance, whose supporters marched through central Delhi on Monday seeking scrutiny of the electoral revision process. Security measures around sensitive locations have generated competing claims about the authorities' responsibility to maintain public order and citizens' freedom to assemble peacefully.

The police order followed consideration of alternative grounds by a Home Ministry committee. Ramlila Ground remains within central Delhi, while Burari Ground is in the north of the city and CBD Ground is in the eastern district of Shahdara. The greater distance of two venues from Parliament has prompted objections from protest organisers.

Jantar Mantar had been the focal point of CJP mobilisation before the revised designation. For organisers, its location near national institutions provided visibility; for police, large gatherings in the area have involved restrictions on access and movements around surrounding roads.

The revised order also partly amends an earlier police directive issued in 2022.

Tuesday's footage showed demonstrators waving flags after crossing the barriers, with police pursuing them around the entrance. Dipke shared the recording through his social media account alongside his assertion that the volunteers had been taken into custody.

Sarma conditions ballot elections on Congress government resignations

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has challenged Rahul Gandhi to secure the resignation of Congress-led state governments before demanding elections through ballot papers, amid disputes over voter lists and electoral malpractice.

Speaking at a news conference in Guwahati on Monday, Sarma said he would be prepared to contest an election using paper ballots if the governments in Kerala, Karnataka and Telangana stepped down. His remarks came as opposition parties mounted demonstrations in Delhi against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged vote theft.

“I am ready to contest on the ballot paper if Rahul Gandhi and Congress are ready for their governments' resignations,” Sarma said. He argued that Congress could not question the credibility of elections organised by the Election Commission while continuing to govern states where it held power.

The chief minister's demand was a political challenge, not an election decision. Decisions on how parliamentary and assembly elections are conducted fall under election law, not by a chief minister.

Sarma also questioned why Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, should retain his position while alleging that elections had been compromised. He said Congress should explain whether it intended to participate in future contests conducted using electronic voting machines, instead of disputing selected outcomes.

The remarks followed Monday's mobilisation by the opposition INDIA bloc in the capital, where protesters marched towards the Supreme Court challenging changes to electoral rolls. Opposition leaders have demanded independent scrutiny of deletions and safeguards against the removal of eligible voters.

Gandhi and other opposition figures accuse the authorities of overseeing a process that could disenfranchise legitimate voters and favour the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP rejects accusations of systematic vote manipulation, while the Election Commission maintains that electoral roll verification is aimed at accurate voter records.

The competing claims have sharpened disagreements over the independence of the election administration. Opposition parties have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, questioning its credibility. Sarma rejected that demand and accused Congress of putting pressure on constitutional institutions when decisions did not suit its political position.

He argued that Gandhi's own election to Parliament raised a contradiction in the opposition's campaign. If Congress disputed elections conducted through existing arrangements, Sarma asked, it should clarify why its successful candidates and governments were entitled to remain in office.

His references to Kerala, Karnataka and Telangana nevertheless drew a distinction that the political argument did not resolve: those governments were elected at different times, and Sarma supplied no evidence establishing that their victories involved vote theft. His allegation remained part of the dispute rather than a verified finding of electoral wrongdoing.

Sarma defended the SIR as a necessary measure to address inaccuracies in voter lists, arguing that illegal immigration and demographic changes warranted closer scrutiny, particularly in Assam, West Bengal and Jharkhand. He proposed that an intensive revision should take place across the country every five years.

The chief minister claimed that failure to remove ineligible names would undermine electoral integrity. Opposition parties, however, say the central concern is whether genuine electors can prove their eligibility without facing disproportionate documentary requirements, administrative errors or exclusions that are difficult to reverse.

The issue has become contentious because revisions to voter registers affect the ability to exercise the franchise before an election takes place. The distinction between identifying duplicate or ineligible entries and excluding legitimate voters is central to the legal and political challenges surrounding the exercise.

Sarma further accused Congress of trying to discredit public institutions and portrayed the demonstrations as an attempt to exert political pressure without sufficient popular backing. Those characterisations were his assessments; the size of the protests and the validity of electoral complaints remain separate questions.

He announced plans for demonstrations at district headquarters across Assam between October 13 and 31 to oppose Gandhi's allegations against the Election Commission. The proposed mobilisation would bring the ruling BJP's response to the dispute beyond the chief minister's news conference and into political campaigning.

The controversy also centres on the use of electronic voting machines, which Congress leaders have questioned while calling for stronger verification and transparency. Sarma asked whether the party would boycott future elections if those machines continued to be used, highlighting its participation in the same electoral system it is challenging.

INDIA bloc march fills central Delhi streets

Thousands of INDIA bloc supporters marched through central Delhi on Monday, joining students, lawyers and unaffiliated citizens in a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and changes to the electoral roll revision process.

Crowds converged around Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place before advancing towards Bhagwan Das Road, where security barricades prevented the main procession from reaching the Supreme Court. Protesters waved party flags, climbed onto buses and chanted slogans as police and paramilitary personnel guarded approaches to the court.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, joined leaders from allied parties in the mobilisation. Supporters of the Samajwadi Party, Left organisations, the All India Students' Association and the National Students' Union of India were among those participating.

The demonstration, billed by organisers as a march for democracy, centred on demands to suspend the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and scrutinise deletions from voter lists. Opposition leaders allege that the exercise risks disenfranchising eligible voters and that the Election Commission has failed to address concerns about transparency.

The Election Commission rejects allegations of political favouritism, maintaining that the revision is intended to improve the accuracy of voter registers. It says people whose names were wrongly removed can apply for re-enrolment. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has accused Congress and its allies of seeking political advantage by undermining public confidence in constitutional institutions.

Opposition representatives filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking an audit of deletions and safeguards against removing voters without adequate notice or an opportunity to challenge decisions. They also sought interim suspension of the exercise. The filing shifted part of the confrontation from the streets to the courts, although the judicial challenge remained unresolved.

The march drew party delegations from several states, alongside youth wings and student organisations. Some senior opposition figures travelled on a bus while supporters walked beside them. At points, demonstrators perched on stationary vehicles to observe the procession and wave flags above the crowd.

The participation extended beyond party workers. Lawyers and other citizens gathered near the junction, with some saying that the treatment of students and protesters over the preceding weekend had prompted them to attend. One woman described herself as the mother of young people belonging to Generation Z and said she had no political affiliation. She said a relative had earlier been detained and that she had come to express solidarity with the country's youth.

Police maintained a substantial presence at road intersections and around government offices. Barricades restricted movement on the route towards the Supreme Court, and officers were deployed alongside personnel from central security forces. Some protesters pushed past barriers, but accounts of the principal march also described largely peaceful crowds.

Public transport was disrupted as authorities restricted access to six Delhi Metro stations, including Rajiv Chowk, Barakhamba Road, Janpath, Patel Chowk, Mandi House and Central Secretariat. Entry and exit facilities were temporarily closed, although interchange services remained available. Road restrictions also affected commuters travelling through the central business district.

The demonstration followed police detentions during protests over the weekend, when students and supporters of the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party attempted to gather at several central Delhi locations. Those episodes intensified arguments over protest permissions, police conduct and the right to assemble peacefully.

Delhi Police subsequently said Jantar Mantar would no longer function as the designated demonstration site and identified three alternative locations. The decision prompted objections from protest organisers, who argued that access to a visible central venue was important for public demonstrations. Separate legal challenges concerning assembly restrictions and allegations of assaults on protesters were also brought before the Delhi High Court.

The electoral roll dispute concerns large-scale removals recorded during the revision exercise, including entries classified as belonging to deceased people, those who had moved and people who could not be traced. Opposition parties dispute whether the process provides sufficient protection against wrongful exclusion; the Election Commission maintains that corrective procedures are available.

As the march moved along Bhagwan Das Road, police secured barricades near the route towards Tilak Lane. Groups of supporters stood beside buses and along the pavement, while others continued arriving from the Mandi House direction carrying flags and placards. Police and paramilitary units remained stationed at nearby crossings as the late afternoon gathering continued under restrictions on public access.

CPJ presses Delhi Police to cease journalist detentions

The Committee to Protect Journalists has called on Delhi Police to stop obstructing reporters covering demonstrations, citing an assurance given to the Supreme Court that journalists would be allowed to perform their duties without interference.

The appeal followed the detention of media personnel during protests on October 10 and 11 against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. CPJ subsequently documented at least 37 journalists detained across Delhi, Ahmedabad and Pune, including 35 in the capital, with several alleging assault or other obstruction.

The New York-based press freedom organisation said some detentions continued after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Supreme Court on Sunday, October 11, that journalists, lawyers and other professionals would not be prevented from working. The court recorded that assurance while hearing petitions concerning police restrictions and alleged unlawful detentions.

Kunal Majumder, CPJ's Asia-Pacific programme coordinator, said the incidents violated journalists' constitutional rights and international press freedom standards. He called for accountability for officers accused of assaulting or obstructing reporters and said the assurances made before the country's highest court should be respected.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed authorities to prevent illegal detention, particularly of people participating in peaceful, unarmed assemblies outside areas covered by prohibitory orders. It also required that journalists and other professionals be permitted to discharge their responsibilities.

The judges addressed restrictions on transport and movement imposed during the demonstrations. Their interim directions called for public movement to be maintained, subject to legitimate law-and-order and traffic requirements, and for internet services to function without obstruction. Further consideration of the petitions was scheduled for October 13.

Journalists described being taken into custody despite displaying identification. Three reporters working for the Hindi edition of The Indian Express were detained at Connaught Place on October 11 while covering the protests. They were taken in a police bus and released about 45 minutes later at Chhatrasal Stadium, approximately 12 kilometres away.

CPJ also documented the detention of journalists from Malayalam-language television channels. It said Asianet News reporter Sajin A was released after about half an hour, citing confirmation from the channel's Delhi bureau leadership. Other journalists described being pushed, threatened or prevented from filming police action against protesters.

At Connaught Place, Peek TV reporters Vedanta Agarwal and Sara Khan were detained while filming police officers taking demonstrators into custody, CPJ said. Khan alleged that a male police officer grabbed her by the neck and pushed her towards a female officer. These allegations have not been independently adjudicated.

The watchdog identified further detentions during solidarity demonstrations outside Delhi, including those of Alt News correspondent Kinjal in Ahmedabad and Scroll journalist Divya Aslesha in Pune. Its tally covered incidents recorded through interviews, newsroom accounts and material examined by the organisation.

Press freedom groups have sought explanations for police conduct and safeguards against further interference with news gathering. The Press Club of India also condemned the treatment of reporters, while Reporters Without Borders expressed concern over restrictions on coverage during the protests.

Delhi Police have said the security arrangements around the demonstrations were intended to maintain public order. Police also described the preventive arrest of three Cockroach Janta Party leaders as a lawful measure and said appropriate procedures had been followed. Those statements did not specifically address every allegation involving journalists.

The protests were organised by the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party and supported by student organisations and opposition groups. Demonstrators demanded Kumar's resignation over allegations that revisions to electoral rolls had excluded eligible voters. The Election Commission has rejected accusations of manipulation, while the government has denied wrongdoing.

Authorities deployed substantial police contingents, erected barricades and imposed transport restrictions as protesters attempted to gather around central Delhi. The measures prompted legal challenges over access to public transport, freedom of movement and the scope of police powers during demonstrations.

The Supreme Court proceedings arose partly from allegations that transport shutdowns contravened an earlier judicial direction against blanket disruptions. The court also asked authorities to remove notices suggesting restrictions applied around its premises, to avoid deterring access to courts. It issued notices in the relevant proceedings but dispensed temporarily with the personal appearance of officials named in the contempt petition, pending further examination of the allegations. The October 11 hearing also considered complaints about detention of people outside zones where prohibitory measures were in force.