Murli Manohar Joshi rejects force against student protesters

Former Human Resource Development minister Murli Manohar Joshi has criticised the use of police force against protesting students, urging authorities to address legitimate grievances through dialogue and sympathy rather than batons.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday on the sidelines of the 21st FICCI Higher Education Summit in New Delhi, the veteran Bharatiya Janata Party leader said students deserved understanding and should be treated with the care that parents extend to their children.

"Reasonable or legitimate demands of students should always be heard and should be heard with a great deal of sympathy. This method of using batons is not appropriate. You can never find a solution this way. If there are problems, listen to them. They are our children," Joshi said.

His remarks came amid demonstrations involving students and wider protests over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The former minister was responding to questions about student protests and the use of force against demonstrators.

Joshi illustrated his argument through a comparison between students and children seeking explanations from their parents when promises remain unfulfilled. He said a father confronted by a child's complaint would ordinarily explain the circumstances and offer reassurance rather than dismiss the grievance.

The same approach, he suggested, should guide the response of authorities dealing with students who raise concerns about decisions affecting their education and future.

The intervention attracted attention because Joshi is a senior figure within the ruling BJP and has previously held responsibility for national education policy. His criticism focused specifically on methods used to handle protests rather than endorsing every demand raised by demonstrators.

Joshi distinguished between legitimate student grievances and the broader circumstances surrounding protests. His emphasis was on hearing reasonable demands sympathetically and avoiding coercive responses that fail to resolve underlying disputes.

The comments also echoed concerns he had expressed in August following protests over irregularities surrounding the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. At that time, he questioned the treatment of students demonstrating over examination issues and called for their anxieties to be addressed seriously.

Joshi had argued that complaints about the examination system should not be approached exclusively as matters of law and order. He also expressed concern over the handling of young women participating in demonstrations and warned against measures that could alienate students.

Thursday's remarks reinforced that position without setting out a separate programme for resolving the disputes or identifying specific officials responsible for the actions he criticised.

The former minister also addressed the National Education Policy, saying it was premature to assess its overall impact because implementation remained underway. He indicated that the policy had not operated for sufficiently long to permit a definitive evaluation of its outcomes.

His comments on education policy formed part of discussions at the two-day summit, which opened at Bharat Mandapam under the theme Higher Education for a New World Order: Reform, Resilience and Relevance.

Addressing participants, Joshi described an educational approach that sought harmony between material, intellectual and spiritual development. He said these dimensions should be considered together when shaping the objectives of education.

The summit brought together university leaders, education administrators and industry representatives to discuss institutional reform, technological change and the preparation of graduates for evolving employment requirements.

Joshi also released a report titled From AI Adoption to Readiness – Preparing Indian Higher Education for the AI-era, examining the challenges associated with artificial intelligence and educational preparedness.

FICCI secretary general Anant Swarup highlighted the speed at which artificial intelligence was transforming expectations of university graduates. He said the pace of technological change was creating difficulties for institutions attempting to keep academic programmes aligned with emerging requirements.

"Artificial intelligence is changing what a graduate needs to know faster than any syllabus committee can meet," Swarup said, highlighting the pressure facing universities as employment requirements evolve.

Symbiosis University Chancellor Vidya Yeravdekar emphasised the responsibility of higher education institutions to prepare students for technological disruption and equip them with the resilience needed to navigate changing professional environments.

Padmakumar Nair, Vice-Chancellor of Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, also addressed the relationship between institutional standards and the treatment of individuals.

He argued that universities needed to combine compassion towards people with an uncompromising commitment to excellence, presenting both as responsibilities that educational institutions must accommodate simultaneously.

The summit's discussions covered the challenges facing universities as artificial intelligence changes professional skills, teaching priorities and expectations of graduates entering the workforce. Participants examined how institutions could adapt their educational approaches while maintaining academic standards and supporting students through technological and institutional change.

Former Supreme Court judge seeks recall of SIR verdict

Former Supreme Court judge V Gopala Gowda has demanded that the Supreme Court recall its judgment upholding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, describing the ruling as illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic.

Gowda made the demand on Thursday amid mounting opposition criticism of the electoral roll revision exercise and fresh judicial scrutiny of decisions taken by the Election Commission. He urged the court to reconsider its May 27 judgment and examine whether the Commission had followed the legally required decision-making procedures.

The former judge questioned whether the SIR exercise had received approval from a majority of the three-member Election Commission. He said the Supreme Court should summon the Commission's records to establish whether the decision had been taken collectively and with the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

His intervention followed allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken certain decisions without securing the agreement of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The allegations have become a significant issue in the continuing litigation over electoral administration.

Gowda alleged that the Election Commission had misrepresented material facts before the Supreme Court. He argued that the judgment should be recalled by the court on its own initiative, rather than waiting for another legal challenge.

The allegations have not been judicially established. No recall proceedings arising from Gowda's demand had been confirmed, and the Election Commission had not publicly responded directly to his accusations.

The Supreme Court's May 27 judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, upheld the constitutional validity of the SIR undertaken in Bihar. The bench rejected petitions questioning the Commission's authority to conduct the exercise.

The court held that the revision was supported by Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It found that the exercise pursued a legitimate electoral objective and complied with the applicable statutory framework.

The judgment also recognised the Commission's authority to conduct limited inquiries into citizenship when determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls. The ruling remains legally operative unless reconsidered or overturned through judicial proceedings.

Gowda's objections emerged as the Supreme Court examined separate allegations concerning the Commission's functioning. During proceedings this week, the court indicated that decisions found to violate statutory requirements could be annulled.

The bench sought explanations concerning allegations that certain decisions had been made without the necessary collective approval. The issue centres on whether the Commission acted as a statutory body rather than through unilateral directions from its chairman.

Another dispute concerns modifications to Form 6, used by citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified on Monday that the Supreme Court had not approved modifications to the prescribed registration form.

The clarification followed objections to an additional declaration requiring applicants to provide information concerning their inclusion, or that of their ancestors, in earlier electoral rolls.

Critics argued that imposing requirements beyond the prescribed statutory framework could create additional obstacles for eligible voters. The Election Commission maintained that the declaration related to the special revision process and subsequently clarified the use of statutory forms outside that exercise.

Gowda cited the controversy while questioning the Commission's representations about judicial approval. His criticism reflected concerns about whether administrative instructions had exceeded the authority provided under electoral legislation.

His remarks coincided with a demonstration at Bengaluru's Freedom Park on Thursday, where protesters challenged the SIR exercise and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The controversy has also divided retired members of the judiciary. A group of 42 former judges defended the Election Commission on Thursday and criticised opposition attacks on the institution, arguing that politically motivated allegations could undermine confidence in electoral administration.

Opposition parties have questioned voter exclusions, documentation requirements and the transparency of the revision process. They contend that eligible citizens risk losing their electoral registration without adequate procedural safeguards.

The Election Commission has maintained that electoral roll verification is necessary to ensure accurate voter lists and prevent ineligible entries. Its position received judicial support through the May judgment, although subsequent administrative decisions remain subject to legal scrutiny.

The Bihar revision began under a Commission order issued on June 24, 2025. The final electoral roll, published in September that year, contained approximately 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the exercise commenced.

During the original proceedings, the Supreme Court directed publication of excluded voters' names with reasons and permitted Aadhaar as an additional identity document, while clarifying that it did not establish citizenship.

Prakash Raj, Dhruv Rathee join Bengaluru SIR protest

Actor-activist Prakash Raj, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee and Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke joined demonstrators in Bengaluru on Thursday, demanding the withdrawal of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Hundreds of protesters, including students, women and civil society activists, assembled at Freedom Park on October 8, alleging that the Election Commission's voter verification exercise had resulted in wrongful deletions and threatened citizens' electoral rights.

The demonstration, organised by the CJP alongside civil society organisations, featured a people's tribunal where individuals claiming to have been affected by electoral roll revisions were invited to present their grievances.

Protesters raised slogans demanding that the SIR exercise be scrapped and Kumar relinquish his position. Organisers accused the Election Commission of failing to ensure transparency and accountability while undertaking changes to electoral registers.

Addressing the gathering, Rathee rejected suggestions that his participation was intended to destabilise the government or advance an opposition political campaign.

"I have not come here for regime change. Neither Elon Musk nor George Soros has funded me. I have come here with my own money," he told demonstrators.

Rathee maintained that electoral integrity transcended party affiliations and affected every citizen entitled to vote.

"Whether you vote for the BJP, whether you vote for the Congress, or whether you support any other party, this is an issue that concerns every citizen of the country," he said.

He accused the Election Commission of operating without adequate public scrutiny, alleging that there was "zero transparency, zero accountability" in its handling of electoral matters.

Prakash Raj also criticised the commission's functioning and questioned Kumar's independence. He alleged that the election authorities were acting under political influence, naming Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Those allegations remain contested, and the demonstration presented no independently established finding that the commission had deliberately manipulated electoral rolls.

Dipke, who has emerged as a prominent organiser of protests against the SIR, accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of benefiting from alleged voter deletions.

He claimed that the revision process was being used to remove voters perceived as opponents of the BJP, describing the alleged practice as an attack on democratic representation.

The CJP founder demanded Kumar's resignation and declared that demonstrations would continue until the movement's demands were addressed.

His accusations against Modi and the Election Commission were political allegations rather than established findings of electoral misconduct.

The protest highlighted growing disputes over the SIR, a process through which the Election Commission undertakes intensive verification of electoral registers, including identifying duplicate entries, deceased voters and people no longer ordinarily resident at registered addresses.

Opponents argue that documentation requirements and administrative errors can result in eligible voters being excluded, particularly when affected individuals face difficulties challenging deletions.

The commission maintains that electoral roll revisions are necessary to preserve accurate voter records and protect the integrity of elections. The stated purpose of the exercise is to ensure that eligible citizens remain registered while ineligible entries are removed.

Whether particular deletions were improper requires examination of individual electoral records and the procedures followed by election officials.

At Freedom Park, organisers invited people from different parts of Karnataka to describe alleged difficulties with their voter registrations.

CJP co-convener Ashutosh Ranka said the tribunal was intended to provide a platform for citizens who believed their names had been wrongly removed.

Participants were encouraged to explain their experiences directly rather than relying exclusively on political speeches.

Organisers also announced a footwear-themed demonstration, described as a chappal protest, intended to express solidarity with women and underline public dissatisfaction with the electoral authorities.

The Bengaluru gathering formed part of a wider campaign challenging the commission's handling of electoral revisions and demanding greater institutional accountability.

The CJP has announced another demonstration at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on October 10, with organisers seeking participation from youth groups, students and other supporters.

Thursday's event also featured CJP representatives and activists carrying placards criticising Kumar. Participants repeatedly called for the restoration of names they alleged had been improperly excluded from voter lists.

The organisers said testimonies collected during the people's tribunal would help draw attention to individual complaints about electoral registration and verification procedures.

Air India recalls Riyadh flight amid missile threat

Air India turned back a Delhi-Riyadh flight carrying more than 150 passengers on Thursday after missile attacks threatened Saudi Arabia's capital, as airlines suspended services to Riyadh amid mounting security concerns.

Flight AI2243 departed Indira Gandhi International Airport at approximately 2.45 pm but reversed course after its crew received information about the deteriorating security situation around King Khalid International Airport. The aircraft landed safely in Delhi at approximately 6.50 pm.

Air India subsequently cancelled the service and announced the suspension of flights to and from Riyadh until October 10. The airline said passenger and crew safety remained its overriding consideration, with affected travellers eligible for refunds.

The disruption followed claims by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement that it had launched ballistic missiles towards Riyadh's international airport. Saudi authorities confirmed intercepting missiles targeting the capital but had not independently confirmed the Houthis' claim that a missile struck the airport.

Explosions were heard around Riyadh, while smoke was observed rising from an aircraft parked at the airport. The circumstances surrounding the damage remained under examination, with no confirmed casualty figures directly attributable to Thursday's airport incident.

Air India Express also cancelled Riyadh services until October 10, offering affected passengers complimentary rescheduling or full refunds. IndiGo suspended flights through October 9, while Akasa Air halted operations to the Saudi capital until October 10.

Akasa Air cancelled two scheduled services between Kochi and Riyadh. IndiGo diverted a Hyderabad-Riyadh flight to Dammam and cancelled services connecting Riyadh with Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai.

The cancellations affected passengers travelling between Saudi Arabia and several cities across India, disrupting business journeys, family visits and scheduled connections. Airlines advised customers to monitor flight notifications and contact their operators before proceeding to airports.

The Embassy of India in Riyadh urged nationals residing in Saudi Arabia to remain vigilant, exercise caution and follow instructions issued by local authorities. Its advisory encouraged people to stay indoors when necessary and rely on official communications for security information.

The disruption extended beyond carriers operating from India. Germany's Lufthansa Group suspended flights to Riyadh until October 16, citing developments across the Middle East. Other international operators cancelled or delayed services as airport movements became increasingly uncertain.

Aviation analytics company Cirium recorded substantial cancellations at King Khalid International Airport. By 1500 GMT on Thursday, almost half of scheduled departures had been cancelled, demonstrating the scale of disruption to one of Saudi Arabia's principal aviation gateways.

FlightAware recorded more than 275 cancellations during Thursday, covering approximately 40 per cent of scheduled arrivals and 30 per cent of departures. The figures reflected widespread operational uncertainty as airlines assessed the risks of approaching the capital.

Flightradar24 indicated that airport operations had temporarily stopped during the afternoon. The tracking service observed an extended interval without aircraft arrivals or departures, although the precise duration of restrictions was not immediately established.

The Houthi movement's military spokesman, Yahya Saree, claimed responsibility for attacks involving ballistic and cruise missiles against Saudi aviation facilities. The group also identified Najran airport among its targets and warned of further operations against Saudi infrastructure.

Saudi authorities said missiles approaching Riyadh had been intercepted. Falling fragments reportedly damaged civilian facilities, including a medical complex and a kindergarten, highlighting risks extending beyond airports and other intended targets.

Saudi officials had earlier confirmed three deaths during attacks involving Riyadh and Abha airports this week. Those casualties were associated with separate incidents and were not confirmed as resulting from Thursday's claimed strike on King Khalid International Airport.

The security situation has complicated airline decisions because a flight may remain operationally viable at departure but encounter changing restrictions before reaching its destination. Operators must assess airport accessibility, airspace conditions and potential diversion requirements throughout each journey.

For passengers aboard AI2243, the decision to return meant completing an international journey without reaching Saudi airspace. Air India confirmed the cancellation after the aircraft returned, rather than attempting another departure later that evening.

The carrier's temporary suspension applies to both inbound and outbound Riyadh services, while Air India Express has provided passengers with alternatives through its customer support channels.

Riyadh remains connected to multiple cities across India through direct passenger services operated by several airlines. Aviation schedules for October show extensive weekly operations linking the Saudi capital with Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kochi and other destinations.

Tharoor cautions opposition against boycotting elections over irregularities

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has warned that boycotting elections over alleged electoral irregularities would render opposition parties irrelevant, arguing that abandoning democratic contests would strengthen the ruling establishment rather than challenge its authority.

The Thiruvananthapuram MP, writing in an opinion article published on Wednesday, rejected suggestions that opposition parties should withdraw from elections because of allegations concerning voter deletions, institutional bias and the Election Commission's handling of electoral roll revisions.

Tharoor argued that refusing to contest elections would surrender political space to the Bharatiya Janata Party and deprive opposition organisations of opportunities to influence government policy, defend citizens' interests and demand institutional accountability.

His intervention comes amid escalating opposition protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which critics allege has resulted in widespread exclusion of eligible voters.

The Election Commission and BJP have rejected allegations of politically motivated electoral manipulation, maintaining that electoral roll revisions are intended to ensure the accuracy and integrity of voter registration.

Tharoor acknowledged concerns about electoral fairness but disputed the argument that participation necessarily legitimised an allegedly compromised system. He maintained that opposition parties could challenge institutional shortcomings while continuing to contest elections.

The Congress leader said an electoral boycott would not prevent the government from exercising constitutional authority. Instead, it would remove organised resistance from the political arena and allow governing parties to consolidate their position without effective electoral competition.

He also warned that withdrawal would damage opposition organisations themselves, weakening grassroots networks, discouraging party workers and undermining the local leadership structures necessary for sustained political mobilisation.

Without election campaigns, candidates and contests for public office, parties risk losing organisational momentum, financial resources and their connection with voters, Tharoor argued.

"A party that retreats from the field of contestation rapidly renders itself irrelevant to the voters it seeks to represent," he wrote.

The remarks address a debate among critics of the electoral process who contend that opposition participation under allegedly unequal conditions provides democratic legitimacy to institutions they consider compromised.

Advocates of boycotts argue that withholding participation could expose institutional failures, challenge the credibility of electoral outcomes and mobilise public opinion against perceived democratic erosion.

Tharoor rejected that reasoning, maintaining that political influence within a constitutional democracy depends substantially on participation in its electoral institutions.

He distinguished contemporary electoral contests from boycotts undertaken during the independence movement, arguing that strategies directed against colonial administration cannot automatically be applied to competition between domestic political parties operating within a shared constitutional framework.

The Congress MP cited the independence movement's changing approach towards elections, noting that nationalist leaders had sometimes rejected colonial electoral arrangements but subsequently participated in contests despite restrictions on representation.

He argued that participation offered opportunities to challenge authority from within representative institutions, even when electoral conditions were considered unsatisfactory.

Tharoor also emphasised the importance of election campaigns as platforms for public engagement, allowing opposition parties to question government decisions, highlight administrative failures and present alternative programmes.

Electoral participation, he suggested, remained essential for maintaining public debate and ensuring that dissatisfied citizens retained meaningful political representation.

His comments coincide with demonstrations organised by Congress and other opposition groups demanding Kumar's resignation over allegations surrounding the revision of electoral rolls.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and several opposition lawmakers were detained during protests in Delhi this week as demonstrators attempted to challenge the Election Commission's conduct.

Opposition parties have questioned the transparency of voter deletions and demanded stronger safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible citizens.

The controversy has also generated legal challenges and demands for greater scrutiny of electoral administration, including procedures governing voter registration and the removal of names from electoral lists.

Tharoor has separately criticised the Election Commission's handling of these questions and called for greater institutional accountability, making clear that his opposition to electoral boycotts does not amount to an endorsement of existing procedures.

His position places emphasis on combining political participation with challenges to decisions considered unfair, rather than treating electoral withdrawal as the principal means of protest.

The four-term parliamentarian also pointed to Hungary's electoral experience as an example of opposition forces continuing to contest elections despite allegations of institutional disadvantages.

Delhi Police scrutinise CJP networks before October protest

Delhi Police have intensified surveillance of suspected troublemakers and logistics providers linked to earlier Cockroach Janta Party demonstrations ahead of the organisation’s planned October 10 protest at Jantar Mantar, officials said on Wednesday.

Station house officers across the capital have been directed to monitor approximately 2,800 individuals flagged through facial recognition technology as having alleged criminal antecedents. Officers must establish whether those identified are preparing to travel towards New Delhi district, where the demonstration is proposed.

Police are also examining arrangements made during the CJP’s July agitation, particularly the involvement of bus operators, transport contractors and other suppliers who helped mobilise participants. Investigators have been instructed to determine whether these providers have received fresh requests for vehicles or logistical assistance.

Security arrangements include heightened monitoring of Delhi’s entry routes, especially eastern and Shahdara border crossings adjoining Uttar Pradesh and southwestern approaches from Rajasthan. Officials said barricades would be installed at designated entry points to regulate movement and prevent possible disturbances.

The preparations follow the CJP’s announcement of another demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Organisers maintain that the revision process has jeopardised voting rights, while the Election Commission has defended its exercise.

Police officials have additionally instructed personnel to prevent demonstrators from occupying roads or staging impromptu sit-ins if access to their intended protest venue is restricted.

The direction follows messages circulated by protest organisers suggesting that participants prevented from proceeding should remain at the locations where police stop them. Authorities fear such gatherings could disrupt traffic and complicate security arrangements across several districts.

Officers have been asked to engage educational institutions, student accommodation providers and paying guest establishments to discourage participation in potentially disruptive gatherings. Bus movements and advance bookings are also being examined as part of preparations.

The surveillance exercise draws upon police records compiled following the CJP-led demonstrations in July against alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examination. Thousands of protesters gathered around Jantar Mantar, with sections attempting to march towards Parliament.

Delhi Police subsequently claimed that facial recognition systems had identified 2,873 individuals with criminal records among people captured in footage from the protest area. Officials alleged that several hundred were associated with serious offences.

However, the accuracy of those identifications has faced substantial scrutiny. An independent examination of the police database found that at least 25 individuals identified as having attended the demonstrations were actually imprisoned at the relevant time.

The discrepancy raised questions about the reliability of facial recognition matches and the safeguards governing their use in identifying people participating in public demonstrations.

Delhi Police had earlier informed the Supreme Court that its facial recognition system was intended to identify individuals with existing criminal records rather than conduct indiscriminate profiling. Authorities also assured the court that identification alone would not automatically trigger punitive action without verification.

The Supreme Court subsequently quashed criminal cases arising from the examination-related student protests while permitting authorities to pursue proceedings against individuals separately identified as having criminal antecedents, subject to applicable legal requirements.

The distinction remains significant because the presence of an individual near a demonstration does not establish involvement in violence or any other offence. Criminal antecedents may also refer to allegations or pending proceedings rather than convictions.

CJP representatives have accused authorities of attempting to discourage participation through surveillance and the possibility of arrests. Organisers insist their planned mobilisation concerns electoral accountability and the constitutional right to peaceful protest.

CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das and Abhijeet Dipke have expressed willingness to face detention rather than abandon their campaign. Their statements followed concerns that police action could prevent organisers from assembling supporters ahead of October 10.

Ranka has also alleged that fringe groups might attempt to provoke confrontations during the demonstration. He maintained that CJP participants would remain peaceful, although the allegations concerning possible provocations have not been independently established.

The October mobilisation comes amid continuing opposition protests over electoral roll revisions and demands for Kumar’s resignation. Opposition parties allege that eligible voters risk exclusion, allegations rejected by the Election Commission and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Samajwadi Party boycotts Congress lunch amid coordination dispute

The Samajwadi Party's absence from a Congress-hosted Opposition lunch in New Delhi on Wednesday has exposed differences over political coordination within the INDIA bloc, despite efforts by Congress leaders to dismiss suggestions of a widening rift.

The lunch, hosted by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on October 7, brought together Opposition parliamentarians ahead of another demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in electoral roll revisions.

Samajwadi Party representatives stayed away from both the gathering and the subsequent protest, raising questions about relations between the alliance's two largest parliamentary constituents.

Party leaders expressed dissatisfaction over inadequate consultation and the manner in which Congress organised demonstrations against the Election Commission. Their objections centred on short notice, communication failures and the perception that joint Opposition activities were being directed primarily by Congress.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh rejected suggestions that allies had been deliberately excluded. He maintained that every INDIA bloc constituent had been invited, explaining that arrangements were finalised late on Tuesday, leaving some parties insufficient time to participate.

The explanation did not entirely resolve the disagreement. Samajwadi Party representatives maintained that communication from senior Congress leaders had been inadequate, while accounts differed over whether a formal invitation had been received or merely delivered too late.

The disagreement followed Tuesday's demonstration outside Akashvani Bhavan, where Rahul Gandhi staged a protest after Opposition parliamentarians attempted to march towards the Election Commission.

Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav participated in the earlier mobilisation and was among the Opposition leaders detained by Delhi Police. He subsequently returned to Lucknow.

His participation on Tuesday made the party's absence the following day particularly conspicuous. The sequence also suggested that disagreement concerned the management of joint political action rather than necessarily extending to the Opposition's stated objections to electoral roll revisions.

The Samajwadi Party has opposed the Special Intensive Revision exercise and questioned the Election Commission's handling of voter lists. Congress has advanced similar objections, accusing the electoral authorities of failing to address concerns about deletions and eligibility.

The Election Commission has defended electoral roll verification as necessary for maintaining accurate voter records and removing ineligible entries. The Bharatiya Janata Party has rejected Opposition allegations of manipulation, accusing Congress of attempting to discredit electoral institutions.

The immediate dispute within the alliance, however, concerns political consultation rather than the substance of those allegations.

Congress leaders have sought to project the demonstrations as a collective campaign involving several Opposition parties. Samajwadi Party figures have indicated that such activities require advance discussion among alliance partners, particularly when prominent leaders are expected to participate.

Differences between the parties also extend to electoral arrangements in Uttar Pradesh, where Assembly elections are scheduled for 2027.

The Samajwadi Party emerged as the stronger partner in their parliamentary alliance during the 2024 general election, winning 37 of Uttar Pradesh's 80 Lok Sabha constituencies. Congress secured six seats.

Those results strengthened Akhilesh Yadav's position in negotiations over future electoral cooperation and established the Samajwadi Party as a central force within the Opposition alliance.

Disagreements over seat-sharing expectations and organisational influence have consequently become important considerations as both parties prepare for the state election.

Neither party has announced a formal breakdown of their alliance, and Wednesday's absence does not establish that electoral cooperation has ended.

Nevertheless, the disagreement has demonstrated how differences over consultation can complicate attempts to coordinate demonstrations, even where participating parties broadly agree on the underlying political issue.

Wednesday's programme continued without Samajwadi Party participation. Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and parliamentarians representing other Opposition parties joined the demonstration following Kharge's lunch.

Police prevented protesters from proceeding towards Jantar Mantar, resulting in another confrontation and the detention of Opposition leaders. The demonstrators demanded accountability from the Election Commission and reiterated their call for Kumar's resignation.

Congress maintained that the demonstrations would continue despite police restrictions, while participating Opposition leaders criticised the authorities for preventing their march.

The lunch itself took place at the Sagar Ratna restaurant on Janpath, where Opposition representatives discussed their campaign against alleged electoral irregularities before leaving for the demonstration.

Several parliamentarians attending the gathering sought explanations for the Samajwadi Party's absence, reflecting the attention attracted by its decision.

Nana Patekar dies following cardiac arrest in Goa

Veteran actor Nana Patekar died on Thursday morning after suffering a cardiac arrest at his residence in Goa. He was 75.

Patekar was declared dead at approximately 5.20 am after doctors attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation for about 45 minutes without success. Dr Shekhar Salkar, chief of the oncology department at Manipal Hospital, confirmed that the actor could not be revived despite sustained emergency treatment.

A medico-legal case has been registered, and arrangements were made for a post-mortem examination to establish the precise medical circumstances surrounding his death. Hospital authorities said Patekar remained in asystole, a condition involving the absence of detectable electrical activity in the heart, throughout resuscitation.

The actor was found unconscious at his residence in Dona Paula and subsequently taken to Manipal Hospital. His son, Malhar Patekar, confirmed the death and travelled from Pune to Goa following the emergency.

Further details emerged about the hours preceding the cardiac arrest. Dr Salkar said Patekar had sent a message to a friend at approximately 2.30 am complaining of discomfort and pain on his left side. The friend did not immediately notice the message because it arrived during the night.

When the friend reached Patekar's residence around 4 am, the actor was reportedly sweating and struggling to breathe. Emergency assistance was arranged, but attempts to restore normal cardiac activity proved unsuccessful.

The medical findings prompted formal procedures, including the medico-legal registration and transfer of the body for examination. Such procedures provide documentation of the circumstances of an unexpected death and do not, by themselves, indicate suspected criminal activity.

Maharashtra's government announced that Patekar would receive a state funeral in Pune, recognising his contribution to cinema and public life. Arrangements followed consultations involving the authorities and his family.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid tribute to the actor, acknowledging the distinctive quality of his performances and their influence across generations. Maharashtra's leadership also expressed condolences, highlighting his contribution to cinema and charitable activities.

Actor Akshay Kumar joined the tributes, recalling Patekar's individuality and his contribution to the profession. The two performers had appeared together in commercially successful films, including the comedy Welcome, which introduced Patekar's comic abilities to audiences familiar with his more serious roles.

Patekar's death brought an abrupt end to a career spanning nearly five decades across Hindi and Marathi cinema. His performances ranged from uncompromising portrayals of troubled characters to popular comic roles, establishing him as a versatile figure in mainstream filmmaking.

Born Vishwanath Patekar on 1 January 1951, he began his career in theatre before making his film debut with Gaman in 1978. His breakthrough came through performances that combined controlled intensity with distinctive dialogue delivery.

His portrayal of a gangster in Parinda earned him a National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor. He subsequently received the National Film Award for Best Actor for Krantiveer and another supporting actor award for Agni Sakshi.

Other notable films included Prahaar, Tirangaa, Khamoshi and Ab Tak Chhappan. He also directed Prahaar, expanding his work beyond acting. His contributions to cinema were recognised with the Padma Shri in 2013.

Patekar remained professionally active, appearing in productions including Housefull 5 and O'Romeo. His work continued to encompass different genres, reflecting a career that moved between dramatic and commercial filmmaking.

Outside cinema, Patekar was associated with the Naam Foundation, established to support farmers facing economic hardship and water shortages in Maharashtra. His involvement in agricultural welfare attracted recognition beyond the entertainment industry.

Four days before his death, Patekar had attended a Samraat Club International function in Goa, where he addressed participants. The appearance became one of his final public engagements.

Hospital officials indicated that the post-mortem examination would be undertaken at Goa Medical College. The examination was intended to complete the required medical documentation following his sudden collapse.

Patekar had been staying at his Dona Paula residence when the emergency occurred. His family was coordinating with hospital authorities and officials over the necessary formalities and subsequent funeral arrangements.

DMK backs Rahul protest despite Tamil Nadu dispute

The DMK has defended Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a day after accusing him of ignoring alleged electoral roll irregularities in Tamil Nadu.

The contrasting statements, issued on Tuesday and Wednesday, exposed differences within the opposition over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the political fallout from the breakdown of the Congress-DMK alliance in Tamil Nadu.

Senior DMK leader TKS Elangovan on Wednesday supported Gandhi’s campaign demanding Kumar’s removal, arguing that citizens were entitled to challenge government actions and question the conduct of constitutional authorities.

“How can elections be fair if Gyanesh Kumar, holding a high post, is anti-democratic? He should definitely be removed,” Elangovan said.

He maintained that Gandhi had exercised his democratic right by participating in demonstrations against the Election Commission. Elangovan also accused the central government of attempting to prevent the Congress leader from protesting against Kumar.

His intervention followed sharp criticism from fellow DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai, who had questioned Gandhi’s silence over alleged large-scale deletions from Tamil Nadu’s electoral rolls.

Annadurai, writing on X on Tuesday, accused Gandhi of adopting inconsistent positions towards the electoral revision exercise. He questioned why the Congress leader had challenged the Election Commission nationally without expressing comparable concern about developments in Tamil Nadu.

The DMK spokesperson argued that the revision had removed substantial numbers of voters from the state’s electoral lists, raising questions about the legitimacy of the subsequent electoral process.

The allegations remain disputed, with the Election Commission maintaining that revisions are intended to identify duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible voters rather than exclude legitimate electors.

Annadurai also questioned Gandhi’s position on remarks attributed to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge concerning governments elected following the revision exercise.

He asked why Gandhi had not explicitly endorsed Kharge’s position while continuing to campaign against the Election Commission over alleged electoral irregularities.

The criticism reflected tensions between the two parties following their separation ahead of the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

Congress ended its longstanding partnership with the DMK and supported actor-politician C Joseph Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, which subsequently formed the state government.

That political realignment left the DMK and Congress on opposing sides of Tamil Nadu’s electoral contest, despite their continuing agreement on several national issues concerning electoral administration.

Annadurai suggested that Gandhi’s reluctance to challenge developments in Tamil Nadu was connected to Congress’s relationship with Vijay’s party. His accusation was political rather than an independently established explanation of Gandhi’s position.

Elangovan’s subsequent remarks did not directly address those allegations or withdraw the criticism levelled by Annadurai.

Instead, he concentrated on the broader controversy surrounding Kumar and the right of opposition leaders to demonstrate against the Election Commission.

Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, participated in demonstrations in New Delhi on Tuesday and Wednesday alongside opposition lawmakers demanding Kumar’s resignation.

The protesters accused the Election Commission of permitting electoral roll revisions that could disenfranchise eligible voters and influence electoral outcomes.

Police detained Gandhi and several other opposition figures during demonstrations after protesters attempted to proceed towards locations where authorities had restricted gatherings.

The Congress leadership has demanded greater transparency over the revision process and accountability for alleged irregularities affecting voter registration.

The Election Commission has rejected allegations of political bias, maintaining that electoral roll verification is a statutory exercise designed to improve the accuracy of voter records.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has also dismissed opposition accusations that the revision was designed to favour the ruling party.

Questions surrounding the exercise have reached the Supreme Court, where challenges concerning voter deletions and electoral safeguards have prompted judicial scrutiny.

Opposition parties have argued that eligible citizens must not lose voting rights because of documentation difficulties, administrative errors or inadequate opportunities to contest deletions.

Election authorities maintain that verification procedures include mechanisms for objections and corrections, although critics question whether those safeguards have operated effectively.

The disagreement between Annadurai and Elangovan illustrates the distinction between the DMK’s objections to electoral administration and its criticism of Congress’s political choices in Tamil Nadu.

Madras High Court sustains FCRA refusal to Zen trust

The Madras High Court has upheld the government's refusal to grant foreign funding registration to a charitable trust operating a Zen meditation centre in Tamil Nadu, ruling that it failed to disclose its religious character.

A Division Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi dismissed an appeal by Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust, based in Kodaikanal, against the rejection of its application under the Foreign Contribution Act, 2010. The judgment, pronounced on October 6, also contained observations comparing Hinduism with Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

“Unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive,” the judges observed, arguing that adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths regard their respective religious revelations as authoritative and complete.

The remarks arose during judicial examination of the trust's activities and its contention that Zen meditation should not be classified as religious practice. The court ultimately based its decision on the organisation's failure to identify itself correctly under the statutory registration framework.

The judges noted that Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust operates a Montessori school and a Zen meditation centre. Its principal figure, Reverend Father Ama Samy SJ, is an ordained Christian priest, while the organisation maintains that its meditation activities draw upon the Dhyana tradition.

The government opposed registration, maintaining that the organisation conducted religious programmes and that foreign contributions required scrutiny to prevent their possible use for religious conversion or activities affecting communal harmony.

The Bench examined the trust's website, noting the presence of Christian symbolism alongside a Buddha statue. It also considered the organisation's declared adherence to Zen Buddhist philosophy.

The judges held that Zen Buddhism belongs to the Mahayana Buddhist tradition and consequently falls within the broader classification of Buddhism. An organisation identifying with that philosophy could not legitimately present itself as entirely non-religious when seeking statutory registration.

Under the Foreign Contribution Rules, applicants must identify their principal activities as religious, cultural, economic, educational or social. Religious organisations must additionally specify their affiliation within prescribed categories, including Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Buddhism.

The court emphasised that religious organisations are not automatically disqualified from receiving foreign contributions. Those whose activities do not undermine secular principles or social harmony remain eligible to seek registration, provided statutory conditions are satisfied.

However, the judges stated that organisations engaged in converting individuals from one religion to another should be denied registration under the legislation. They also clarified that the restriction would apply irrespective of religious affiliation.

“A fundamentalist Hindu Organisation engaged in Ghar Wapsi cannot be registered under FCRA,” the judgment stated, referring to campaigns seeking to bring people into the Hindu fold.

The Bench nevertheless expressly refrained from accusing Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust of pursuing a conversion agenda. Its observations concerning religious conversion addressed the broader regulatory principles governing foreign contributions rather than establishing misconduct by the appellant.

The distinction is important because the court's comments about the theological characteristics of different religions were judicial observations, not factual findings that the trust had undertaken unlawful conversions.

The judges further held that receiving foreign contributions was neither an absolute entitlement nor a vested legal right. Registration remained subject to statutory requirements and scrutiny by the competent authorities.

The court also distinguished religious worship and rituals from educational or cultural programmes involving traditional knowledge. Organisations teaching Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads and yoga should ordinarily be considered educational or cultural institutions, depending on their actual activities, the Bench observed.

It referred to the National Education Policy 2020, which encourages incorporating traditional knowledge systems into educational curricula, while explaining the need to distinguish such instruction from specifically religious programmes.

The trust had argued that meditation practices could produce beneficial effects and should not necessarily be treated as religious activities. Its counsel maintained that the authorities had incorrectly characterised the organisation's work.

The government, represented by Central Government Senior Standing Counsel G Thalaimutharasu, defended the refusal and sought dismissal of the appeal. Advocate G Baskar represented the charitable trust.

Global scrutiny widens over India voter-roll dispute

India’s electoral administration is drawing sharper international scrutiny as escalating protests over a nationwide voter-roll revision put Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission under sustained political, judicial and public pressure.

Opposition lawmakers led by Rahul Gandhi were detained in New Delhi on Tuesday after marching towards the Election Commission and staging a prolonged protest demanding Kumar’s resignation. The confrontation, following demonstrations in several cities, has pushed the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, beyond a domestic political dispute and into wider international coverage focused on voter deletions, transparency and institutional independence.

Major overseas publications have highlighted the scale of the exercise and the allegations surrounding it. About 130 million names have disappeared from draft or final electoral rolls during successive phases of the revision, according to tallies compiled from official electoral data. The figure does not represent a final count of people permanently disenfranchised: some names have been restored through claims and objections, while the Election Commission says deletions include dead, shifted, duplicate and otherwise ineligible electors.

The Commission rejects allegations that the SIR has been manipulated to favour Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. It says the exercise is intended to ensure that every eligible citizen remains registered while ineligible entries are removed. The BJP has also denied opposition claims that changes to the rolls were politically directed.

International attention intensified this week as the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Guardian, Associated Press, Reuters and Germany’s Deutsche Welle carried reports on the protests, voter deletions or legal challenges surrounding the revision. Their coverage has placed particular emphasis on the unusually large number of names affected, documentation requirements faced by voters and claims that poorer and minority communities may bear a disproportionate burden.

The widening foreign coverage has also examined whether procedural safeguards can keep pace with a revision affecting hundreds of millions of electors. That question has become central as courts assess challenges while political parties dispute both the legality of individual decisions and their consequences.

Those claims remain contested. Opposition parties and civil-rights campaigners say eligible citizens have been wrongly removed and allege that the process has damaged confidence in the neutrality of the poll body. The Commission maintains that safeguards, claims procedures and field verification are available to protect legitimate voters, and has announced special efforts to identify eligible people omitted during the revision.

Judicial scrutiny has added another layer to the controversy. The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Election Commission, the Union government, Kumar and other senior poll officials over allegations that important decisions were taken without proper collective approval. The court declined to suspend Kumar, saying it could not act on assumptions or media reports before examining the record.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that decisions found to have violated statutory requirements could later be set aside. The proceedings concern allegations that fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections to decisions involving the SIR and voter-registration procedures. The allegations have not been judicially established.

The dispute has also reached international human-rights forums. Three United Nations-appointed experts wrote to the government earlier this year seeking information about allegations of discrimination against Bengali and Muslim electors during the revision, particularly in West Bengal, and about safeguards intended to prevent eligible citizens from losing voting rights.

Tuesday’s confrontation in Delhi sharpened the institutional stand-off. Gandhi said opposition MPs wanted to meet the commissioners over electoral-roll concerns. The Election Commission said no political party had sought an appointment through the prescribed procedure before 4 pm. It said police later informed it that a delegation wanted to meet the Commission and submit a memorandum.

The protests have spread beyond Congress. Student groups, civil-society organisations and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party have joined demonstrations demanding Kumar’s departure and suspension of the SIR, while opposition leaders in Mumbai have organised marches against the revision.

Court demands basis for Abhishek security downgrade

The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to explain the assessment behind downgrading Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s security from Z-plus to X category, seeking a comprehensive report by October 13.

Justice Krishna Rao raised questions on Tuesday over the material considered before the protection of the Diamond Harbour MP was sharply reduced and asked whether his threat perception had been reassessed after alleged attacks following the change.

The court was hearing Banerjee’s petition seeking restoration of Z-plus security. His lawyers argued that the enhanced cover was withdrawn on May 10 after the change of government in West Bengal, leaving him with X-category protection involving two personal security officers.

During the hearing, the court noted that the state had not produced documents demonstrating the considerations on which the downgrade was based. Justice Rao also questioned the sequence of the decision after being told that the reduction took effect on May 10 while a letter relating to its consideration was dated May 12.

The judge asked the government to clarify why Banerjee had not been informed that his security was being reduced. The court also sought details of steps taken after authorities were informed of an alleged attack on him later in May and whether those incidents prompted a fresh security review.

Banerjee’s counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, told the court that the MP had faced four attacks after the downgrade. The allegations cited before the court included stone and egg pelting during a visit to Sonarpur, an encounter involving an armed person at Kolkata airport, and attacks targeting his offices.

The allegations are part of Banerjee’s case for restoration of the higher protection and have not been adjudicated by the court. The bench focused on whether the state had followed an adequate threat-assessment process and responded appropriately as security concerns were reported.

Justice Rao stressed that the government had a responsibility to take precautions, observing that even an incident described as stone-pelting could cause serious injury if a projectile struck a person. The observation came as the state sought time to place a detailed account of its security assessment before the court.

The state’s counsel requested time to submit the report. The court fixed October 13 for the matter to return before the bench, requiring the government to provide a fuller explanation of the decision and its response to developments after the downgrade.

Banerjee moved the High Court on September 28, alleging that his Z-plus protection had been withdrawn after the West Bengal Assembly election and seeking its restoration. His counsel had sought an urgent hearing, citing the alleged attacks and concerns over his safety. Justice Rao then scheduled the petition for October 6 and directed that the parties be served.

His lawyers have told the court that Banerjee had received graded security protection for years, progressing through higher categories before being accorded Z-plus cover. They also submitted that a Union Home Ministry threat assessment in 2024 supported Z-plus protection for him across the country.

The security arrangement became a contested issue after the May Assembly election brought a change of government in West Bengal. A state security review led to the withdrawal of the Z-plus arrangement, with Banerjee thereafter receiving the lower X-category cover.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the court’s questions centred less on the government’s power to review protection and more on the evidence and procedure underpinning the decision. It sought to establish what threat inputs were examined, why the reduction was made when it was, and what action followed subsequent complaints.

The court also indicated during proceedings that restoration of the cover could be considered while the state prepared its explanation, prompting the government to agree to an early return date rather than seek an adjournment. No interim direction restoring Z-plus protection was issued at Tuesday’s hearing.

Mumbai voters challenge SIR home-visit implementation

Mumbai voters are reporting continued demands to visit election offices with documents despite revised Special Intensive Revision instructions requiring booth-level officers to collect papers at their homes.

The complaints have exposed a gap between the Election Commission’s revised procedure and its implementation as Maharashtra works through more than 1.22 crore electors flagged in the draft roll for either mapping failures or logical discrepancies.

State election authorities instructed officials on September 30 that voters issued notices in the “No Mapping” and “Logical Discrepancies” categories need not appear personally for hearings. BLOs were directed to visit their residences, obtain supporting documents from voters or relatives and upload the material through the BLO application to ECINet for consideration by electoral registration officers or assistant electoral registration officers.

The instruction also requires BLOs to write on notices being delivered that physical attendance at a hearing is unnecessary. Voters who had already received notices were to be contacted by telephone, WhatsApp or another communication channel and told to keep the necessary documents ready.

Yet several Mumbai electors say they have continued to be called to offices or designated locations. A Borivli voter who received a notice waited for the promised BLO visit but said nobody had arrived. In Deonar, around 30 residents of one housing society received notices, including an elderly voter whose entry contained initials rather than his full name. He said he went to the BLO office and submitted papers for himself and his son after their records were treated as mismatches.

Retired Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur also publicly disputed the claim that physical attendance was unnecessary, saying he had been asked to visit the BLO and had subsequently received a hearing notice requiring him to produce documents at an appointed place.

Election officials have acknowledged operational difficulties. Some said BLOs were fatigued after the prolonged SIR exercise and asked residents to cooperate where officers were stationed in housing society offices or nearby locations rather than insisting on individual home visits. They also said voters were sometimes unavailable or did not answer doors or telephone calls.

Other BLOs have continued home verification. An officer assigned to Jogeshwari West said there were 102 anomaly cases in the jurisdiction and that elderly residents were being visited because travelling to camps was difficult for them. The officer said only 14 cases remained and notes or messages had been left with family members where voters were unavailable.

The September 30 directive, however, is explicit that BLOs are expected to visit the homes of affected voters and that district election officers, EROs and AEROs must ensure compliance. Documents may alternatively be submitted online or through WhatsApp where verification is possible.

The controversy follows a door-to-door phase that began on June 30, when BLOs were tasked with distributing enumeration forms. The timetable was later extended, and the draft rolls were published on August 31. The latest directions were designed to reduce inconvenience during scrutiny by shifting document collection back to election staff rather than requiring office appearances.

A personal hearing is envisaged only where evidence remains inadequate or officials cannot reach a positive decision on the material available. Before any name is deleted, the elector must be given sufficient opportunity to provide documents and be heard, and authorities must ensure that an eligible voter is not denied enrolment. Exceptional hearings may be conducted online, with an authorised adult family member permitted to participate where required.

The scale of the verification adds pressure to the machinery. Of the roughly 1.22 crore electors flagged across Maharashtra, about 62.48 lakh were identified for logical discrepancies and 59.75 lakh as unmapped. The state had 9.78 crore electors before the revision exercise, while about 1.54 crore names were absent from the draft roll because voters were categorised as absent, shifted, dead, duplicate or for other reasons.

CJP notifies police of October 10 protest

The Cockroach Janta Party has formally notified Delhi Police of its planned October 10 protest at Jantar Mantar, as the youth-led group presses ahead with a demonstration over electoral rolls and demands the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

CJP co-convenor and spokesperson Saurav Das submitted an intimation letter at Parliament Street police station on Wednesday, saying the organisation wanted to ensure there could be no later dispute over whether police had been informed. Police have not granted permission for the proposed gathering, according to accounts of the exchange.

Das said young people from across the country were expected to participate and maintained that the demonstration would focus on the right to vote, the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and broader demands for electoral accountability. He said CJP intended to cooperate with police over arrangements and expected law-enforcement authorities to facilitate a peaceful protest.

The distinction between intimation and permission has emerged as an immediate point of contention. Das questioned why police approval should determine whether citizens could demonstrate at Jantar Mantar, a designated protest venue, arguing that the police role should centre on security, traffic management and public order.

Security was tightened around Parliament Street police station before Das arrived to submit the letter, with barricades placed in the area. The precaution came amid heightened tension in central Delhi following successive demonstrations against the Election Commission and Kumar over the nationwide voter-roll revision.

CJP has said the October 10 mobilisation will remain peaceful. Founder Abhijeet Dipke announced the Delhi programme after the organisation's October 2 demonstration at Shivaji Park in Mumbai, saying supporters from across the country would gather at Jantar Mantar if Kumar did not resign. The group has called on citizens concerned about free and fair elections to participate.

The planned protest comes as scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision intensifies. The Election Commission has defended the exercise as a mechanism to maintain accurate electoral rolls, while opposition parties, activists and CJP have challenged deletions and procedures used during the revision. The Commission's voter portal continues to provide facilities for registration, searching names and submitting documents connected with the 2026 SIR.

The controversy has also reached the Supreme Court. The court this week sought clarity on decision-making within the three-member Election Commission and indicated that actions not conforming to law could be set aside. Questions before the court include aspects of the SIR process and whether decisions attributed to the Commission followed the legally required institutional procedure.

Separately, the Election Commission has instructed states and Union Territories where the revision has been completed to undertake a special drive for eligible voters left out of the rolls. That step has become part of the wider debate over deletions, re-enrolment and safeguards for eligible electors.

CJP leaders have also alleged pressure on supporters intending to travel to Delhi. Dipke said volunteers in Maharashtra had received police notices seeking information about their proposed journey and funding and discouraging participation. A notice issued by Ballarpur police in Chandrapur on October 5 under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita referred to a supporter's proposed travel to New Delhi.

Chandrapur Superintendent of Police Mummaka Sudarshan rejected suggestions that the notices represented intimidation, saying such preventive notices were routinely issued before protests to maintain law and order. CJP has disputed that explanation and accused authorities of trying to deter participation.

The Delhi mobilisation is being organised against a backdrop of demonstrations in the capital over the Election Commission. Opposition MPs led by Rahul Gandhi attempted to march from Parliament Street towards the poll panel's headquarters on Tuesday, demanding Kumar's resignation over alleged irregularities in voter lists. Police blocked the march, and several leaders were detained after a prolonged protest.

Police book Rahul, Priyanka after poll protest

Delhi Police registered a case on Wednesday against Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and others over their alleged unauthorised entry into Akashvani Bhawan during a day-long Opposition protest demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

The first information report followed a complaint alleging that the Congress leaders, accompanying MPs and supporters entered the government broadcasting complex without permission on Tuesday after police blocked an INDIA bloc march from Parliament towards Nirvachan Sadan, the Election Commission headquarters.

Police said no application seeking permission for the march had been submitted to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, and no permission had been granted. The case adds a legal dimension to a confrontation that ended with mass detentions after an hours-long sit-in.

Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra were among about 260 people detained on Tuesday evening. Police removed protesters from Akashvani Bhawan at around 8 pm, more than eight hours after the Opposition march encountered barricades in central Delhi. The detained leaders were released later that night.

The protest brought INDIA bloc MPs onto Parliament Street to press allegations of irregularities in electoral rolls and oppose the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision exercise. Opposition parties have accused the poll body of wrongly deleting eligible voters and have demanded Kumar’s removal. The Election Commission has rejected allegations that its electoral-roll work is politically biased.

After police stopped the march near the poll panel’s office, several leaders staged a sit-in. Rahul Gandhi climbed a barricade before he, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and some other leaders entered the Akashvani Bhawan premises. They remained there while other protesters were detained or dispersed.

Gandhi said the MPs wanted to meet the Election Commission and submit their objections. He accused the poll authority of refusing to hear elected representatives and repeated his charge of “vote chori”, or vote theft. The allegation remains contested, and the Election Commission and the Bharatiya Janata Party have denied wrongdoing.

The Election Commission issued a statement at about 9 pm on Tuesday disputing the suggestion that it had refused a properly sought meeting. It said that, until 4 pm, no political party or representative had requested an appointment with the Commission.

The poll body said it learnt through media coverage earlier in the day that some MPs wanted to meet the Commission. At around 4 pm, it said, Delhi Police informed it that a delegation led by Rahul Gandhi wished to meet the commissioners and submit a memorandum.

The Commission said it then conveyed that a delegation could be received, while citing logistical and security constraints on accommodating a large group. The competing accounts became another point of dispute between the Opposition and the poll authority as the demonstration continued into the evening.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and other Opposition leaders framed the march as a campaign to defend electoral integrity. The BJP rejected the accusations, arguing that Congress was blaming the Election Commission for its political setbacks rather than substantiating its charges.

Tuesday’s demonstration also produced an unusual security standoff around Akashvani Bhawan. Staff members attempted to prevent protesters from entering, while police repeatedly asked those inside to leave. Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra remained with a smaller group in the complex, insisting that they be permitted to proceed to the Election Commission.

Other Opposition figures detained during the wider protest included MPs from parties in the INDIA alliance. Police buses were used to move those detained from the area as Parliament Street remained heavily guarded.

At least 10 MPs were among those detained, according to police accounts. The operation followed repeated warnings to demonstrators to leave the restricted area, while protesters continued demanding access to election officials.

Supreme Court scrutiny exposes Form 6 digital dispute

The Supreme Court’s clarification that it never approved a modified Form 6 has sharpened scrutiny of whether the Election Commission of India turned a separate Special Intensive Revision declaration into a compulsory step in online voter registration without formally changing the statutory form.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said on October 5 that no modified Form 6 had received the court’s approval and indicated it would examine the record to determine who authorised the changes. The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notices while hearing petitions challenging decisions attributed to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the functioning of the three-member Commission.

The distinction is legally significant. Its position is that Form 6 itself was never amended. Officials say an additional declaration was attached for the SIR, an exercise whose legality and special documentation framework were upheld by the Supreme Court on May 27.

The May judgment, however, dealt with the Bihar SIR framework established in June 2025. Under that arrangement, a new applicant submitted statutory Form 6 along with a separate Annexure D. The court recognised that an intensive revision may require documentation beyond the ordinary revision process and held that the Commission retained authority to devise an appropriate documentation framework for an SIR.

The present controversy concerns what happened later on ECINET, the Commission’s digital voter-services platform. From July, the online registration process required applicants in SIR areas to supply information connecting themselves, their parents or grandparents with an earlier intensive-revision roll. That included electoral-roll particulars such as polling station and serial numbers.

The legal question is therefore broader than whether the printed statutory Form 6 was physically rewritten. Petitioners contend that incorporating the additional declaration into the online workflow effectively changed the conditions for submitting Form 6, even if the underlying PDF remained untouched.

That argument gains significance from Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which provides that every claim for inclusion as a new elector shall be made in Form 6. The prescribed form sits within the statutory rules. A formal alteration to it would ordinarily require amendment through the prescribed legal process.

ECI’s own portal illustrates the distinction. It lists “Fill Form 6” and “Fill Declaration Form” separately for new voter registration in the SIR framework. Its guidance also recognises offline submission of Form 6 to electoral registration officials, while the disputed digital arrangement made completion of the additional information part of the path to online submission.

This creates the issue the court may now have to resolve: whether authority to demand additional documentation during an SIR also permits the Commission to configure its technology so that a supplementary declaration becomes, in practice, a condition for electronically lodging the statutory application.

The ECI maintains that the declaration was a separate SIR requirement and says the Bihar SIR order, including the accompanying declaration mechanism, had unanimous Commission approval. It has also maintained that later SIR orders were approved unanimously, rejecting suggestions that Kumar acted alone.

That defence does not settle the narrower digital question. The declaration that appeared in the online registration process in July 2026 came after the May judgment. The Supreme Court’s latest observation makes clear that its earlier ruling should not be read as approval of any subsequent modification of Form 6.

The Commission had already moved to limit the disputed requirement before the latest hearing. Following a September 26 meeting of Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, it said the declaration would apply during the SIR phase, while ordinary periods would use forms prescribed under the 1960 Rules. The extra declaration was subsequently removed from ECINET in states and Union Territories where SIR had concluded.

Delhi fortifies protest route as opposition march nears

Delhi was placed under heavy security on Tuesday as opposition leaders prepared to march from Parliament’s Makar Dwar towards the Election Commission of India headquarters, prompting large deployments of police and Central Armed Police Forces along the proposed route.

Barricades were erected outside Parliament and near Nirvachan Sadan, the Election Commission’s office, while security personnel took positions at key intersections in central Delhi. Police were preparing to regulate access to sensitive areas and prevent protesters from breaching security cordons around government buildings.

The march was scheduled amid an escalating confrontation between opposition parties and the Election Commission over electoral procedures, voter rolls and allegations concerning the conduct of election authorities. Opposition leaders have sought to take their objections directly to the constitutional body responsible for supervising elections.

Senior opposition figures were expected to assemble near Makar Dwar before proceeding towards the commission’s headquarters. Security arrangements were strengthened in anticipation of a sizeable gathering involving members of Parliament and party workers, with police maintaining multiple layers of barricades along possible approaches to the commission.

Personnel from Delhi Police units and central forces were stationed around Parliament Street and adjoining areas. Officers were also deployed around the Election Commission complex, where access was being closely controlled ahead of the planned demonstration.

Police preparations were focused on maintaining order while managing movement around Parliament, government offices and major roads in the New Delhi district. Traffic restrictions and diversions were expected where necessary depending on the size and movement of the gathering.

The demonstration comes as opposition parties intensify scrutiny of the Election Commission over voter registration and electoral-roll revisions. Opposition leaders have accused the poll authority of failing to adequately address questions they have raised about additions, deletions and other changes involving voter lists.

The Election Commission has rejected allegations that electoral processes are being manipulated and has maintained that voter-roll revisions are governed by statutory procedures, prescribed forms and safeguards available to electors and political parties.

The confrontation has also moved into the Supreme Court, where questions surrounding voter-registration procedures and changes to prescribed documentation have drawn judicial attention. The court’s interventions have added another dimension to the political dispute over how electoral rolls are maintained and revised.

Opposition parties have argued that concerns involving electoral rolls require greater transparency because errors or improper deletions could affect voting rights. Election authorities, however, have maintained that revision exercises are intended to ensure rolls remain accurate and that mechanisms exist for eligible voters to seek inclusion or challenge decisions.

Tuesday’s security operation reflected the sensitivity surrounding demonstrations near Parliament and the Election Commission, both located within a heavily protected administrative zone. Police routinely impose restrictions around such installations when large political gatherings are planned, particularly when protesters intend to move between protected locations.

Authorities were expected to assess the situation as opposition MPs gathered, with further restrictions possible if participants attempted to proceed beyond designated security barriers. Officers were positioned to prevent disruption to Parliament-related activity and movement around nearby government offices.

The planned march is part of a wider opposition campaign seeking answers from the Election Commission over electoral-roll management and decisions affecting voter registration. Several parties have demanded greater disclosure of the processes used to revise voter lists and have called for stronger safeguards against wrongful exclusion.

Election officials have repeatedly said recognised political parties participate in roll-revision exercises through booth-level agents and have opportunities to submit claims and objections. Individual electors can also seek corrections or restoration of their names through procedures prescribed under election law.

Dipke challenges CEC over disputed voter declaration

Cockroach Janta founder Abhijit Dipke has challenged Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over a disputed voter-enrolment declaration after the Supreme Court said it had not approved any modified version of Form 6.

Dipke, reacting on X on Monday, asked how the form could have been modified without the court’s approval and who had ordered the change. He alleged that Kumar was not acting independently, accused him of serving “political bosses” and called him the “biggest traitor of India”. The accusations are Dipke’s political claims and have not been established by the court.

The Supreme Court’s remarks came while a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard a petition challenging decisions and software changes allegedly introduced during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The bench also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us,” the Chief Justice said, adding that the court wanted to examine the official record to determine who, if anyone, had modified it. The bench issued notice and sought the Election Commission’s response rather than reaching any finding on responsibility or illegality.

The distinction is significant because the Election Commission maintains that Form 6 itself was never amended. Commission officials said an additional declaration was attached to the statutory form for the SIR exercise, and argued that the declaration had the Supreme Court’s backing. They rejected assertions that Kumar had unilaterally altered Form 6.

Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and is used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in an electoral roll. The contested SIR declaration sought additional information linking applicants, or specified relatives, to electoral rolls from an earlier intensive revision.

The dispute intensified after the Election Commission said in a September 26 statement that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court. It also said that forms prescribed under the 1960 rules would apply outside SIR periods.

Following Monday’s hearing, Commission officials reiterated that the Supreme Court had upheld the declaration attached through the Bihar SIR order of June 24, 2025, and that this was different from changing the statutory Form 6. That position leaves a central factual and legal question for the court: whether the online enrolment process amounted to a modification of the prescribed form or merely required a separate SIR-specific declaration.

The petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for him, raised the Form 6 issue and argued that additional information had been sought from people applying for enrolment. The petition challenges decisions, guidelines and software-related steps attributed to Kumar and seeks scrutiny of the manner in which they were introduced.

The bench did not accept the petitioner’s allegations as proved. It indicated that the Commission’s records would be necessary before determining what had been changed, who authorised it and whether the process complied with the governing legal framework.

Dipke’s intervention sharpened the political pressure already facing the poll panel. His Cockroach Janta movement has been campaigning for Kumar’s resignation and has organised protests over the SIR and alleged irregularities in electoral-roll management. The Election Commission has denied wrongdoing and has maintained that its institutional decisions were taken through the Commission’s established process.

Other political critics also seized on the court’s observation, but the Election Commission disputed claims that the Chief Election Commissioner had personally and illegally rewritten the form. Its officials said the SIR orders and the September 26 position had the approval of the full Commission, including Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Adhikari widens medical-record dispute with Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has warned former chief minister Mamata Banerjee that further medical documents could be made public if she pursues questions over the disclosure of records concerning her 2021 Nandigram leg injury.

Adhikari issued the warning on Monday after Banerjee's lawyer served legal notices connected to state-run SSKM Hospital and the Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, seeking an explanation for how her medical records allegedly reached the chief minister and entered the public domain without her consent.

Speaking after a Cabinet meeting at Nabanna, Adhikari said he could produce additional material, including X-ray plates and MRI reports. He told Banerjee not to probe the issue too deeply and said the source of the documents could also be disclosed if necessary.

Adhikari maintained that the records he possessed had not come from SSKM Hospital. He did not identify their source, but said he would reveal where they came from if required. He also made claims about documents kept at Nabanna by the previous administration, without establishing that those records were the source of the medical material he displayed.

Banerjee's counsel, Arka Nag, sent the notice by email to senior doctors associated with SSKM and Bangur Institute, while a copy was also sent to the state health department's principal secretary. The notice sought details about the alleged disclosure and questioned whether Banerjee's consent had been obtained before confidential medical information was made public.

The dispute centres on a document Adhikari displayed at a press conference on Saturday, which he identified as a March 11, 2021 report from the Department of Radio Diagnosis at Bangur Institute. He said the document recorded no evidence of a fracture and used it to allege that Banerjee had fabricated the injury during the 2021 Assembly election campaign.

That allegation remains disputed. A report showing no fracture does not by itself establish that no injury occurred, and accounts from the time described Banerjee as having suffered injuries to her left ankle and foot, as well as complaints involving other parts of her body. She was treated at SSKM Hospital and subsequently campaigned in a wheelchair with her leg in a cast.

Adhikari has also said his government will investigate what he describes as false claims surrounding the episode. No finding from such an inquiry has yet established that Banerjee staged or fabricated her injuries.

The renewed dispute has emerged as Nandigram again becomes an electoral focus. Adhikari defeated Banerjee there in the 2021 Assembly election after a closely fought contest, while Banerjee's Trinamool Congress retained power across West Bengal. The constituency is now facing a by-election, adding an immediate political dimension to the confrontation.

The original incident occurred on March 10, 2021, while Banerjee was campaigning in Nandigram. She said at the time that several people had pushed her near her vehicle, causing the door to strike her leg. The Election Commission later concluded, after considering reports from special observers and the state administration, that the evidence did not support a premeditated attack.

The commission treated the episode as involving a security lapse and took action against officials responsible for Banerjee's protection. Its findings did not amount to a determination that Banerjee had invented her injuries, a distinction that has become relevant as the medical controversy has resurfaced.

Banerjee's legal notice shifts part of the dispute from the political arena to questions of medical confidentiality and custody of patient records. Her lawyer has alleged that disclosure without permission would breach the confidentiality owed to a patient and has sought an explanation from the doctors concerned.

The state health department has been drawn into the matter because the institutions involved are government-run. Adhikari said the department should forward Banerjee's complaint to him, while signalling that he intended to respond politically to any attempt to challenge his possession or publication of the records.

Supreme Court presses Delhi on women's night safety

The Supreme Court has told authorities that every woman in Delhi-NCR must be able to feel safe in public spaces late at night, stressing that crime-prevention measures must function effectively on the ground rather than exist only on paper.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, hearing a suo motu case concerning sexual assaults in the National Capital Region, said on Monday that women should feel secure even at 11 pm while travelling on roads or using the metro. The judges said prevention had to be the central objective of policing, not merely action after an offence.

The court expressed concern over a perception that women were unsafe in parts of the capital, particularly vulnerable pockets, and told Delhi Police to strengthen deterrence against people prone to committing sexual offences. It called for firm policing against anti-social elements while emphasising visible and effective preventive action.

The bench also focused on surveillance, questioning the value of installing CCTV cameras unless footage is continuously monitored and can trigger timely intervention. It raised the need for a control-room or “war room” approach capable of translating surveillance into an immediate police response when suspicious activity is detected.

Police were asked to reinforce beat patrolling at public places, including transport facilities, and strengthen points where police control room vehicles are stationed. The court stressed grassroots policing and said public confidence depended on officers being accessible and responsive rather than safety arrangements remaining administrative exercises.

The hearing follows the court’s September 28 decision to take suo motu cognisance of a series of sexual offences involving women and girls across Delhi-NCR. The court had then described the cases as raising serious questions about the security of public spaces and the ability of law-enforcement and civil authorities to prevent avoidable risks.

That order directed Delhi Police and other authorities to undertake time-bound safety measures within four weeks. Dedicated teams in every police district were ordered to survey vulnerable locations, including isolated stretches, parks, transport hubs, markets and areas around educational institutions. District-wise vulnerability maps are to identify deficiencies such as poor lighting, inadequate surveillance and insufficient patrolling.

The court also ordered lighting and CCTV audits covering parks and vulnerable zones, with non-functional equipment to be repaired and additional cameras or lights installed where necessary. Similar checks were directed for metro stations, bus stops, bus terminals, railway stations and other major public-transport facilities, especially those in or near areas assessed as vulnerable.

Patrolling is to be intensified in identified locations, particularly during evenings and early mornings, with designated officers responsible for specific areas and periodic inspections. Mobile checkpoints and vehicle inspections were also ordered, alongside enforcement of the prohibition on aftermarket tinted or solar-control films on vehicle windows.

The September order arose partly from the alleged gang rape of a 17-year-old girl at Aastha Kunj Park and complaints of sexual harassment involving students near Lady Shri Ram College for Women. The court also took note of the alleged gang rape and killing of a teenage girl in Swaroop Nagar and the alleged sexual assault of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus.

In the bus case, the vehicle allegedly travelled more than 47 kilometres from Greater Noida towards Delhi without being intercepted. The court said the circumstances invited a painful comparison with the 2012 Nirbhaya case and questioned whether law-enforcement systems had made meaningful progress since then.

The judges have linked public safety to the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21, saying roads, parks, buses, metro stations, subways and footbridges cannot become high-risk areas because of inadequate illumination, surveillance or policing.

Police register case after Nedduru mosque-side gathering

Police in Telangana’s Rangareddy district have taken suo motu cognisance after videos showing a 10-day shakha programme concluding immediately outside a mosque in Nedduru village circulated online, while a local officer disputed claims that the event was organised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

The Kandukur police acted after images and video clips from the gathering spread across social media, drawing questions over the decision to conduct the programme beside a place of worship. Police said the locality remained peaceful and instructed a person who had posted material from the event to remove the posts.

The footage and photographs show participants assembled on the road or open space directly in front of the mosque. Material posted online described the gathering as the final day of a 10-day “Shakha Saptaham” and referred to a Bharat Mata Puja and other activities.

SS Reddy, whose social-media account carries posts about local RSS activities, uploaded photographs and videos on October 4. In his accompanying description, he said a Bharat Mata Puja and other programmes had been conducted on the tenth and final day at the “Nedunuru Shakha” in Kandukur Khanda of Rangareddy district.

The online description did not identify the mosque as the setting. Separately circulated images and videos, however, clearly placed the concluding programme immediately outside the religious building. Other social-media posts alleged that “Jai Shri Ram” slogans were raised during the gathering and questioned why the authorities had permitted an event of that nature so close to a mosque.

Police have not publicly established that the gathering caused any disturbance at the mosque or led to violence. A Kandukur police officer said the area was peaceful and rejected the assertion that the event was connected to the RSS, despite the terminology and captions used in material posted by Reddy and circulated by other accounts.

That discrepancy has become central to the questions surrounding the episode. The material available online describes the programme as a shakha and associates it with activities commonly linked to RSS gatherings, but the police position, as stated after the footage surfaced, is that the event was not related to the organisation.

No detailed police statement explaining the basis for that denial had been made public by Monday night. The officer also declined to provide further particulars about the suo motu action, including the precise provisions, if any, invoked by police or whether organisers had obtained permission for the gathering.

There was also no verified public statement from the RSS addressing the Nedduru event or clarifying whether the participants or organisers were formally associated with it. In the absence of such confirmation, the identity of the organisers remains disputed between the descriptions attached to the circulating material and the account given by police.

The episode attracted attention chiefly because of the programme’s proximity to the mosque rather than any confirmed confrontation. Social-media users questioning the event argued that authorities should exercise particular caution when political, ideological or religiously expressive gatherings are held immediately beside another community’s place of worship.

The available footage does not by itself establish whether the space outside the mosque is public land, whether the mosque authorities objected before or during the programme, or what permissions were required or secured. Police have not disclosed those details.

The distinction is significant because questions about permission, public-order precautions and the use of space near a religious site depend on the circumstances of the gathering and the applicable local rules. No evidence has emerged publicly that worship at the mosque was interrupted.

Nedduru is within the Kandukur area of Rangareddy district, part of the wider Hyderabad region. The controversy moved beyond the village after the photographs and videos were reposted by accounts questioning the administration’s handling of the event.

Police intervention followed the online circulation rather than a publicly disclosed complaint from mosque representatives. The direction to remove the social-media posts was also confirmed by the local officer, though no reason for that instruction was publicly detailed.