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.

Mamata sets 15-day return deadline for TMC rebels

Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has given MPs and MLAs who deserted her faction 15 days to return, warning that those who stay away beyond the deadline will no longer have a place in the party.

The former West Bengal chief minister delivered the message by telephone on Sunday to a large party gathering at Chopra in Uttar Dinajpur, as her camp sought to rebuild its organisation after a damaging post-election split.

“Many of the MLAs and MPs we helped get elected are traitors; there is no place for them here,” Banerjee said. “As for the MLAs and MPs who left us — if they come back within 15 days, it is fine; otherwise, there will be no place for them here.”

Her ultimatum amounts to a time-limited offer of reconciliation to elected representatives who broke ranks after the West Bengal Assembly election, while signalling that her faction intends to draw a line under defections as it reorganises.

Banerjee told supporters that ordinary workers, rather than senior leaders, were the party’s real strength and asserted that she could rebuild the organisation she founded in 1998. She also said her faction would return to power, seeking to rally cadres after its Assembly election defeat.

The gathering in Chopra was one of the Mamata-led camp’s most prominent organisational displays in north Bengal since the election. Kalyan Banerjee addressed the meeting, while Itahar MLA Mosharraf Hussain was among the leaders present.

The appeal comes amid unresolved disputes over the political and parliamentary status of defectors. Twenty rebel TMC MPs who aligned themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India, or NCPI, are facing petitions seeking their disqualification from the Lok Sabha under the anti-defection law.

TMC national general secretary and Lok Sabha leader Abhishek Banerjee submitted separate petitions to Speaker Om Birla in June, arguing that the MPs had voluntarily given up their party membership. The rebel MPs have sought recognition separately and have contested the Mamata faction’s position.

The rupture followed a struggle for control of the organisation after the Assembly polls. A group of legislators rallied behind a rival camp, while the 20 Lok Sabha members moved towards the NCPI and backed the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. Those moves left Banerjee fighting on organisational, electoral-symbol and parliamentary fronts, making the question of returning lawmakers important for her faction.

The Lok Sabha Secretariat has asked the 20 MPs to submit responses to the disqualification petitions by October 8 after granting them additional time. Their status therefore remains unresolved, with parliamentary records continuing to be central to the dispute.

A parallel contest over the TMC name and its flowers-and-grass election symbol is before the Election Commission. The Supreme Court last month directed the commission to decide the factional dispute within three months after allowing the rival sides four weeks to complete their pleadings.

Pending that decision, the Election Commission froze the established TMC name and symbol and assigned temporary identities for electoral purposes to competing camps. Banerjee has challenged the interim action before the Supreme Court.

Against that backdrop, the 15-day offer carries organisational significance beyond the Uttar Dinajpur gathering. It gives defectors a defined window to re-enter Banerjee’s camp while the Election Commission considers competing claims over the party organisation and symbol and parliamentary proceedings continue against rebel MPs.

Banerjee also used her address to attack the Election Commission, alleging that the Bharatiya Janata Party would remain in power as long as Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was in charge. The allegation was political and she did not provide evidence at the meeting to substantiate it.

She linked the effort to strengthen her faction with the wider opposition INDIA alliance, arguing that the grouping could not be strong without the Trinamool Congress and urging supporters who wanted to fight the BJP to reinforce her party.

Owaisi signals Hyderabad protests over Form 7 misuse

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has threatened large-scale protests in Hyderabad if allegedly false Form 7 applications are used to remove eligible voters during the Special Intensive Revision of Telangana’s electoral rolls.

The Hyderabad Lok Sabha MP, speaking at the 57th Jalsa-e-Milad-un-Nabi at Milad Maidan on Saturday, October 3, urged the Election Commission to act against anyone filing fraudulent objections. He said his party would not remain silent if genuine Muslim voters were targeted for deletion.

Owaisi said protests larger than demonstrations held at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar could take place on Hyderabad’s streets if the alleged practice continued. He accused BJP and Sangh Parivar activists of seeking to use Form 7 to remove Muslim names, an allegation rejected by the BJP.

The dispute has intensified after complaints involving Form 7 applications surfaced in Musheerabad and Goshamahal constituencies. Telangana Chief Electoral Officer C Sudarshan Reddy said on Sunday that disputed applications examined by election authorities in the two constituencies were incomplete or inadequately filled and had been rejected.

The CEO’s office has also said strict action would be taken if inquiries established that people were being targeted through bulk applications. Reddy had earlier said applications received in bulk must be properly investigated and verified before any deletion, with electoral authorities required to pass reasoned orders. Election officials have stressed that incomplete applications will not be acted upon and that each contested entry must be assessed under procedure before a registration officer decides.

Election Commission rules make Form 7 the prescribed application for objecting to the proposed inclusion of a person or seeking deletion of an existing entry in an electoral roll. Permitted grounds include death, being under age, permanent relocation, duplicate enrolment and lack of citizenship.

The Commission’s guidelines state that an applicant must provide their name, electoral photo identity card number and contact details, specify the elector whose entry is challenged and give the reason for the objection. The burden of substantiating the stated ground rests with the applicant. A false declaration is punishable under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Owaisi questioned applications in which, he alleged, details identifying the objector were missing. He asked the Election Commission, Telangana’s Chief Electoral Officer and district election authorities to scrutinise Form 7 submissions and establish who had filed them before acting on requests for deletion.

The controversy followed a complaint concerning Musheerabad, where applications were filed seeking deletion of 31 electors, including a Congress booth-level agent and members of his family. The applications were alleged to have been submitted by a BJP booth-level agent on grounds including duplicate enrolment. Election officials conducted inquiries into the objections.

Another dispute arose in Goshamahal after a booth-level officer refused to accept a set of pre-printed Form 7 applications that did not satisfy prescribed requirements. Telangana Congress circulated a video of the encounter while alleging an attempt at bulk deletion of voters.

The BJP has denied that its booth-level agents submitted bulk applications improperly. Telangana BJP president N Ramchander Rao said merely filing Form 7 did not result in a voter being removed and argued that election officials conduct field inquiries before taking a deletion decision.

BJP representatives also challenged Owaisi to provide evidence of wrongdoing to the competent authorities. Party spokesperson N V Subhash defended the use of Form 7 against people whom he described as Rohingyas lacking citizenship, while accusing AIMIM, Congress and BRS of supporting their enrolment. Those assertions have not established that the Hyderabad electors named in the disputed applications were ineligible.

Owaisi’s intervention puts additional political pressure on election authorities as the claims-and-objections stage of the SIR approaches its October 7 deadline. The revision has brought heightened scrutiny of deletion requests because objections can affect an elector’s inclusion in the final roll.

TVK enters INDIA bloc, reshaping Tamil Nadu alignment

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam has formally joined the INDIA bloc in Tamil Nadu, bringing Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s ruling party into the national opposition coalition after months of state-level cooperation with Congress and other allies.

The move was confirmed on Saturday at a meeting of INDIA constituents at Sathyamurthy Bhavan, the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee headquarters in Chennai. TVK was represented by Aadhav Arjuna, its general secretary for election campaign management and a state minister, and party leader Maria Wilson.

TNCC president B Manickam Tagore described TVK’s entry as a “historic day” and said it would strengthen the alliance in Tamil Nadu. The meeting brought together representatives of Congress, TVK, the CPI, CPI, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Indian Union Muslim League.

The gathering also agreed on a coordinated campaign demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over opposition allegations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Tagore said INDIA parties would stage demonstrations at district headquarters on October 13 and 14, followed by a joint protest in Chennai on October 15 involving leaders of all seven participating parties.

Alliance MPs are also due to march to the Election Commission of India headquarters in New Delhi on October 6 as part of the campaign. The programme gives TVK an immediate role in an opposition mobilisation extending beyond Tamil Nadu and places Vijay’s party within a broader national political framework.

TVK’s formal induction consolidates an alignment that had already developed in Tamil Nadu after this year’s Assembly election. Vijay’s party emerged as the largest party with 108 seats, short of a majority, and formed the government with support from Congress and other partners. In September, TVK and several allies named their state coalition the Secular Social Justice Victory Alliance.

The step into INDIA is nevertheless politically significant because TVK had previously stopped short of joining the national grouping. Tagore said in August that the party could enter the bloc after obtaining its own parliamentary representation. Saturday’s meeting marked a shift from that position and established TVK as a participant despite its present lack of MPs.

The decision also narrows the distinction between Vijay’s state coalition and the Congress-led opposition arrangement nationally. Congress, VCK, MDMK and IUML already work with TVK in Tamil Nadu, while the two Left parties have maintained a more complicated relationship with the Vijay government and did not attend the September meeting at which the state alliance was formally named.

DMK, which had been a principal component of the INDIA formation from Tamil Nadu before losing power in the Assembly election, was absent from Saturday’s meeting. Asked about the absence, Tagore rejected suggestions that it reflected a split and said the opposition platform remained open to political forces opposed to the BJP-led government at the Centre.

The changing alignment has particular importance for Congress, which now has a governing partnership with TVK in Tamil Nadu while remaining the principal national party in INDIA. For Vijay, participation provides a national opposition platform without requiring a new electoral arrangement in the state, where the coalition structure established after the Assembly election is already functioning.

The meeting also indicated that immediate cooperation would centre on electoral issues rather than leadership questions. Vijay’s supporters have previously floated a larger national role for him, but no decision was announced on a prime ministerial face or on any redistribution of leadership positions within INDIA.

MDMK general secretary Vaiko welcomed TVK’s participation and backed the planned statewide demonstrations. The parties’ October programme is focused on their demand for Kumar’s resignation and their objections to the electoral-roll revision process, allegations that election authorities have disputed in broader exchanges with opposition parties.

TVK’s representatives at Saturday’s meeting reflected the party’s growing organisational role alongside its government responsibilities. Aadhav Arjuna, who helped direct TVK’s Assembly campaign, has remained a prominent political strategist after entering the Cabinet.

Bhuyan says mass voter exclusion violates Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said any process that disenfranchises millions of citizens is intrinsically arbitrary and violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and adult suffrage.

Speaking at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not contemplate two classes of citizens — those entitled to vote and those denied that right — as controversy continues over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

“If any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens making them second-class citizens in their own country in the sense of being citizens without a voting right, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary,” he said. “No amount of whataboutery can justify it.”

Justice Bhuyan said such an outcome would strike at the heart of the Constitution and amount to a negation of the constitutional order. He added that a process producing wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14, which respectively underpin adult suffrage and equality before law.

The judge was delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition. His comments came against the backdrop of continuing disputes over the SIR, although his address framed the issue principally as a question of constitutional voting rights rather than a ruling on the legality of any particular revision exercise.

Justice Bhuyan is not on the bench that decided the principal challenge to the Bihar SIR. The Supreme Court, in a May 27 judgment delivered by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, upheld the Election Commission’s power to conduct that exercise while examining its purpose, proportionality and procedures.

The Election Commission has since continued the SIR process in other states and Union Territories. Its voter services portal identifies the 2026 exercise and provides facilities for electors to search earlier rolls, submit documents against notices and apply for registration.

Justice Bhuyan stressed that the right to vote, while held in several Supreme Court judgments not to be a fundamental right, is a constitutional right flowing from Article 326. Legislation may regulate its exercise, he said, but cannot travel beyond the constitutional limits imposed by Articles 325 and 326.

Article 326 provides that elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies are to be based on adult suffrage. Citizens aged 18 or above are entitled to be registered as voters unless disqualified on constitutionally permitted grounds including non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, or corrupt or illegal practice.

Justice Bhuyan linked that guarantee to Article 14, saying universal adult franchise gives practical content to political equality. He said the value of a billionaire’s vote is the same as that of a rickshaw puller, illustrating the constitutional principle that economic or social status cannot determine the weight of a citizen’s electoral voice.

He also referred to Article 325, which provides for one general electoral roll for each territorial constituency and bars exclusion from a roll solely on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.

Addressing deletion from electoral rolls, Justice Bhuyan invoked the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Lal Babu Hussain versus Electoral Registration Officer. He said that, except where a voter has died, a person whose name is already on a roll cannot be removed without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The right to vote or to be included on the voters’ list could not be detached from the persona of a citizen, he said, comparing such separation to taking the soul out of the body.

Justice Bhuyan said Article 326 could not be tinkered with by any authority and that no court could endorse or condone action contrary to it. “No one is above the Constitution,” he said.

Bengal voter appeals cluster in Muslim-heavy seats

Appeals seeking to remove voters already cleared for inclusion in West Bengal’s electoral rolls were concentrated disproportionately in constituencies with larger Muslim populations, an analysis of Election Commission data and tribunal records has found.

The analysis, based on constituency-level appeal figures, electoral-roll data and demographic information, identified a strong statistical relationship between the Muslim share of a constituency’s population and the rate of appeals challenging inclusion. It does not, however, establish the religion of every elector challenged or prove the motive behind individual appeals.

Election Commission figures submitted to the Supreme Court on September 16 showed that 38,31,429 appeals had been filed before tribunals following the Special Intensive Revision of West Bengal’s electoral rolls. Of these, 22,21,118 were filed by people challenging their exclusion or deletion, while 16,10,311 challenged the inclusion of names.

The constituency analysis found that seats where Muslims comprise more than 60 per cent of the population recorded 7.85 appeals against inclusion for every 100 electors. Constituencies with Muslim populations below 20 per cent recorded 0.80 such appeals per 100 electors, nearly one-tenth of that rate.

Researchers calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.767 between a constituency’s Muslim population share and the rate of appeals against inclusion, with a reported probability value below 0.0001. No comparable statistical relationship was found with the Scheduled Caste population share.

Malda and Murshidabad emerged as the principal centres of the pattern. Thirty-four Assembly constituencies across the two districts accounted for an estimated 6,36,873 appeals against inclusion, close to two-fifths of the statewide total.

Sujapur, where Muslims constitute about 75.44 per cent of the population, recorded an estimated 61,285 appeals against inclusion, the highest absolute figure among constituencies. Chanchal, where Muslims account for 51.96 per cent, recorded about 35,007 such appeals out of 38,564 appeals overall.

During the revision, 73,901 Chanchal electors had been sent for adjudication. Judicial officers subsequently cleared 69,731 and disqualified 4,170, giving the constituency a rejection rate of 5.6 per cent. The subsequent appeals against inclusion therefore challenged roughly half of those cleared.

Across Malda’s 12 constituencies, an estimated 58.4 per cent of appeals challenged inclusion. Habibpur, with a Muslim population of 4.64 per cent, had the district’s lowest estimated anti-inclusion share at 31.6 per cent, while Englishbazar, with a 19.57 per cent Muslim population, had the second-lowest at 39 per cent.

Murshidabad recorded 3,26,266 estimated appeals against inclusion, representing 43.6 per cent of its appeals. Evidence from Appellate Tribunal No. 11 also sheds light on who initiated many challenges. Orders dated May 8 and May 11 identify the state’s Additional Chief Electoral Officer as the appellant in cases seeking removal of electors already cleared.

Retired Justice Indrajit Chatterjee, who presides over Tribunal No. 11 covering 11 Murshidabad constituencies, has said roughly 2.54 lakh of about 6.36 lakh appeals before his tribunal were filed by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer. An independent constituency-based estimate put appeals against inclusion in those seats at about 2.61 lakh, or 41.1 per cent of the docket.

The Election Commission’s Supreme Court affidavit disclosed the statewide division between appeals against exclusion and inclusion but did not identify who filed the 16.10 lakh inclusion challenges. Questions over authorisation have also surfaced within the commission. Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu was reported to have sought clarification in August about who authorised appeals filed on the commission’s behalf and their procedural basis.

The commission has maintained before the Supreme Court that the revision did not alter West Bengal’s 2026 Assembly election outcome and has disputed arguments linking unresolved appeals directly to results. It also proposed increasing the number of appellate tribunals to accelerate disposal.

Only 1,26,194 of the 38,31,429 appeals had been decided when the commission filed its September affidavit, leaving 37,05,235 pending. Of the cases then disposed of, official figures showed 1,13,943 resulted in inclusion and 8,649 in exclusion.

Supporters split over tactics as protests widen

Differences among supporters of Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke and All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora have surfaced over protest tactics, even as the two leaders publicly maintain solidarity in the campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The disagreement has played out largely on social media after contrasting scenes from demonstrations in Mumbai and New Delhi. CJP supporters were able to hold a gathering at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park on October 2, while protesters attempting to reach Jantar Mantar in the capital encountered barricades, prohibitory orders and repeated detentions.

Questions over the contrasting outcomes prompted an exchange involving CJP spokesperson Saurav Das. Responding to criticism that CJP protesters could demonstrate in Mumbai while members of the National Students’ Union of India and Indian Youth Congress were detained in Delhi, Das argued that those detained immediately should reconsider their strategy rather than blame others.

His response drew criticism from users who circulated footage of Bora and other demonstrators being detained, with some accusing him of dismissing the difficulties faced by protesters in Delhi. The exchange exposed tactical differences among sections supporting a campaign whose participants broadly share demands over electoral rolls and Kumar’s position.

Dipke and Bora, however, have sought to prevent those arguments from becoming a personal rivalry. When an X user described Bora as more talented than Dipke, the CJP founder publicly agreed. Bora responded that the emphasis should be on solidarity rather than comparison and said they were fighting together. Dipke answered with the slogan “Inquilab Zindabad”.

Their public show of unity came as Bora remained at the centre of confrontations between demonstrators and police in New Delhi. Hundreds of protesters, including Bora and activist Yogendra Yadav, were detained for several hours on Sunday as demonstrations demanding Kumar’s resignation entered a third consecutive day.

Bora was detained while leading a march from the Andhra Bhavan Canteen towards Jantar Mantar. Protesters split into groups and moved towards Ashoka Road, where police erected barricades. Police sources put Sunday’s detentions at about 250, including AISA, Aam Aadmi Party and Indian Youth Congress workers. Bora was taken to Narela police station and released later that evening.

Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita remained in force in the New Delhi district, and roads around Jantar Mantar and Parliament Street were restricted. Police deployed buses and riot-control vehicles as protesters continued trying to reach the demonstration area.

The Delhi protest also drew society activists and members of political groups, underscoring the loose coalition behind the agitation and the difficulty of maintaining one strategy across organisations with different structures.

The agitation centres on allegations that the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has wrongly excluded eligible voters and benefited the governing Bharatiya Janata Party. The Election Commission and the government have denied allegations of manipulation. The Commission says the voter-verification exercise is intended to remove duplicate, deceased or otherwise ineligible entries, and has directed officials to register eligible voters who were omitted.

CJP launched its latest nationwide campaign with the Mumbai protest, saying demonstrations would continue until Kumar resigned. The group has announced further mobilisation in several cities and a major gathering in Delhi on October 10.

The widening protest has also drawn political organisations into arguments over who built the movement and whose methods have been effective. Aam Aadmi Party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj faced criticism after referring to “side players” while accusing what he called an ecosystem hostile to the earlier Jantar Mantar agitation of trying to appropriate it after its growth.

Student groups and Congress supporters objected to the description, saying it diminished Bora’s organising role. Bora had already become a prominent figure during the earlier student agitation over examination irregularities, while CJP grew from an online satirical initiative into a youth-led protest network.

CJP protesters pack Shivaji Park demanding CEC resignation

Thousands of protesters gathered at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park on Friday despite police denying permission for the demonstration, as the Cockroach Janta Party intensified its campaign demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

The Gandhi Jayanti protest, led by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, drew a predominantly young crowd carrying national flags, placards and banners questioning the Election Commission’s handling of electoral rolls. Police maintained a heavy presence around Shivaji Park and Dadar as organisers went ahead with the gathering after their application to hold it at the ground was rejected.

Dipke said the campaign would move to Delhi if Kumar did not step down, announcing another demonstration at Jantar Mantar on October 10. He said the planned agitation would be peaceful and called on people concerned about free and fair elections to participate.

The CJP has accused the Election Commission of serious irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and has sought greater transparency in the process. Its allegations remain contested, and the Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revisions are conducted under established legal procedures.

Friday’s turnout included actors Naseeruddin Shah and Shabana Azmi, filmmaker Vishal Bhardwaj, singer-composer Vishal Dadlani and Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson. CJP co-conveners Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were also present alongside Dipke.

Estimates of the crowd varied. Multiple accounts placed attendance in the thousands, while one local account put the gathering at about 4,000 and another estimated more than 10,000. No authoritative police crowd figure was immediately available, making a precise attendance number difficult to establish.

The protest followed the Mumbai Police decision to refuse permission for the October 2 gathering at Shivaji Park. Dipke had responded to the refusal by saying the group would proceed with a “Jail Bharo Andolan” if citizens were prevented from demonstrating. Organisers subsequently reiterated that Shivaji Park would remain the venue.

A complaint was later lodged at Shivaji Park police station over the demonstration being held without permission. The complainant cited a Bombay High Court order restricting protests at the ground and argued that demonstrations should be conducted at designated locations. The filing of the complaint did not by itself establish criminal liability against the organisers.

The CJP’s principal grievance centres on the Special Intensive Revision and questions surrounding changes to voter rolls. Opposition groups have alleged that eligible voters were improperly excluded and have demanded accountability from the Election Commission. The poll body has rejected allegations of partisan wrongdoing and defended the revision framework as lawful.

The Election Commission last week ordered a review of its voter-roll software after questions emerged about the operation of the revision system. The review is intended to examine whether the software and associated procedures comply with legal requirements. The Commission also announced measures for election officials to contact voters whose records contain discrepancies, reducing the need for affected citizens to visit government offices.

Dipke used his Shivaji Park address to criticise the BJP-led central government and Kumar, while also contrasting the policing of Friday’s Mumbai gathering with police action during an earlier CJP protest in Delhi. He thanked Mumbai Police for its handling of the demonstration but sharply criticised Delhi Police over its response to protesters there.

The Mumbai gathering coincided with demonstrations in Delhi involving the Aam Aadmi Party, Left-linked student organisations and civil society groups. Hundreds of people were detained in the capital as protesters attempted to reach Jantar Mantar, where restrictions had been imposed.

At Shivaji Park, demonstrators used satire, slogans and pop-culture references on placards to press their demand for Kumar to leave office. Some residents and local businesses, however, complained that the gathering caused disruption in the surrounding neighbourhood, adding a local dispute over the choice of venue to the wider confrontation over electoral-roll revisions.

Dipke said the CJP was prepared to sustain its campaign for three months. The group has presented Friday’s Mumbai mobilisation as the opening stage of a broader series of demonstrations, with the announced October 10 gathering in Delhi dependent on Kumar remaining in office.

Warring tenders Punjab Congress resignation to Rahul Gandhi

Amarinder Singh Raja Warring formally resigned as Punjab Congress president on Friday after meeting Rahul Gandhi in New Delhi, ending a four-and-a-half-year tenure at the head of the state unit.

Warring, the Congress MP from Ludhiana, said after the meeting that he had handed his resignation to Gandhi and briefed him on the political situation in Punjab, the party’s organisational challenges and its strengths ahead of the 2027 Assembly election.

The resignation was followed hours later by the appointment of Jalandhar Cantonment MLA Pargat Singh as president of the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge approved Singh’s appointment with immediate effect, completing a leadership change that had been signalled a day earlier by Warring himself.

Warring had changed his biography on X on Thursday, first describing himself as “Former President INC Punjab” and then as “Former PPCC President”, before the party had formally announced a replacement. The change intensified speculation over an organisational reshuffle after weeks of internal differences within the Punjab unit.

Speaking after his meeting with Gandhi, Warring said the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha had sought his assessment of conditions on the ground, including the Congress’s position and its approach towards the Aam Aadmi Party government.

“I shared with him my four-and-a-half years of experience as the Punjab Congress state president, what are the challenges we have, how we have to fight those challenges and where our strengths are,” Warring said, describing those issues as the context of the discussion.

He thanked Gandhi for entrusting him with the state organisation and said he remained available for any responsibility assigned by the Congress. Warring had taken over the Punjab unit in April 2022, following the party’s defeat in that year’s Assembly election, when it won 18 of the state’s 117 seats.

Warring also addressed questions about the circumstances surrounding his departure, saying he had formed an impression that Congress general secretary Sachin Pilot, who is in charge of Punjab, may have favoured a change in the state leadership. He stressed that he had no concrete evidence for that view.

“I feel that Sachin Pilot may have thought that Raja should be removed. I do not have any concrete evidence for this,” Warring told journalists. He said there had been no detailed discussion with Pilot over whether he should continue as state president.

The leadership transition follows months of visible differences among senior Punjab Congress figures. A section associated with former chief minister Charanjit Singh Channi had sought a change at the top of the state organisation, while Warring’s continuation had remained a point of contention within the unit.

Pilot had taken charge of Congress affairs in Punjab after replacing Bhupesh Baghel as the party’s state in-charge. His consultations with Punjab leaders formed part of the central leadership’s assessment of the organisation as it prepares for the next Assembly election.

Pargat Singh’s appointment settled immediate speculation over Warring’s successor. The former hockey captain has represented Jalandhar Cantonment in the Punjab Assembly since 2012 and previously served as a minister in the state government led by Channi.

The change places Pargat Singh in charge of a state unit that is seeking to manage factional differences while preparing to challenge the ruling Aam Aadmi Party and other rivals in the Assembly election due in 2027. The Congress had retained Warring in the state president’s post during an organisational exercise earlier this year before opting for another change.

Warring, meanwhile, indicated that he intended to take a break after leaving the post. He said he had worked continuously during his tenure and would remain a Congress worker despite relinquishing the organisational position.

Murmu assent clears Gujarat uniform civil code

President Droupadi Murmu has assented to the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2026, clearing the constitutional stage required for Gujarat to bring a common framework for marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships into force.

The President granted assent on September 17, according to Rashtrapati Bhavan records. The legislation was subsequently published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on October 1 as the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code, 2026, or Gujarat Act No. 15 of 2026.

The law does not take effect automatically with its publication. Its commencement clause provides that the state government will appoint the date on which it comes into force through a separate notification in the gazette. Gujarat must also frame and notify rules needed to administer the code.

The legislation creates a common statutory framework for personal civil matters across religious communities, while retaining specified constitutional exemptions. It covers marriage and divorce, succession and inheritance, and live-in relationships, including their registration and termination.

Members of Scheduled Tribes are excluded from the code. The exemption also extends to persons or groups whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution, which contains temporary, transitional and special provisions applying to specified states and communities.

The code extends throughout Gujarat and also applies to residents of the state who live outside its territorial boundaries, according to the legislation.

Among its central provisions, the law requires marriage registration and establishes common conditions for marriage. It prohibits a person from marrying while a spouse is living and prescribes a minimum marriage age of 21 for men and 18 for women. It also provides a statutory structure for divorce rather than leaving the matter to separate religion-based personal laws covered by the code.

The legislation also regulates live-in relationships. Partners are required to submit statements of their relationship to the designated registrar, subject to conditions and procedures laid down in the law. Children born from live-in relationships are recognised for legal purposes, while the code provides a mechanism for women to seek maintenance after desertion by a live-in partner.

Succession provisions set out rules for distribution of property where a person dies without a valid will. The framework provides inheritance rights without distinctions that existed under some personal-law systems and sets out shares and priorities among eligible heirs, including spouses, children and parents.

The Act also permits registration processes to be conducted through prescribed authorities and creates penalties for failures to comply, with operational details dependent on the rules that the government will issue.

The Gujarat Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on March 24 after a debate lasting more than seven hours. The measure had been prepared following recommendations from a state-appointed committee chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai, which examined the proposed framework before submitting its report to the government.

Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel tabled the Bill in the Assembly. The state government presented the measure as an effort to establish uniformity in civil law and strengthen equal treatment in matters including marriage and inheritance. Opposition parties challenged aspects of the legislation during the Assembly debate, including its scope and the government's approach to personal laws.

Presidential assent was required because the state legislation operates in fields where existing central laws and personal-law statutes may overlap. Article 254 of the Constitution provides a mechanism under which a state law on a Concurrent List subject that conflicts with an existing parliamentary law can prevail within that state when it has been reserved for, and receives, the President's assent, subject to Parliament's power to enact subsequent legislation.

Gujarat follows Uttarakhand, which enacted its Uniform Civil Code in 2024 and brought it into operation in January 2025. Assam's Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2026, has also received presidential assent, on September 29, according to Rashtrapati Bhavan's published list of state Bills.

Dipke reacts to Jantar Mantar internet slowdown

Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke has responded to reports of slow internet around Jantar Mantar during Friday’s protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, declaring on social media: “The dictator is scared!!! Really scared!!!”

Dipke did not identify the person he was referring to, and there was no official confirmation that internet services had been deliberately restricted. Reports from the area described connectivity problems as police imposed extensive security measures across central New Delhi ahead of demonstrations demanding Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Delhi Police had denied permission for the October 2 gathering and imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita across the New Delhi district. The restrictions barred unauthorised assemblies and demonstrations. Barricades were erected on approaches to Jantar Mantar, traffic was diverted and entry and exit at several Delhi Metro stations were temporarily closed. Authorities had also advised commuters to avoid affected routes around Connaught Place, Parliament Street and adjoining parts of the New Delhi district as regulated movement and diversions remained in force during Friday's demonstration there.

Hundreds of protesters nevertheless attempted to reach the demonstration site. Estimates of detentions varied, with accounts putting the number from more than 500 to about 1,000. Those detained included opposition politicians, student activists and members of civil-society groups. The protest was backed by organisations including the All India Students’ Association and political groups opposed to the Election Commission’s handling of the electoral-roll revision.

The internet disruption became another point of contention because no formal shutdown order was publicly announced. Reports from central Delhi described mobile internet as unusually slow near the protest zone, but the cause could not be independently established. Neither Dipke’s post nor the available official information provided evidence linking the connectivity problems to an intentional government action.

The Delhi demonstration was separate from the CJP’s mobilisation in Mumbai, where Dipke addressed thousands of supporters at Shivaji Park on Friday. The youth-led group has demanded Kumar’s resignation and challenged the conduct of the SIR, alleging that eligible voters have been removed from electoral rolls. The Election Commission has rejected allegations of wrongdoing and has maintained that the revision is intended to ensure accurate and lawful voter lists.

Dipke subsequently announced that the CJP would organise another demonstration at Jantar Mantar on October 10 if Kumar did not resign. He said supporters from across the country would march to Delhi and added that, if police stopped them before they reached the designated site, they would protest wherever they were halted.

He also said the proposed October 10 mobilisation would be peaceful and invoked Mahatma Gandhi’s approach to protest. The announcement followed the Mumbai demonstration, where the CJP said it was prepared to continue its campaign over electoral rolls for an extended period.

The controversy surrounding the SIR has intensified amid questions from opposition parties, activists and sections of civil society about voter deletions, documentation requirements and the Election Commission’s decision-making. The Commission has defended the exercise as part of its constitutional responsibility to maintain electoral rolls and has said eligible citizens have avenues to register or correct their entries.

Its voter services portal continues to provide facilities connected with the 2026 SIR, including checking names against earlier rolls, submitting documents in response to notices and filing Form 6 for new voter registration. Critics, however, argue that the scale and procedures of the revision risk excluding legitimate voters, a contention the Commission disputes.

Friday’s Delhi mobilisation had been called by student and civil-society groups, with Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha and advocate Prashant Bhushan among those associated with the protest call. Police said permission had not been granted and cited public-order requirements while enforcing restrictions around Jantar Mantar.

Fadnavis rejects SIR protest claims as fabricated

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Friday dismissed allegations surrounding the Election Commission’s voter-roll revision exercise as a “fabricated narrative”, as protesters gathered at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park demanding greater scrutiny of the electoral process.

The demonstration brought together activists associated with the Cockroach Janata Party and civil society participants who questioned the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and sought safeguards against wrongful deletion or exclusion of eligible voters.

Fadnavis rejected the protesters’ central contention that the revision exercise reflected systemic manipulation. He said claims being advanced against the Election Commission of India lacked substance and were being used to create public suspicion about an institution constitutionally responsible for conducting elections.

The chief minister’s intervention sharpened the political dispute over electoral-roll verification, which has become a major point of confrontation between the ruling establishment and groups challenging the manner in which voter lists are being examined.

Protesters at Shivaji Park maintained that their objections were directed at the procedures adopted during the revision and the possibility that eligible electors could face difficulties establishing their entitlement to remain on the rolls. Participants called for transparency, accessible verification mechanisms and effective opportunities to challenge exclusions.

The Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revision is intended to improve the accuracy of voter lists by ensuring that eligible citizens are included while removing entries that are duplicate, invalid or otherwise no longer qualify under electoral law. The commission has also stressed the availability of claims and objections procedures for electors affected by revisions.

Opponents of the SIR process have nevertheless raised questions about documentation requirements, verification standards and the practical burden placed on voters. They argue that an exercise involving large numbers of electors requires particularly strong safeguards because errors can affect the exercise of the franchise.

Supporters of the revision counter that periodic scrutiny of electoral rolls is an established administrative requirement and that inaccurate entries can themselves undermine confidence in elections. They have rejected assertions that verification automatically amounts to voter suppression, saying objections should be assessed against specific evidence and the procedures prescribed by the Election Commission.

Fadnavis’s comments came amid broader political arguments over the Election Commission’s functioning and the integrity of electoral rolls. Opposition parties and activist groups have demanded greater disclosure about additions and deletions, while governing-party leaders have accused critics of attempting to discredit the electoral system without substantiating their accusations.

The dispute has placed renewed attention on the safeguards available to voters whose names are omitted or whose eligibility is questioned. Electoral procedures provide avenues for submitting claims, correcting entries and objecting to proposed changes, while decisions taken by registration authorities remain subject to prescribed review mechanisms.

Civil society groups have argued that formal remedies alone may not be sufficient if voters lack information, documentation or easy access to officials. They have called for clearer communication, longer opportunities where necessary to resolve discrepancies and greater publication of data that would allow changes to electoral rolls to be independently examined.

The Election Commission, for its part, has repeatedly emphasised that preparation and revision of electoral rolls are conducted under constitutional and statutory provisions and that eligible voters should use the designated procedures to verify their registration and seek corrections.

Friday’s gathering also reflected the widening public dimension of the SIR controversy. What began largely as a dispute involving political parties and election authorities has increasingly drawn lawyers, campaign groups and other civic participants into arguments over voter eligibility, documentary verification and institutional accountability.

Fadnavis sought to draw a distinction between legitimate scrutiny and what he described as an organised attempt to build an unsupported narrative against the Election Commission. His remarks placed Maharashtra’s government firmly behind the commission’s authority while leaving individual complaints about electoral-roll entries to the mechanisms established under election law.

DTC offers INDIA entry if Mamata excluded

The Democratic Trinamool Congress has offered to join the Congress-led INDIA bloc if former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee is excluded from the Opposition alliance, party leader Md Akhruzzaman said on Friday.

Akhruzzaman, a legislator and chief whip associated with Ritabrata Banerjee’s camp, said the DTC wanted a united political fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party but would not enter an alliance that included Mamata Banerjee. He appealed to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and senior leader Sonia Gandhi to consider the demand.

“If the coalition leadership removes her, Democratic Trinamool Congress is ready to join and strengthen the hands of the alliance,” Akhruzzaman said, setting out the faction’s position as Opposition parties intensify their campaign over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The proposal places the Congress and its allies before a demand arising directly from West Bengal’s fractured Trinamool politics. Mamata Banerjee participated in an INDIA bloc meeting in New Delhi on Wednesday, alongside Kharge, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and leaders of several Opposition parties, where the grouping agreed on joint protests over electoral-roll revision and other election-related issues.

Akhruzzaman accused Mamata Banerjee’s faction of acting in ways that benefited the BJP, including through absences or walkouts during important parliamentary business. He also alleged that she had undermined Opposition unity during the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign. Those assertions are political allegations by the DTC leader and have not been established independently.

He argued that the alliance should choose between retaining Mamata Banerjee and accepting the DTC. Akhruzzaman said his faction wanted to fight the BJP collectively and claimed Mamata Banerjee could again distance herself from the Opposition grouping when politically advantageous.

The intervention follows a major rupture in the Trinamool Congress after the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election. Ritabrata Banerjee emerged as the principal figure in a rebel legislative camp that challenged Mamata Banerjee’s authority, while competing groups asserted claims over the party organisation, name and election symbol.

The split became public in June, when 58 of the Trinamool Congress’s 80 MLAs backed Ritabrata Banerjee as leader of the legislature party. The Speaker recognised him as Leader of the Opposition, while Akhruzzaman became chief whip of the rebel bloc. The faction later named senior MLA Arup Roy as its chairperson as it developed a parallel organisational structure.

Mamata Banerjee’s camp has rejected the rival faction’s claim to the original party identity and has pursued the dispute before the Election Commission and the courts. After the poll panel imposed interim names and symbols in September, she challenged the decision and said her group would continue to claim the organisation she founded and led.

The rival claims remain unresolved pending the Election Commission’s formal final determination.

The dispute subsequently reached the Election Commission, which temporarily froze the All India Trinamool Congress name and its Flowers and Grass symbol while the rival claims are examined. For by-elections, the faction associated with Ritabrata Banerjee was allotted the name Democratic Trinamool Congress and the envelope symbol, while Mamata Banerjee’s group received a separate interim name and symbol.

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to decide the dispute over the Trinamool name and symbol within three months. The court’s direction has put a timetable around a contest that has implications for the political identity and organisational assets claimed by the rival camps.

The DTC’s approach to the INDIA bloc also comes as Opposition parties seek greater coordination over the electoral-roll controversy. At Wednesday’s meeting, the alliance announced programmes including marches and demonstrations, with Kharge calling for greater transparency in additions, deletions and corrections to electoral rolls.

Mamata Banerjee was among the prominent participants at that meeting and backed the alliance’s campaign against the Election Commission’s handling of electoral issues. Her continued participation makes the DTC condition politically significant, although there has been no indication from the Congress leadership that the alliance is considering her exclusion.