India rebukes Vance over foreign workers description

India has sharply criticised US Vice President JD Vance for describing foreign technology professionals as indentured servants, calling his remarks unwarranted and deeply offensive as tensions between New Delhi and Washington intensify over skilled immigration restrictions.

The Ministry of External Affairs said on Friday that Vance's characterisation disregarded the contribution of highly qualified professionals from India to America's economy, technological development and innovation. It objected particularly to terminology associated with colonial exploitation and historical injustices.

The diplomatic rebuke followed Washington's decision to suspend eight major technology companies from a programme enabling employers to sponsor foreign workers for permanent residency. The affected companies include Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL Technologies and Capgemini.

New Delhi said the restrictions threatened mutually beneficial economic cooperation and failed to advance the shared ambitions of the two countries.

Vance defended the Trump administration's action by accusing technology companies of exploiting immigration arrangements to replace American employees with lower-paid overseas professionals. He argued that employers should recruit qualified domestic workers rather than rely on what he called foreign indentured servants.

The vice president alleged that H-1B employees earned substantially less than comparable American workers, claiming the wage differences allowed corporations to reduce labour costs while displacing domestic employees.

Those allegations remain contested, with affected employers defending their recruitment practices and compliance with immigration requirements.

India's foreign ministry rejected the broader characterisation of overseas professionals, stressing that generations of immigrants had contributed to America's prosperity through their skills, enterprise and labour.

It said the terminology employed by Vance carried painful historical and colonial associations, making its use particularly objectionable when referring to qualified professionals working legally in the United States.

The ministry also emphasised that international talent mobility benefited both economies, enabling American businesses to access specialised expertise while supporting innovation, research, productivity, competitiveness and employment.

Its intervention represents an unusually direct public criticism of a senior member of President Donald Trump's administration amid disagreements over immigration policy and economic cooperation.

The immediate dispute centres on the Permanent Labor Certification programme, commonly known as PERM, through which employers obtain certification before sponsoring eligible foreign employees for employment-based permanent residence.

The US Department of Labor has suspended the processing of applications involving the eight companies, citing concerns about compliance and the protection of American employment opportunities.

The restrictions affect an important pathway towards permanent residency but do not automatically invalidate temporary work authorisations.

New Delhi specifically clarified that the suspension does not independently affect existing H-1B visas or the lawful status of visa holders and their dependants. However, eligible employees pursuing green cards through the affected employers could encounter disruption.

The distinction matters because H-1B visas permit temporary employment in specialised occupations, whereas PERM certification forms part of the separate process through which employers sponsor workers for permanent residence.

The US administration maintains that stronger enforcement is necessary to prevent employers from circumventing domestic recruitment requirements and depressing wages.

Microsoft has disputed suggestions that its immigration practices systematically disadvantage American workers. The company has maintained that most of its workforce is American and that a substantial proportion of its H-1B filings concern existing employees rather than new overseas recruits.

The dispute has also raised questions about whether restricting permanent residency could leave some foreign professionals more dependent on individual employers, potentially weakening their bargaining position.

Technology companies from India have nevertheless sought to reassure investors that the immediate commercial consequences may be manageable.

Tata Consultancy Services said its limited reliance on PERM applications over the preceding two years meant the suspension was unlikely to materially alter its workforce strategy. The company has increasingly emphasised recruitment within the United States.

Industry analysts have similarly indicated that greater local hiring has reduced dependence on immigration sponsorship among several large technology services providers, although uncertainty over future recruitment and employee retention remains.

The restrictions arrive as technology businesses confront changing demand for specialised workers, rising compliance costs and increasing scrutiny of employment practices.

For affected employees, the practical consequences will depend on their immigration circumstances, the progress of existing applications and whether alternative sponsorship arrangements are available.

The labour certification process ordinarily requires employers to demonstrate that sufficiently qualified and available American workers cannot fill the advertised positions and that employing foreign nationals will not adversely affect prevailing wages or working conditions.

Supreme Court affirms protest rights, curbs Delhi shutdown

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fundamental right to peaceful protest while insisting that demonstrations must comply with the law, as it questioned sweeping security restrictions imposed across Delhi ahead of Saturday’s planned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) agitation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana examined restrictions affecting public transport, movement and access to the capital after senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised concerns about their impact on constitutional freedoms.

The court made clear that authorities could not impose disproportionate restrictions affecting millions of residents merely because a demonstration was planned. It opposed blanket closures of Metro and railway services and emphasised the need to balance public safety with citizens’ rights.

The intervention followed proposals to close 57 Delhi Metro stations and cancel several trains serving the capital, alongside extensive barricading, police deployments and restrictions around central Delhi.

The bench recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s assurance that authorities would reconsider the transport restrictions and permit services to operate in a regulated manner. It also called for appropriate traffic advisories to minimise inconvenience.

Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned whether the authorities were responding proportionately to the anticipated gathering. The bench stressed that preventive measures should address genuine security requirements without unnecessarily disrupting ordinary public life.

However, the judges also questioned the organisers’ decision to proceed despite Delhi Police refusing permission for the proposed gathering at Jantar Mantar.

Justice Bagchi observed that a protest conducted without the necessary permission would not comply with the law. The bench asked why the organisers had not directly challenged the police decision denying authorisation.

The court sought details about the expected number of demonstrators and arrangements proposed by the organisers. It indicated that such information was necessary to determine whether the gathering could be accommodated through reasonable regulation.

Sibal and the other senior advocates argued that the administration’s measures extended far beyond restrictions on a particular demonstration. They highlighted disruptions to transport services and limitations affecting people who had no connection with the proposed agitation.

The lawyers maintained that sweeping preventive orders could interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens to move freely and assemble peacefully. They urged judicial scrutiny of measures affecting the wider population.

The court acknowledged these concerns while emphasising that freedom of assembly was subject to lawful restrictions intended to protect public order.

The proceedings centred on the CJP’s proposed demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The organisers and opposition parties have accused the Election Commission of implementing an electoral revision process that has resulted in large-scale deletion of voters’ names. The allegations have been rejected by the authorities, who maintain that electoral roll verification is necessary to ensure accuracy.

Delhi Police denied permission for the Jantar Mantar gathering, citing procedural deficiencies and concerns about maintaining law and order.

Police officials said the organisers submitted their application on October 7, whereas the applicable procedure required advance notice of at least 10 days. Authorities also cited concerns arising from compliance with directions during earlier demonstrations.

The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently warned state governments and Union Territories about possible law-and-order implications arising from the proposed mobilisation.

The ministry referred to the rejection of permission and existing judicial directions governing demonstrations at designated locations. It maintained that gatherings must comply with established legal procedures.

Security preparations meanwhile included the deployment of thousands of police and paramilitary personnel, particularly around Jantar Mantar and other sensitive areas of central Delhi.

Police divided the capital into security zones and established additional checkpoints to regulate movement towards potential protest locations.

Arrangements included reserve personnel, senior officers supervising sensitive areas and buses intended for transporting detained demonstrators if required.

Officers were also equipped with body-worn cameras to document interactions during crowd-control operations.

CJP representatives criticised the restrictions, arguing that the measures would prevent supporters from exercising their democratic rights. They maintained that the demonstration was intended to draw attention to concerns over electoral accountability.

Police officials defended their preparations as necessary to prevent unauthorised gatherings and maintain public safety.

The court separately asked the authorities to issue traffic information enabling residents and commuters to plan their journeys around affected areas.

Supreme Court weighs priority hearings for deleted Bengal voters

The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it would consider directing electoral tribunals in West Bengal to prioritise appeals from voters whose names were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine the issue on October 16, following an urgent request from voters seeking restoration of their names before municipal elections expected in Kolkata and Howrah in November.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, acknowledged difficulties confronting the appellate tribunals and indicated that appeals seeking restoration of deleted names could be heard before petitions demanding further deletions.

Chief Justice Kant said the court was examining ways to address the mounting appeals and would consider asking tribunals to defer cases seeking deletion while giving precedence to those seeking inclusion.

The intervention followed submissions by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing affected voters, who warned that prolonged proceedings could prevent eligible electors from participating in another election.

The petitioners sought expedited disposal of appeals or, alternatively, permission for voters whose challenges remained undecided to participate in the forthcoming municipal elections.

Sankaranarayanan argued that waiting until the next scheduled hearing of the broader SIR proceedings could leave insufficient time for resolving appeals before the municipal election process began.

The court initially considered hearing the matter later in October but indicated that it would explore an earlier listing on October 16, given the urgency raised by counsel.

Justice Bagchi acknowledged that the tribunals faced operational difficulties, including problems with the software supporting the appeals process. He indicated that technological arrangements and procedural fairness required further examination alongside the Election Commission.

The court's observations did not constitute a final direction changing the order in which appeals must be heard. That question remains subject to further consideration when the matter returns before the bench.

The scale of unresolved litigation has become a central concern. Figures submitted by the Election Commission to the Supreme Court in September showed that 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed concerning electoral roll inclusions and exclusions.

Of these, approximately 22.21 lakh were filed by voters seeking restoration of deleted names, while about 16.10 lakh challenged the inclusion of names on the rolls.

The Commission also informed the court that approximately 37 lakh appeals remained pending, highlighting the considerable workload facing the appellate system established to examine disputes arising from the revision exercise.

Nineteen tribunals were handling the appeals, while the Election Commission had proposed expanding their number to 42 to accelerate disposal of the accumulated cases.

Bhushan told the bench that approximately 93 per cent of the appeals decided so far had resulted in restoration of deleted voters' names. He cited the figure while seeking faster consideration of outstanding challenges.

The percentage was presented by counsel during the hearing and was not an independent finding announced by the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argued that the high proportion of successful appeals strengthened the case for prioritising voters challenging their exclusion rather than allowing their cases to remain unresolved alongside petitions seeking additional deletions.

Their immediate concern centred on the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation elections, which they said were expected during the latter part of November.

The application indicated that approximately 1.7 lakh appeals involving the two municipal areas remained pending, potentially affecting voters seeking to participate in those elections.

Counsel also referred to difficulties encountered during earlier elections, when individuals whose names had been excluded were unable to vote while their appeals remained undecided.

The legal position remains significant because filing an appeal against deletion does not automatically restore a person's eligibility to vote. Electoral registration must satisfy the applicable requirements before a ballot can be cast.

During the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Supreme Court had permitted voters whose appeals were allowed within specified deadlines to participate through supplementary electoral rolls, while clarifying that pending appeals alone did not confer voting eligibility.

The latest application therefore raises separate questions concerning the speed of tribunal decisions and whether interim arrangements might be necessary for electors awaiting adjudication.

Tribunal judges have also flagged shortcomings in the Election Commission's digital appeals platform, including difficulties issuing notices, conducting proceedings and implementing orders restoring names to electoral rolls.

Those operational concerns form part of the wider proceedings examining whether the existing appellate machinery can process the outstanding disputes effectively and within election-related deadlines.

The Election Commission's September affidavit placed the number of appeals challenging inclusion at 16.10 lakh, underscoring the competing categories of cases before the tribunals.

Rahul Gandhi says Murmu left electoral allegations unchallenged

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said on Friday he was “shocked and stunned” that President Droupadi Murmu had not disputed the Opposition’s allegations of electoral irregularities during a meeting with INDIA bloc leaders, although she asked them to produce supporting evidence.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha made the remarks after a delegation met Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan and submitted a memorandum demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged manipulation of electoral rolls and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Gandhi claimed the President neither rejected the delegation’s accusations nor challenged its account of alleged electoral malpractice. He interpreted her response as acceptance of the Opposition’s concerns, an interpretation subsequently rejected by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

“I was shocked and stunned that the President of India accepted what we said,” Gandhi told journalists outside Rashtrapati Bhavan. He said the delegation had expected Murmu to defend the integrity of the electoral system.

The Congress leader said the memorandum accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Kumar of conspiring to undermine democracy. These accusations remain allegations advanced by the Opposition and have not been established through an independent judicial determination.

Gandhi said Murmu requested evidence of what the Opposition describes as “vote chori”, or vote theft. He maintained that substantial material had already been collected and promised that the delegation would furnish documentation supporting its charges.

The President's request for evidence does not, by itself, establish agreement with the accusations. No independent confirmation was available that Murmu had endorsed the Opposition's interpretation of the meeting or accepted its allegations as proven.

The BJP sharply challenged Gandhi's account. Party spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi described his assertion that the President had accepted the allegations as a lie and accused him of dragging constitutional institutions into partisan confrontation.

Trivedi called Gandhi's remarks unfortunate and bizarre, arguing that the Congress leader was attempting to use the President's constitutional position to lend credibility to unsubstantiated political accusations.

The exchange followed an hour-long meeting involving senior Opposition figures, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee. The delegation sought presidential intervention over the Election Commission's functioning and the controversy surrounding revisions to electoral registers.

The memorandum demanded Kumar's resignation and measures to address voters allegedly excluded from electoral rolls. Opposition leaders have questioned the deletion of approximately 13.3 crore names, although the interpretation of that figure and the legitimacy of individual deletions remain contested.

The delegation also demanded a return to paper ballots for future elections, reflecting its objections to electronic voting machines and concerns about transparency in the electoral process.

Another demand concerned legal protections available to election commissioners. Opposition parties sought changes to the statutory framework governing the Election Commission, including provisions they contend weaken accountability for decisions taken by its members.

Gandhi announced that Opposition representatives intended to approach Chief Justice of India on Monday with a memorandum outlining their complaints. The proposed approach would extend their campaign from parliamentary demonstrations and presidential representations to the judiciary.

The Opposition's central objection concerns the SIR exercise, which involves verification and revision of electoral registers. Its leaders contend that the process has resulted in the exclusion of eligible voters and could affect electoral outcomes.

The Election Commission maintains that electoral roll revision is necessary to ensure accurate voter lists. The dispute centres on whether the verification procedures adequately protect eligible citizens against wrongful deletion and provide effective opportunities for correction.

The confrontation has intensified through successive demonstrations in New Delhi, where Opposition parliamentarians have attempted to march towards the Election Commission and other constitutional institutions.

Earlier on Friday, police barricades prevented protesting lawmakers from proceeding beyond Vijay Chowk during a march associated with their demand for Kumar's removal. Several leaders continued their demonstration before the delegation met Murmu.

The protests have also drawn attention to the procedures governing the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner, whose constitutional protections require a parliamentary process rather than dismissal through an executive direction.

Opposition leaders have maintained that their campaign seeks accountability for electoral administration, while the ruling party argues that accusations of systematic manipulation are politically motivated and unsupported by conclusive evidence.

Gandhi said the delegation remained willing to place its evidence before the President. He also indicated that further documentation would accompany the Opposition's representations concerning electoral rolls and the conduct of the Election Commission.

The presidential meeting took place on Friday evening, following several days of demonstrations by Opposition parties in the national capital.

Delhi Police detain CJP founder aboard arriving flight

Delhi Police detained Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke aboard an aircraft after it landed in the capital on Saturday morning, hours before a planned protest at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Police personnel entered the aircraft arriving from Mumbai and took Dipke and two fellow CJP leaders, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, into custody. Dipke broadcast the police intervention live on Instagram, bringing public attention to the operation.

The CJP confirmed the three detentions, which followed the authorities' refusal to permit Saturday's demonstration. Police had sought cancellation of the gathering amid extensive security arrangements across Delhi.

The action at the airport came as officers detained demonstrators elsewhere in the capital. Around 200 people were taken into custody during operations intended to prevent protesters assembling near Jantar Mantar, the designated location for the CJP's rally.

Police deployed personnel, established barricades and restricted access to sensitive areas. Transport disruptions and restrictions on mobile internet in parts of central Delhi further complicated movement as supporters attempted to reach the protest venue.

Dipke had travelled from Mumbai despite warnings that organisers could face detention. Before leaving, he said he was prepared to go to jail rather than abandon the campaign against alleged wrongful deletions from electoral rolls.

The CJP's principal demand is the resignation of Kumar, whom it accuses of overseeing an electoral roll revision that has deprived eligible citizens of voting rights. The movement argues that the Special Intensive Revision exercise has disproportionately affected vulnerable voters.

The Election Commission rejects allegations of politically motivated manipulation. It maintains that verification is intended to improve the accuracy of voter lists and that eligible people excluded in error have procedures available to seek restoration.

The dispute has become a broader confrontation over electoral administration, political accountability and the right to demonstrate. Opposition groups have questioned the revision process, while the Bharatiya Janata Party denies accusations that it has benefited from deliberate exclusion of voters.

The CJP disputes the authorities' decision to prohibit the Jantar Mantar gathering, maintaining that peaceful public assembly is a democratic right. Police have defended restrictions on demonstrations as necessary for maintaining public order and security.

Saturday's airport intervention was conspicuous because officers boarded an aircraft rather than waiting for the organisers to leave the terminal. The Instagram broadcast showed the police presence as the movement's founder faced detention before reaching the streets of Delhi.

There was no independently confirmed information immediately available on whether formal criminal charges had been registered against the three leaders, how long they would remain in custody or whether they would be brought before a magistrate.

The distinction between preventive detention and arrest under a registered criminal case is significant. Detention does not by itself establish that an individual has been charged with an offence, and the legal basis for the airport operation had not been publicly detailed.

The CJP had urged supporters to remain peaceful, avoid damaging property and refrain from forcing their way through police barricades. Its advisory also called for restraint when recording and circulating material concerning the demonstration.

Those instructions followed heightened tension between the organisers and authorities over access to the protest location. The group had encouraged participation despite the denial of permission, placing its supporters at risk of confrontation with officers enforcing restrictions.

Earlier in the week, Das had publicly warned that CJP organisers could be detained before Saturday's mobilisation. He identified Dipke, Ranka and other members of the leadership among those he believed might face police action.

The movement's organisers have used social media to mobilise young supporters and circulate their demands. Dipke's decision to broadcast the airport encounter was consistent with that approach, allowing followers to see the intervention while it was unfolding.

Separate detention claims also emerged from members of the CJP's legal team. Ratna Singh, associated with the organisation's legal work, said she and other lawyers had been detained ahead of the gathering.

The planned protest was described by organisers as Jantar Mantar 2.0, reflecting an effort to renew demonstrations focused on the Election Commission. CJP supporters had also held an event in Bengaluru on Thursday concerning the electoral roll controversy.

Saturday's preparations included additional police checks and restrictions around central Delhi, with authorities seeking to prevent crowds from converging on Jantar Mantar. The CJP had called for demonstrations beyond the capital as part of its campaign.

Murli Manohar Joshi rejects force against student protesters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Supreme Court judge seeks recall of SIR verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prakash Raj, Dhruv Rathee join Bengaluru SIR protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air India recalls Riyadh flight amid missile threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tharoor cautions opposition against boycotting elections over irregularities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi Police scrutinise CJP networks before October protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samajwadi Party boycotts Congress lunch amid coordination dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nana Patekar dies following cardiac arrest in Goa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DMK backs Rahul protest despite Tamil Nadu dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madras High Court sustains FCRA refusal to Zen trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global scrutiny widens over India voter-roll dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court demands basis for Abhishek security downgrade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mumbai voters challenge SIR home-visit implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CJP notifies police of October 10 protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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