CJP volunteers breach Jantar Mantar barriers, face detention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarma conditions ballot elections on Congress government resignations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDIA bloc march fills central Delhi streets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPJ presses Delhi Police to cease journalist detentions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi High Court withholds interim protection for ED

The Delhi High Court has rejected the Enforcement Directorate's request for interim protection over properties attached in the National Herald money laundering case, allowing Associated Journals Limited (AJL) to pursue their release before a statutory appellate tribunal.

Justice Sachin Datta declined on Monday to order the parties to maintain the status quo while the court examines the agency's challenge to a trial court decision refusing to take cognisance of its prosecution complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, among others.

The judge said no interim order would be passed at this stage and listed the matter for further hearing on November 2. The decision leaves AJL free to press its application before the appellate tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), without determining whether the attached assets should ultimately be released.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, argued that the companies involved were relying on the trial court's December 16, 2025 ruling to secure release of assets already attached by investigators. He sought an order preserving the existing position until the High Court ruled on the agency's challenge.

Raju told the bench that the trial court's refusal to proceed with the complaint was being used to obtain relief before the tribunal. After Justice Datta declined to intervene, the law officer suggested that the parties could instead seek an adjournment of the tribunal proceedings. The judge did not issue such a direction.

The properties include Herald House on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg in Delhi, which houses premises associated with AJL, the publisher of the National Herald. Other assets linked to the company in Mumbai and Lucknow have also been subject to attachment proceedings.

The ruling concerns the immediate handling of the assets rather than the merits of the money laundering allegations. An attachment under the PMLA restricts dealings in specified property, while the appellate tribunal can consider challenges to the attachment. The High Court's refusal to impose a temporary restraint does not itself cancel the ED's attachment orders.

The agency's appeal follows a December ruling by Special Judge Vishal Gogne at Delhi's Rouse Avenue Courts. The judge declined to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint, holding that the money laundering proceedings could not be founded on the private criminal complaint underlying the case without the required registration or investigation of a scheduled offence.

The dispute centres on the legal foundation necessary for proceedings under the PMLA. The ED maintains that a private complaint on which a competent court has taken cognisance can establish the necessary underlying offence. It argues that the trial court adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of the legislation.

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have opposed that position. Their response to the High Court argues that a private complaint cannot substitute for the legally recognised basis required to begin a money laundering investigation and prosecution. They have contested both the agency's procedural approach and its allegations concerning the transactions.

The ED alleges that Young Indian, a company associated with the Gandhi family, obtained control over AJL through arrangements connected with debt owed by the newspaper publisher to the Congress party. Investigators allege that the transactions enabled control over valuable property assets. Those allegations remain disputed and have not been established by a criminal conviction.

AJL's financial disclosures record that properties in Delhi, Mumbai and Lucknow were provisionally attached in November 2023 and that the adjudicating authority confirmed the attachment in April 2024. The company subsequently appealed against that action before the PMLA appellate tribunal.

The Gandhis submitted their written opposition to the agency's petition in September. They questioned the use of a private complaint to initiate proceedings and disputed the ED's interpretation of the statutory safeguards. Their submissions did not settle the issue, which remains before the High Court for further judicial determination.

The agency filed its prosecution complaint in April 2025, naming the Gandhi leaders and other individuals and entities. The trial court's refusal to take cognisance meant the complaint did not advance into trial on that basis, prompting the ED to seek intervention from the High Court.

Counsel appearing during Monday's hearing included senior advocates representing Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and the companies involved. The High Court heard the agency's initial submissions but did not decide its principal challenge to the trial court's interpretation of the law.

Tharoor dismisses Congress-CJP rivalry, commends Neha Bora

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has rejected suggestions of rivalry between his party and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), praising student leader Neha Bora for her courage during demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Tharoor said the two movements were pursuing shared democratic principles rather than competing for political influence. He pointed to Bora's participation in Monday's INDIA bloc protest in New Delhi as evidence that the mobilisation crossed organisational boundaries.

“Personally, I don't see it as a contest at all,” Tharoor said in an interview on Monday, describing Bora as a prominent figure in the CJP-led demonstrations that faced extensive police restrictions over the weekend.

The Congress leader said Bora, national president of the All India Students' Association (AISA), travelled on the same bus as Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi during the opposition march. Tharoor said he met her and that she took a selfie with him.

He called Bora “a terrific girl” and welcomed her participation, saying the presence of activists from different organisations demonstrated their common concerns. He added that democratic forces, whatever their party affiliations, could support the same principles without treating each other's efforts as a contest.

Tharoor also endorsed the public recognition Bora had received after she became a prominent face of the protests. He attributed the attention to her willingness to confront restrictions and her commitment to her beliefs, rather than any competition with established opposition politicians.

His remarks followed Monday's opposition march towards the Supreme Court, where INDIA bloc leaders sought to raise concerns about the Election Commission. Rahul Gandhi and other opposition representatives subsequently submitted a petition after Chief Justice Surya Kant declined a request for a meeting and directed them towards judicial procedures.

The demonstration followed a weekend of police action against the CJP's attempts to assemble at Jantar Mantar. Organisers demanded Kumar's resignation over allegations concerning voter registration and electoral integrity. The Election Commission has rejected accusations of favouring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Police detained thousands of demonstrators on Saturday, including CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, before releasing them. Protesters then gathered in smaller groups across parts of Delhi after access to the intended venue was restricted. Bora was among those detained as activists attempted to relocate the demonstration.

She urged supporters to gather at Dilli Haat after police blocked access to Jantar Mantar. Even while detained, she appealed for demonstrations to continue elsewhere, stressing that the movement would not end because individual participants had been taken into custody. She was released later that day.

Tharoor contrasted the police response over the weekend with the handling of Monday's opposition march. He praised the central government and Delhi Police for allowing the Congress-led mobilisation to proceed largely without interference, notwithstanding barricades and a substantial security deployment.

He described that response as mature and sensible, while saying the police presence appeared larger than necessary. Tharoor suggested that Supreme Court observations concerning restrictions on demonstrations might have influenced the authorities' approach. That was his assessment, rather than a stated explanation from the police.

He also rejected comparisons that cast the Congress mobilisation as a struggle for attention against the CJP. Congress remained the principal national political opposition to the BJP, he argued, but that did not prevent student activists and other democratic groups from working on issues of common concern.

Bora, 29, is a doctoral researcher at Jawaharlal Nehru University who has become increasingly visible through demonstrations concerning examination irregularities, unemployment and government accountability. She previously participated in protests against the citizenship legislation of 2019 and has used speeches in Hindi and English to connect student grievances with questions of constitutional rights.

The latest demonstrations have centred on claims by CJP organisers of large-scale deletions from electoral rolls. Those allegations remain contested. The Election Commission denies political bias, while the BJP has accused opposition groups of undermining confidence in the electoral system through unsupported accusations.

The campaign brought together student organisers, political activists and opposition supporters around demands for accountability from the election authorities. Their methods and institutional roles differed, however, with the Congress pursuing a petition while the CJP mobilised street demonstrations under police restrictions.

Bora's presence alongside senior Congress figures on Monday came after her repeated detentions during the weekend demonstrations, when protesters adapted their gathering points in response to barricades and restrictions across central Delhi.

Supreme Court directs removal of unnecessary Delhi barricades

The Supreme Court has directed authorities to remove barricades across Delhi unless absolutely necessary, while ordering the restoration of normal public movement following widespread restrictions imposed during protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).

A special bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the directions on Sunday while hearing petitions challenging the closure of Metro stations, restrictions on transport services and police action against demonstrators demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The court said barricades should be removed unless “absolutely warranted” by public order requirements. It emphasised that restrictions on movement must remain proportionate and should not unnecessarily inconvenience residents, commuters or people seeking access to essential services.

The judges also directed authorities to ensure that Metro and railway operations continued normally, subject to lawful security regulations. They made clear that maintaining public order did not justify sweeping prohibitions affecting people unconnected with the demonstrations.

The bench issued notices to the Centre and Delhi authorities over allegations that restrictions imposed on Saturday violated earlier judicial directions against blanket transport shutdowns. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Tuesday.

The proceedings followed complaints that 45 Metro stations, principally around central Delhi, had been closed during the protests, disrupting journeys and limiting access to areas surrounding Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place and government offices.

The court sought explanations from the authorities responsible for the restrictions and questioned whether the measures complied with its earlier instructions requiring transport services to remain operational wherever possible.

The judges also addressed allegations of unlawful detention, excessive police force and obstruction of lawyers and journalists. They directed that peaceful demonstrators should not be detained without legal justification and that lawyers must be allowed access to courts.

The bench emphasised that journalists performing professional duties should not face unlawful interference. Allegations concerning police conduct and restrictions on access to public places were among the matters raised during the proceedings.

Internet connectivity also came under judicial scrutiny. The court said services should not be interrupted except through procedures authorised by law, reinforcing its insistence that security arrangements must respect statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The directions followed an earlier intervention by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which questioned the justification for extensive restrictions on Metro and railway services ahead of Saturday's demonstrations.

That bench had observed that public transport could be regulated to address genuine security concerns but should not be completely suspended merely because large gatherings were anticipated.

Despite those observations, substantial restrictions remained in place during Saturday's protests, prompting lawyers and petitioners to seek further judicial intervention.

The CJP demonstrations were organised against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and to demand Kumar's resignation. Protest organisers alleged that the revision process threatened voting rights and could exclude legitimate electors.

The Election Commission and the government have rejected allegations of electoral manipulation. The Bharatiya Janata Party has maintained that electoral roll revisions are necessary to ensure accurate voter lists and remove invalid entries.

Police had denied permission for the planned Jantar Mantar demonstration, citing public order concerns. Security personnel subsequently established barricades at important intersections and restricted access to several central Delhi locations.

Demonstrators nevertheless gathered at different locations, leading to confrontations with police and the detention of activists, student leaders and political representatives.

Petitioners argued that the restrictions affected fundamental freedoms, including peaceful assembly and movement, and imposed disproportionate hardship on people who were not participating in the protests.

The authorities' responsibility to maintain security was acknowledged during the hearing, but the court stressed that preventive measures must have an adequate legal basis and remain limited to what circumstances required.

The judges also addressed restrictions near the Supreme Court premises, emphasising that access to justice must not be obstructed through indiscriminate prohibitory arrangements.

The proceedings included applications concerning detained protesters and allegations that officials had disregarded earlier directions on public transport.

The court sought compliance information from the relevant authorities, including details of restrictions imposed and the measures undertaken to restore services.

The petitions concerning detentions and alleged non-compliance are expected to receive further consideration at Tuesday's hearing, when the authorities must respond to the judicial notices.

DSGMC seeks police action against Kejriwal over gurdwara protest

The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) has lodged a police complaint against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, party legislators and workers over an alleged attempt to stage a political protest inside Gurdwara Sri Bangla Sahib.

DSGMC president Harmeet Singh Kalka submitted the complaint on Sunday to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi district, alleging that protesters had violated the sanctity of the Sikh shrine during Saturday's demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The committee accused AAP supporters of entering the gurdwara premises, raising political slogans and subsequently circulating misleading videos that portrayed the incident inaccurately and damaged the reputation of the religious institution.

Kalka said the alleged conduct had hurt Sikh sentiments and demanded action against those responsible. A delegation accompanying him submitted video footage purportedly showing protesters inside the complex.

The complaint requested police to identify individuals appearing in the recordings, establish who organised and directed their movements and determine whether the disturbance was deliberately orchestrated.

The DSGMC alleged that political slogans were raised within the sacred premises, disturbing the religious atmosphere and violating the established code of conduct, known as maryada, governing worship at Sikh gurdwaras.

It also accused AAP legislators and other party representatives of distributing selective recordings on social media while blaming the gurdwara management for the confrontation.

Kejriwal was specifically accused of endorsing and amplifying that account despite what the committee described as evidence concerning the conduct of party supporters.

The allegations remain disputed, and the filing of a complaint does not establish wrongdoing by Kejriwal or any other individual named.

The controversy arose when protesters attempting to reach Jantar Mantar during demonstrations against the Election Commission encountered police restrictions and some entered the gurdwara complex.

Police subsequently detained protesters from the area, triggering accusations that officers had entered a place of worship improperly.

AAP leaders challenged the police operation, alleging that personnel entered the gurdwara to apprehend demonstrators who had sought shelter there.

Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann condemned the police action, arguing that gurdwaras traditionally provide refuge to people requiring protection and assistance.

Mann maintained that protesters seeking shelter should have been accommodated by sevadars, the volunteers who serve worshippers and visitors at Sikh shrines.

His intervention placed the conduct of police personnel alongside the protesters' activities at the centre of the dispute.

Kalka acknowledged concerns about the police presence but distinguished between officers entering the gurdwara complex and entering its principal prayer hall.

He said Delhi Police personnel had used a passage within the premises while pursuing protesters but had not entered the Darbar Hall, where religious observances take place.

Nevertheless, Kalka maintained that uniformed police personnel should not have entered the religious premises.

He separately alleged that police officers accompanying Mann during a visit to Bangla Sahib had worn shoes, raising another question concerning observance of religious protocols.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma offered an explanation of the police movement on Saturday.

Sharma said officers had passed through a common passage used by devotees to reach the designated area where footwear is removed before entering the shrine.

He disputed the portrayal of the operation in videos circulated online and alleged that footage had been distributed with malicious intent.

The officer indicated that legal action would be pursued against those responsible for circulating misleading material.

The competing accounts have left several questions concerning the precise location of the police intervention, the protesters' activities and the circumstances surrounding their detention.

The DSGMC maintained that its complaint concerned both the alleged political activity inside the shrine and the subsequent presentation of the incident through social media recordings.

It expressed concern that the disruption and circulation of selective footage could have been intended to provoke religious sentiments and undermine the gurdwara management.

The committee sought an investigation into those possibilities rather than limiting police scrutiny to individuals physically present during the confrontation.

Saturday's demonstrations formed part of the Cockroach Janta Party-led mobilisation demanding Kumar's resignation over allegations concerning electoral rolls and the Election Commission's functioning.

The Election Commission has rejected allegations of electoral manipulation.

Security restrictions around central Delhi prevented several groups of demonstrators from reaching their intended protest venue at Jantar Mantar.

The Bangla Sahib complex, situated near Connaught Place, became one of the locations where protesters encountered police personnel during the restrictions imposed across the capital.

CJP sets deadline for Delhi protest permission

Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders will approach Delhi Police on Monday to secure a date for a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar, giving the authorities 24 hours to respond before announcing another protest independently.

CJP co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, accompanied by legal affairs head Ratna Singh and other representatives, are scheduled to visit Parliament Street Police Station at 10 am to seek formal permission for the gathering.

Ranka announced the decision on Sunday, saying the organisation would proceed with its mobilisation plans if police failed to provide an acceptable date within the stipulated period.

The move follows the release of three senior CJP leaders who were detained at Delhi airport on Saturday ahead of a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, Das and Ranka were detained after arriving from Mumbai at Indira Gandhi International Airport. They were released on Sunday after being produced before an executive magistrate and required to execute bonds undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour.

The leaders subsequently accused police of preventing them from exercising their democratic right to peaceful assembly. They alleged that their mobile telephones had been confiscated and that they were denied access to legal assistance during detention.

Delhi Police maintained that the detentions were preventive measures undertaken under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The release conditions included an undertaking to maintain peace for one year.

The organisation's renewed request places the immediate responsibility for determining the next demonstration date with the police authorities. No confirmation of an allotted date had emerged when the leaders announced their proposed visit.

The CJP had originally planned a demonstration at Jantar Mantar on Saturday, October 10, focusing on allegations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and demanding accountability from the Election Commission.

Its principal demand remains Kumar's resignation. The organisation has accused the election authorities of allowing irregularities that could affect voter eligibility and the integrity of electoral registers.

The Election Commission has rejected allegations of deliberate electoral manipulation. The government and the Bharatiya Janata Party have also disputed opposition accusations concerning the revision exercise.

The controversy has nevertheless prompted demonstrations involving student organisations, opposition activists and civil society groups, with protesters demanding greater transparency in the preparation and verification of electoral rolls.

Security restrictions imposed across parts of New Delhi during the weekend demonstrations resulted in confrontations between protesters and police. Numerous demonstrators were detained as authorities attempted to prevent unauthorised gatherings.

Police have defended restrictions on assemblies as necessary for maintaining public order, while protest organisers have questioned the proportionality of the measures and alleged interference with constitutional freedoms.

The CJP leadership has maintained that its proposed gathering would be peaceful and that the organisation intends to follow the procedures required for holding demonstrations at the designated protest venue.

Earlier, Das said the organisation had submitted formal notification concerning its planned protest and received acknowledgement from Delhi Police. He maintained that organisers had completed the required documentation and provided an undertaking sought by the authorities.

The dispute over permission has become a central issue following the unsuccessful attempt to assemble at Jantar Mantar over the weekend.

CJP representatives have argued that authorities should facilitate peaceful protests rather than prevent them through detention or restrictions on movement. Police, meanwhile, retain responsibility for assessing proposed gatherings against applicable security and public order requirements.

At a press conference following their release, the detained leaders raised concerns about the handling of their electronic devices. Das alleged that police had forcibly taken their telephones, while the organisers expressed apprehension about possible interference with the devices.

Those allegations have not been independently established, and no official finding concerning possible interference with the telephones has been disclosed.

The organisation has also indicated that its campaign will continue beyond Delhi, with supporters mobilising around demands relating to electoral transparency and the functioning of the Election Commission.

The proposed meeting at Parliament Street Police Station is intended to establish whether authorities will permit another demonstration at Jantar Mantar under mutually agreed arrangements.

Ratna Singh, who oversees the organisation's legal affairs, is expected to participate alongside Ranka and Das in the discussions with police officials.

The CJP's announcement was issued on Sunday, October 11, through Ranka's social media account, identifying the police station, the scheduled meeting time and the organisation's deadline for receiving a response.

India scrutinises Trump’s Russian diesel purchase amid tariff threat

India is examining US President Donald Trump’s decision to purchase diesel from Russia while Washington threatens tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries buying Russian energy, raising fresh questions over the implementation of American sanctions.

New Delhi is assessing the implications of Trump’s agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly whether Washington will create exemptions for its own energy purchases while maintaining restrictions against major importers of Russian crude.

The review comes as the Trump administration has yet to announce a definitive decision on granting India a waiver under the Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, known as SRIA.

The legislation, signed by Trump in September, authorises additional tariffs of up to 100 per cent on goods from countries identified as leading purchasers of Russian oil and gas. India remains among the principal countries potentially affected.

Trump announced on Friday that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel to American and international markets following discussions with Putin. Additional supplies are expected as Washington attempts to contain escalating fuel prices.

The arrangement envisages another 500,000 tonnes in November, followed by one million tonnes shortly afterwards. Trump also outlined the possibility of a further three million tonnes, depending on Russian refinery conditions.

The US Treasury has issued a temporary authorisation permitting specified transactions involving Russian diesel until April 2027. The measure provides a legal mechanism for facilitating supplies without removing the broader sanctions framework against Moscow.

That distinction is central to New Delhi’s assessment. American restrictions on Russian energy purchases and the administration’s authority to issue exemptions operate through different legal provisions, leaving considerable discretion over enforcement.

The sanctions legislation does not automatically impose maximum tariffs on every country purchasing Russian energy. Its provisions establish conditions for additional duties while allowing presidential waivers based on specified national interest considerations.

India has already conveyed its objections to Washington, warning that punitive measures against its energy purchases could damage bilateral relations and undermine efforts to strengthen economic cooperation.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar raised concerns about the legislation during discussions with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The Ministry of External Affairs has maintained that protecting energy security for India’s population of 1.4 billion remains a priority. New Delhi has also emphasised the importance of affordable and reliable supplies amid disruptions affecting international markets.

Trump’s latest arrangement has complicated Washington’s argument that purchases of Russian petroleum provide Moscow with revenue supporting its military operations in Ukraine.

However, the American administration maintains that facilitating additional diesel supplies is necessary to address domestic fuel shortages and rising transportation costs.

Trump has linked the agreement to efforts to lower prices for farmers, truck operators and consumers. Diesel costs have risen sharply amid disruptions to energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks affecting Russian petroleum infrastructure.

The president has expressed confidence that additional Russian supplies will help reduce prices, although energy analysts have questioned whether the announced volumes can significantly influence a market facing broader supply constraints.

The agreement has also encountered opposition within the United States. Republican and Democratic senators have challenged the decision, arguing that renewed energy purchases risk weakening sanctions intended to restrict Moscow’s revenues.

Several lawmakers have urged the administration to reverse course and explain how the arrangement complies with existing restrictions on Russian petroleum imports.

The controversy adds another complication to trade negotiations between New Delhi and Washington, which have faced disagreements over tariffs, market access and energy policy.

India’s substantial dependence on imported crude makes restrictions on Russian supplies commercially significant. Refiners have relied on Russian shipments to diversify procurement and manage costs during periods of volatility.

The administration’s handling of exemptions could therefore influence both refinery purchasing decisions and wider trade discussions.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump spoke on September 30, but their conversation produced no publicly announced resolution concerning possible sanctions waivers.

The sanctions legislation also targets Russian financial institutions, energy networks and vessels associated with efforts to circumvent restrictions. Its provisions give Washington additional instruments to pursue entities supporting Moscow’s petroleum exports.

Meanwhile, the US Treasury’s temporary diesel authorisation remains limited in scope and does not constitute a general lifting of sanctions on Russian crude oil transactions or other restricted activities.

Chief Justice declines Opposition leaders’ electoral concerns meeting

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has declined a request from Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge for a meeting on Monday over alleged electoral malpractice, citing proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court.

The two Leaders of the Opposition, representing the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively, had sought an appointment between 4 pm and 5 pm to present a memorandum calling for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, suspension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a return to paper ballots.

The Chief Justice’s office communicated its refusal by email on Sunday, explaining that the issues raised were before the court and could not be addressed through an administrative meeting. Surya Kant heads the Bench examining related matters, according to people familiar with the correspondence.

The response indicated that the leaders could file a petition through the judicial process on Monday, potentially allowing their concerns to be considered when the matter comes up for hearing on Tuesday. It also emphasised that citizens seeking protection of fundamental rights could approach the court through established procedures.

The distinction between judicial proceedings and administrative intervention was central to the refusal. The Chief Justice cannot issue judicial directions through a private meeting, while matters under consideration by a Bench must be handled through the court’s formal hearing process.

The decision came ahead of an Opposition march towards the Supreme Court in New Delhi, organised under the banner Chalo Delhi – March for Democracy. Congress asked participants to assemble at the Connaught Place–Barakhamba Road junction at 1.30 pm on Monday.

Gandhi appealed to Opposition parties, young people and civil society organisations to join the demonstration. He said the mobilisation would bring together people from different communities and states to defend constitutional protections and the integrity of elections.

The Congress leader accused police personnel and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party of attacking demonstrators during Saturday’s protests in Delhi. Those allegations have not been independently established, and responsibility for the reported confrontations remains contested.

Kharge, speaking in Bengaluru on Sunday before the refusal became public, confirmed that both leaders had written separately to the Chief Justice. He said their intention was to place their concerns before him rather than demand a particular judicial order.

The Congress president also accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah of creating conditions resembling an undeclared Emergency. He cited police deployments and detentions during demonstrations as evidence of what he described as government efforts to suppress dissent.

The government and the Election Commission have faced mounting Opposition criticism over the revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties allege that the exercise risks excluding eligible voters and have questioned the Commission’s independence. Those accusations remain allegations rather than findings of electoral wrongdoing.

The Election Commission has maintained that its procedures have a statutory basis and that differences of opinion within the institution form part of normal deliberation. The existence of political objections does not, by itself, establish manipulation of voting records or electoral results.

The dispute has also brought renewed demands for replacing electronic voting machines with paper ballots. That proposal forms part of the Opposition memorandum, although it is separate from the legal questions surrounding the revision of electoral registers.

On Friday, representatives of several Opposition parties marched from Parliament towards Vijay Chowk before a delegation submitted a memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu. They sought her intervention over their allegations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and electoral administration.

Security measures surrounding the demonstrations have generated another dispute. Delhi Police imposed restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, while closures affecting Metro access and internet services prompted objections from protesters and lawyers.

A special Supreme Court Bench sitting on Sunday examined complaints about restrictions imposed despite an earlier judicial order. It directed that public movement, transport facilities and internet access should not be obstructed, and that lawyers should be able to reach the courts.

The Bench comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. Its directions addressed access and movement during the protests, rather than deciding the Opposition’s allegations about electoral rolls or the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation. The court also called for barricades to be removed and railway facilities to operate normally. Those instructions concerned immediate public access during the demonstrations.

Sibal questions Supreme Court response to electoral roll disputes

Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal has voiced deep frustration with the Supreme Court’s handling of challenges to electoral roll revisions, saying he has little hope of obtaining judicial relief as protests over alleged voting irregularities confront sweeping police restrictions in Delhi.

Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, Sibal said repeated approaches to the court had failed to address concerns about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His remarks followed legal proceedings over restrictions imposed before a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

“I am tired of keeping on going to the Supreme Court. I am speaking for myself. I don't think there is any use of going there. I don't have much hope in the Supreme Court of India,” Sibal said.

He nevertheless acknowledged the court’s constitutional importance, describing it as the institution capable of protecting the Constitution. His criticism focused on what he regarded as the judiciary’s inadequate response to complaints about voters being wrongly excluded from or included in electoral lists.

The allegations remain contested. The Election Commission has defended the revision process as an exercise intended to improve the accuracy of voter records, while opposition parties and campaigners say the changes risk disenfranchising eligible citizens. The legal challenges have not established that the disputed deletions were unlawful.

Sibal also questioned the preventive detention of people travelling to Delhi to join Saturday’s protest at Jantar Mantar, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and supported by opposition groups and civil society activists. He challenged the justification for stopping people before they reached the proposed demonstration.

The restrictions included disruptions to public transport, tightened security around central Delhi and limits affecting accommodation and movement. Police maintained that measures were necessary to preserve public order amid expectations of a large gathering. Organisers argued that the arrangements interfered with peaceful assembly and ordinary travel.

On Friday, Sibal was among senior lawyers who approached the Supreme Court over proposed closures of Metro stations and the cancellation of train services. He appeared in proceedings involving CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby, who challenged the denial of permission for the demonstration.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, examined the competing interests of protesters and residents who depended on transport services. The judges questioned whether organisers could seek relaxation of restrictions without first challenging the police decision refusing permission to assemble.

The court subsequently directed authorities against blanket shutdowns of Metro and railway services, emphasising that security arrangements must be proportionate and should not impose excessive hardship on the wider public. It allowed regulation of services rather than an indiscriminate suspension of transport across the capital.

Those directions became the subject of further litigation after Saturday’s security operation. A contempt petition alleged that authorities had failed to comply with the court’s order, while another application challenged the detention of political leaders and other participants.

The Supreme Court arranged a special hearing on Sunday before Justices Bagchi and Mohana to examine the complaints. The proceedings placed the enforcement of its transport directions alongside questions about preventive detention, without resolving the wider dispute over electoral roll revisions.

The CJP demonstration targeted Kumar over claims that the revision exercise had removed large numbers of eligible voters. Protest organisers demanded his resignation and called for scrutiny of the Election Commission’s decisions. The commission and the governing Bharatiya Janata Party have rejected accusations that the process was designed to benefit the ruling party.

Police detained demonstrators and political figures during Saturday’s operation, while organisers announced another gathering at Jantar Mantar on Sunday. Authorities indicated that restrictions on assemblies would continue in parts of central Delhi, despite some easing of the broader security arrangements.

The controversy has also drawn attention to the court’s earlier consideration of petitions concerning the SIR exercise. Judges have sought responses from the authorities on allegations surrounding the revision, but the substantive questions about individual voter entries and the legality of the process remain before the judiciary.

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.