Uttar Pradesh survey puts BJP alliance well ahead

The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance has emerged with a substantial lead in a new Uttar Pradesh opinion survey ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections, although unemployment remains a significant concern among voters.

The survey, conducted with Pvalue Analytics and released on Friday, found that 66.6% of respondents would vote for the ruling alliance if an election were held now. The Samajwadi Party-Congress alliance attracted 26.4% support, while the Bahujan Samaj Party secured 5.4%.

The findings suggest a favourable position for Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as the Bharatiya Janata Party seeks a third consecutive term in the state. However, the percentages represent responses to a survey rather than actual votes, and cannot establish the outcome of an election still months away.

Adityanath was identified as the preferred chief minister by 66.2% of respondents, compared with 24.4% who favoured Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav. The survey also found that 77.1% expressed satisfaction with the performance of the state government, against 13.5% who were dissatisfied.

Another 65.2% believed the BJP should receive a third term. Asked which alliance was likely to form the next government, irrespective of their personal voting preference, 66.6% selected the NDA and 26.5% named the Samajwadi Party-Congress combination.

The results nevertheless reveal an important distinction between approval of the government and concerns about everyday economic conditions. Employment was identified as the most important electoral issue by 21.4% of respondents, making jobs a major challenge for the ruling party despite its advantage in overall preferences.

Law and order emerged as the leading factor shaping voting choices, cited by 33.4% of those surveyed. The issue included concerns about a possible return to criminal intimidation and disorder, themes that have featured prominently in the BJP's political messaging.

The survey recorded a 74% satisfaction level for the government's performance on law and order, the highest among the governance areas assessed. Respondents also evaluated infrastructure, welfare provision and public services, although the results indicated that approval varied across individual policy areas.

Employment received a weaker assessment, with satisfaction at 58.3%. Concerns were particularly evident among younger respondents and economically vulnerable groups, highlighting an area in which the opposition could seek to challenge the government's record.

Inflation and examination paper leaks also featured among issues troubling voters. Such concerns have particular relevance for young people preparing for competitive recruitment examinations, for whom delays and irregularities can have immediate consequences for employment prospects.

The survey's findings on leadership extended beyond established party preferences. Adityanath was considered the most suitable chief minister by 11.7% of respondents supporting the Samajwadi Party-Congress alliance and 10.2% of BSP supporters.

That crossover preference does not necessarily translate into votes for the BJP. Voters can favour an individual leader while continuing to support another party, making leadership ratings and stated voting intentions separate measures.

The survey also examined the electoral importance of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Only 1.6% identified its construction as the most important influence on their vote, compared with much larger proportions prioritising public safety and employment.

Allegations concerning temple donations were cited as a decisive consideration by 0.6% of respondents. The figures indicate that religious issues featured less prominently than governance and economic concerns when participants were asked to identify a single leading factor.

Caste and reservations were identified as the primary consideration by 1.3%, infrastructure by 1%, healthcare by 0.7% and corruption by 3.4%. These relatively small figures measure respondents' top priorities rather than the overall importance of each issue.

The findings come as the BJP and its opponents prepare for another contest in the 403-member Assembly. The Samajwadi Party and Congress remain the principal opposition alliance, while the BSP is seeking to strengthen its position under Mayawati's leadership.

The survey interviewed 30,925 adults across all 75 districts between 17 September and 2 October. Fieldwork covered rural and urban areas, with interviews conducted face to face using computer-assisted questionnaires translated into Hindi.

The published figures do not, by themselves, provide a seat projection. Statewide voting preferences can differ from constituency-level outcomes, particularly where contests involve multiple parties and uneven geographical concentrations of support.

Salman Rushdie endorses youth-led protests against election chief

Booker Prize-winning author Salman Rushdie has publicly backed the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), praising young protesters demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls.

Speaking at a fundraising dinner for the Asian American Writers Workshop in New York on Thursday, Rushdie described the youth-led agitation as an encouraging development and urged his audience to recognise the significance of the protests sweeping several cities.

“There is something going on in India right now. India is boiling,” Rushdie told the gathering, before declaring that people should “celebrate the cockroach”, an apparent reference to the movement’s unconventional name.

The author said young people had provided a powerful reason for optimism at a time when questions surrounding electoral integrity and democratic accountability had become central to public debate.

“Young people of India have given us the most hopeful moment for a very long time,” Rushdie said.

His remarks were shared by writer and journalist Amitava Kumar, who attended the gathering and subsequently described the occasion on his Substack platform. The comments brought international literary attention to a protest movement challenging the Election Commission’s handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Filmmaker Mira Nair also expressed solidarity with the protesters at the New York event, where her birthday was celebrated. Nair described herself as a “cockroach mom” and said she was proud of young demonstrators campaigning for democracy.

The expressions of support from two internationally recognised cultural figures came as the CJP intensified its campaign against Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of overseeing electoral roll revisions that could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The Commission has rejected allegations of political bias, while the Bharatiya Janata Party has accused opposition organisations of exploiting the controversy for political purposes.

CJP organisers maintain that their campaign concerns the protection of voting rights rather than the electoral interests of any particular political party. They have demanded Kumar’s resignation and greater accountability over the procedures used to revise voter lists.

Rushdie’s intervention coincided with heightened tensions surrounding demonstrations in Delhi, where police detained CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and several student activists ahead of Friday’s planned protest at Connaught Place.

The demonstration, organised under the banner Lehra Do Tiranga, was intended to bring protesters together carrying national flags despite restrictions imposed by the authorities.

Police strengthened security arrangements around the proposed gathering, while protesters accused the administration of attempting to prevent peaceful political expression.

Hundreds nevertheless assembled in different parts of Connaught Place, with police detaining several participants. Demonstrations were also organised in Mumbai, Bengaluru and Patna, although attendance varied considerably between locations.

The CJP has emerged as a prominent youth mobilisation platform, using social media campaigns, public demonstrations and unconventional political messaging to challenge government institutions.

Its campaign against the electoral roll revision has attracted support from student organisations, opposition politicians and civil society activists concerned about the possibility of wrongful voter deletions.

The Election Commission maintains that electoral roll revisions are necessary to ensure accurate voter registers. Protest organisers dispute the manner in which the exercise has been conducted and are seeking stronger safeguards against exclusion.

Rushdie’s comments were particularly notable because he addressed the controversy before an international audience gathered for a literary fundraising event rather than at a political meeting.

The writer, whose Midnight’s Children won the Booker Prize, has previously criticised restrictions on freedom of expression and what he regards as growing religious majoritarianism in India.

At Thursday’s gathering, he also reflected on the atmosphere of religious coexistence he remembered from his childhood in Bombay, now Mumbai.

Rushdie recalled that festivals were celebrated across religious communities without the distinctions that he believes have become more pronounced in public life.

He referred to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis participating in one another’s celebrations, describing those shared experiences as an important part of the city’s social character.

Amitava Kumar, recounting the occasion, observed that the spirit of communal celebration remained visible among those attending the New York dinner.

Rushdie suggested, however, that the same sense of collective participation might no longer be as strong in India.

The Asian American Writers Workshop, which hosted the gathering, is a New York-based literary organisation supporting writers of Asian descent and promoting their work through publishing, cultural programmes and community events.

Congress challenges Rubio itinerary as ministry confirms Mumbai talks

Congress leader Pawan Khera accused Washington of summoning External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to Mumbai on Friday, even as the Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that Jaishankar would meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio there on October 20.

Khera's allegation followed remarks by US Ambassador Sergio Gor indicating that Rubio would visit Mumbai rather than New Delhi and that Jaishankar was expected to join meetings during the trip. The ambassador did not say that the minister had been summoned, making that characterisation a political claim rather than an established diplomatic arrangement.

The ministry confirmed the meeting on Friday and defended holding talks outside the national capital. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said hosting foreign dignitaries in different cities had been an established practice over the past decade, rejecting the suggestion that Mumbai was an inappropriate venue for a senior bilateral engagement.

The clarification came after Congress leaders questioned why the US ambassador had publicly discussed Jaishankar's anticipated participation before the ministry formally announced the engagement. Their criticism focused on both the location of the talks and the sequence of official communications.

Writing on X, Khera said Gor had confirmed that Rubio was skipping Delhi and had summoned Jaishankar to Mumbai. He described the supposed summons as a diplomatic humiliation for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government and alleged that ministry officials were bewildered by the arrangements.

Khera attributed his assertion about confusion within the ministry to an unnamed contact. No independently established evidence was presented to substantiate that account, and the ministry's public explanation did not acknowledge any breakdown in coordination.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also criticised the government, describing Jaishankar as Rubio's employee in a post on X and alleging confusion among foreign ministry officials. He called on Modi to explain the situation, escalating a disagreement over the itinerary into a broader political argument about the government's handling of relations with Washington.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh separately questioned why the ambassador was announcing details of a minister's engagements on home soil. He distinguished between the normal disclosure of an American visitor's itinerary and an overseas representative expressing expectations about where India's foreign minister would appear.

Gor, speaking at an event on Thursday, said Rubio would meet government officials in Mumbai and that US representatives expected Jaishankar to be present. He described the visit as more focused on business, with commercial ties, energy and investment among its priorities.

The distinction matters because the ambassador's words expressed an expectation, not an instruction. The government's subsequent confirmation established the venue and date of the bilateral meeting but did not establish that Washington had directed Jaishankar to travel to Mumbai.

Jaiswal pointed to previous meetings with foreign leaders outside Delhi as examples of established diplomatic practice. He cited engagements involving visiting heads of government in Vadodara, Ahmedabad and Varanasi, alongside ministerial meetings held elsewhere in the country.

The ministry said the October 20 talks would provide an opportunity to review bilateral relations and strengthen the comprehensive global strategic partnership. Discussions are expected to cover energy, trade, investment, defence, critical and emerging technologies, and regional and international developments.

Rubio's itinerary also includes Jamnagar in Gujarat, a major centre for refining and energy operations. The US State Department announced a visit to India and Uzbekistan from October 17 to 22, with meetings involving government representatives and business leaders intended to advance investment and economic cooperation.

The Mumbai engagement comes amid continuing negotiations over a bilateral trade agreement. Gor said on Thursday that discussions were progressing rapidly and that major elements of the proposed arrangement had been settled, although the governments have not announced a completed agreement.

The ambassador's comments also placed energy cooperation at the centre of Rubio's visit. His planned meetings with business representatives reflect the commercial emphasis outlined by Washington, while the ministerial discussions are intended to address wider strategic and diplomatic questions.

Rubio's programme marks his second visit to the country this year, following his May trip, during which he held discussions with senior government representatives. The forthcoming engagements have a stronger commercial focus.

Jaishankar is also scheduled to meet United Arab Emirates Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan in Mumbai during the same period, according to the ministry's announced programme. The separate engagement underscores that Mumbai will host more than one high-level diplomatic meeting during the week.

Chest infection puts LK Advani under hospital observation

Veteran Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani, 98, remains under medical observation at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in New Delhi after being admitted with a chest infection on Friday evening. Hospital officials have described his condition as stable.

Advani was brought to the hospital at approximately 7.30 pm on October 16 and admitted to its pulmonary department. A team of doctors is supervising his treatment and conducting medical investigations to assess his condition.

The hospital's assessment that he is stable was the principal update available on Saturday morning. Details of the infection, the findings of diagnostic tests and the likely duration of his hospital stay have not been publicly specified.

Doctors are continuing to monitor the former deputy prime minister while investigations proceed. There has been no confirmed announcement of a discharge date or any change in his treatment arrangements.

The admission is his second publicly reported hospital stay this year. Advani was treated at the same hospital in May for age-related health problems and discharged after several days. The nature of those earlier complaints has not been linked to the chest infection responsible for Friday's admission.

His medical history also includes hospital admissions during 2024. He was taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi in June that year for evaluation of age-related ailments and was discharged the following day.

Advani subsequently entered Apollo Hospital in July 2024 for observation. He was discharged after a short stay, following medical assessment.

Another admission to Apollo followed in December 2024, when he received treatment and investigations in the intensive care unit under neurological supervision. Hospital officials subsequently indicated that his condition was improving. He was discharged later that month.

The previous hospitalisations provide context for the close medical supervision of the 98-year-old politician, although the available information does not establish any connection between those episodes and his present illness.

The latest admission follows a visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Advani's New Delhi residence on October 7. Modi met the veteran leader while marking 25 years since he first assumed office as the head of a government.

Modi became Gujarat chief minister on October 7, 2001, before moving to national office as prime minister in 2014. During the meeting, he sought Advani's blessings and acknowledged his contribution to public life.

The meeting took place nine days before Advani was brought to hospital. No connection has been established between that visit and his subsequent medical treatment.

Advani is among the BJP's most prominent surviving founding leaders. He served as the party's president during three separate periods and played a significant role in building its national organisation.

He was deputy prime minister from 2002 to 2004 under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and held the Union home affairs portfolio during the National Democratic Alliance government's tenure.

Although he has withdrawn from active electoral politics, Advani remains a prominent figure in the party's history. His public appearances are comparatively limited, and meetings with senior political leaders have occasionally provided updates on his activities.

He was awarded the Bharat Ratna, the country's highest civilian honour, in 2024. President Droupadi Murmu presented the decoration at his residence in New Delhi, with Modi and other senior leaders attending the ceremony.

Advani was born on November 8, 1927, in Karachi, then part of British India. He will turn 99 next month.

His long political career included leadership of the BJP during its expansion from a comparatively small parliamentary presence into a major national force. He also served as information and broadcasting minister in the government headed by Morarji Desai.

His 1990 Ram Rath Yatra was a defining episode in the party's political mobilisation around the Ayodhya temple campaign. The movement remains a major element of his political legacy.

For now, the information released about his treatment is limited to the chest infection, the pulmonary department admission and the hospital's assessment of his condition. No further clinical findings have been made public.

The medical team is continuing its investigations at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, where Advani has received treatment on several earlier occasions. The facility is the same one that cared for him during his hospital admissions in May this year and December 2024.

Delhi Police retain Dipke, release student leader Bora

Delhi Police have placed Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke under preventive arrest while releasing All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora early Saturday, following their detention ahead of Friday’s Lehra Do Tiranga protest march at Connaught Place.

Police said Dipke would be produced before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court after proceedings were initiated against him under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Bora was released after completing detention formalities under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act.

The two leaders were detained separately on Friday evening as police imposed extensive security restrictions around Connaught Place, where the CJP and allied student organisations had called for a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Dipke was intercepted near Jhandewalan, while Bora was detained at Mandi House as she proceeded towards the demonstration venue. Police maintained that preventive action was necessary because of apprehensions that the proposed gathering could disturb public peace.

CJP legal head Ratna Singh confirmed Dipke’s arrest through a social media statement on Saturday, raising concerns about his whereabouts and access to legal representation.

“Abhijeet is arrested & will be produced before SEM court. His location still unknown, lawyers haven't met,” Singh wrote, indicating that the organisation was seeking further information about the police proceedings.

Following her release, Bora demanded that Dipke and other detained protesters be freed immediately. She also reiterated AISA’s opposition to the electoral roll revision exercise and called for Kumar’s resignation.

The student organisation alleged that police had denied its leader access to legal assistance during her detention. CJP representatives similarly questioned the authorities over the treatment of detained activists and the difficulties faced by their lawyers in establishing contact with them.

Police have not publicly provided a detailed response to every allegation concerning access to counsel. Their stated justification for the detentions remained the need to prevent a possible breach of peace.

The developments followed Friday’s confrontation between demonstrators and security personnel across central Delhi, where supporters carrying national flags attempted to gather despite restrictions imposed ahead of the march.

The CJP had called upon supporters to assemble at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Lehra Do Tiranga programme. Authorities had warned organisers against proceeding without the necessary permissions and deployed additional personnel around the proposed venue.

Before the demonstration, police issued a notice to Dipke cautioning against organising an unauthorised gathering at Central Park without permission from the New Delhi Municipal Council. The notice referred to the need to safeguard public order and the rights of other citizens.

Despite the restrictions, protesters assembled at different locations around Connaught Place, waving the national flag and raising slogans against the Election Commission and the government. Police detained several participants as security personnel attempted to prevent unauthorised assemblies.

The demonstration formed part of continuing protests against the electoral roll revision undertaken by the Election Commission. Opposition parties and student organisations allege that the exercise has resulted in large-scale deletions that could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The Election Commission has rejected allegations of political bias, maintaining that electoral roll revisions are intended to identify inaccuracies and ensure that voter lists remain accurate. It has also emphasised the availability of procedures for eligible voters to seek inclusion.

The controversy has generated political criticism of the police response. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president M K Stalin condemned the detentions, describing the action against the activists as unlawful.

Opposition leaders have questioned whether restrictions on demonstrations are being applied proportionately, while the authorities have defended preventive measures as necessary for maintaining order in sensitive public locations.

The legal distinction between Bora’s release and Dipke’s continued detention has become central to the dispute. Police invoked provisions relating to preventive action against Dipke, requiring further proceedings before an executive magistrate, while Bora was allowed to leave following completion of the applicable formalities.

The SEM proceedings will determine the next procedural steps concerning Dipke. Police had announced his proposed production before the magistrate, but no final judicial or magisterial order concerning his continued detention had been confirmed by Saturday morning.

Friday’s security arrangements also included restrictions around Central Park and traffic controls in adjoining areas of Connaught Place, one of Delhi’s busiest commercial districts, as authorities sought to regulate movement around the demonstration venue.

Trump suspends Russia sanctions, easing India-China tariff threat

US President Donald Trump has waived major sanctions and tariffs targeting Russia and its energy trading partners, providing immediate relief to India and China ahead of the implementation of sweeping economic penalties authorised by Congress.

Trump issued an executive order on Friday, invoking national interest provisions under the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which he signed into law on September 18.

The legislation authorised sanctions against Russian financial institutions, energy companies and officials, alongside tariffs of up to 100 per cent on imports from major purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas.

India and China, among Russia's largest energy customers, faced substantial exposure to the proposed trade restrictions, which threatened to disrupt their commercial relationships with Washington.

“I am hereby waiving the application of such sanctions, restrictions, and duties provided for in the Graham Act,” Trump declared in the executive order.

The president confirmed that he had submitted a certification to Congress establishing that the waiver served the national interests of the United States. The order did not provide a detailed explanation of the considerations underlying his decision.

The suspension comes ahead of the October 18 implementation deadline for key provisions of the legislation. It does not repeal the law or permanently eliminate the administration's authority to impose penalties.

Washington retains the ability to activate the sanctions and tariffs subsequently, leaving their longer-term application dependent on decisions by the administration.

The waiver removes an immediate source of uncertainty for India, whose purchases of Russian crude have remained a sensitive issue in negotiations with Washington over trade and market access.

The Ministry of External Affairs had previously warned that the sanctions legislation carried potential implications for bilateral relations, while reaffirming the government's commitment to securing affordable energy supplies for its population.

New Delhi has consistently maintained that its energy procurement decisions are guided by national requirements, international market conditions and the need to ensure reliable supplies.

For China, the decision similarly reduces the immediate threat of punitive American tariffs arising from its substantial purchases of Russian energy.

The legislation empowered Washington to target the five largest importers of Russian oil and natural gas, although its provisions included exemptions and presidential discretion over implementation.

The potential tariffs were intended to increase pressure on Moscow by discouraging countries from purchasing energy products that generate substantial revenue for the Russian government.

Congress approved the legislation with bipartisan support as part of efforts to constrain Russia's ability to finance its continuing military campaign against Ukraine.

The measure also addressed Russian banks, defence-related businesses and vessels associated with the so-called shadow fleet used to transport petroleum products despite international restrictions.

Trump's decision has nevertheless attracted criticism from lawmakers who believe suspending the measures weakens Washington's economic leverage over Moscow.

Some members of Congress have questioned whether the waiver undermines the legislation's purpose at a time when Russia continues military operations against Ukraine.

The administration's decision also coincides with efforts to contain elevated energy prices, which have become an important domestic economic concern ahead of November's congressional elections.

Disruption to international petroleum supplies associated with the conflict involving Iran has increased pressure on fuel markets, complicating Washington's attempts to maintain restrictions on Russian exports.

Trump has also announced arrangements involving Russian diesel supplies, drawing criticism from opponents who argue that additional purchases could provide Moscow with revenue while its military campaign continues.

The White House has sought to balance pressure on Russia with domestic concerns about fuel affordability and broader economic stability.

The waiver does not automatically terminate sanctions imposed through separate legal authorities, and companies conducting transactions involving Russia must continue observing restrictions that remain applicable.

Its immediate significance lies principally in preventing additional penalties under the new legislation from taking effect, rather than dismantling the wider American sanctions framework.

For exporters from India and China, the decision averts the immediate possibility of another substantial tariff escalation under the Graham Act, although existing trade duties and other restrictions remain unaffected.

The legislation's passage had already prompted concern among businesses about the possibility of higher costs, disrupted supply arrangements and further uncertainty surrounding access to the American market.

The executive order leaves the statutory sanctions framework intact, allowing Washington to reconsider its application without requiring Congress to approve another law.

The original legislation also contains provisions addressing Iran and extends existing sanctions authorities, forming part of the broader framework through which Washington regulates commercial transactions involving countries subject to American restrictions.

Kwatra rebukes Jayapal over electoral roll allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress rebukes poll panel over readable electoral rolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump nears decision on Russian energy sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court questions removal of Jantar Mantar protest status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEA disputes UN rights office criticism of Delhi protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lokur faults courts over Delhi police excesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDBI stake sale sparks Akhilesh Sitharaman political clash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAP demands apology over Rekha Gupta Ram remark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Govind Mohan submits apology over Delhi protest restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lavasa questions voter deletions based on citizenship suspicions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court halts Rahul Gandhi defamation trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woman detained after alleged attack on Mamata Banerjee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi Police file four cases over protest misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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