Shah proposes special Parliament debate on electoral rolls

Union Home Minister Amit Shah challenged Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav on Friday to debate allegations of electoral malpractice during a special parliamentary session, as opposition parties prepared a symbolic proceeding against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Addressing the Bharatiya Janata Party's Uttar Pradesh state executive meeting in Lucknow, Shah said the government was prepared to confront questions about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and accusations of vote theft.

"I challenge both Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav right here and now. The BJP is fully prepared to discuss this in Parliament. We have nothing to hide. Let us convene a special session," Shah said.

He accused the opposition of avoiding parliamentary scrutiny while organising demonstrations against the Election Commission. Shah maintained that its leaders preferred disrupting proceedings to discussing their allegations on the floor of the House.

His intervention came as the opposition INDIA alliance rescheduled its planned "public impeachment" of Kumar from Friday to Saturday because of persistent rain in New Delhi. The event, planned at Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's residence, is a political protest rather than a constitutionally recognised removal proceeding.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh announced that the programme would take place at 2.30 pm on Saturday. Rahul Gandhi said opposition leaders had agreed to the postponement because holding the gathering outdoors in wet conditions would inconvenience senior participants.

Former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar is expected to preside over the symbolic sitting, with Kharge scheduled to introduce a motion against the election chief. Gandhi is expected to speak before participants vote on the motion, while representatives of participating opposition parties are also due to address the gathering.

The opposition accuses the Election Commission of allowing legitimate voters to be excluded through the SIR and has demanded Kumar's resignation. The commission maintains that electoral roll revision is intended to identify ineligible, duplicate, deceased or relocated voters and ensure accurate lists. The competing claims remain politically contested. Opposition leaders want the electoral rolls restored to their earlier form and the revision suspended, arguing that voters should not lose their franchise through administrative errors. The commission has not accepted those demands.

The alliance has also scheduled a demonstration at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan on Sunday, November 1, to oppose the revision exercise and alleged electoral irregularities. Gandhi has invited political parties, civil society organisations and members of the public to participate.

Gandhi has accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Shah and the Election Commission leadership of undermining democratic institutions. Those accusations are disputed by the ruling BJP, which argues that opposition parties are questioning election administration because they have failed to secure electoral victories.

Shah used Friday's meeting to make that argument, citing BJP and allied successes in several states. He compared the opposition's response to a losing team blaming an umpire instead of examining its own performance.

The Home Minister also criticised Gandhi's approach to parliamentary debate, alleging that the Congress leader would campaign on the streets rather than defend his charges before lawmakers. No formal government announcement convening a special session accompanied Shah's remarks.

The confrontation follows unsuccessful parliamentary efforts to initiate Kumar's removal. Notices submitted by opposition members were rejected in April by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The proposed public exercise therefore carries no legal power to dismiss the Chief Election Commissioner.

Removal of a Chief Election Commissioner requires a parliamentary process with constitutional safeguards comparable to those applicable to a Supreme Court judge. A demonstration organised by political parties cannot substitute for that procedure, regardless of the terminology adopted by its organisers.

The SIR dispute has previously disrupted parliamentary business. Opposition members demanded dedicated discussion of the exercise, while the government maintained that the Election Commission operates as an independent constitutional authority and favoured broader debate on electoral reforms.

During a parliamentary exchange in December 2025, Gandhi pressed Shah to address allegations he had outlined at press conferences concerning electoral practices. Shah responded during the debate, and opposition members subsequently walked out.

Friday's Lucknow gathering also followed elections to 11 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council seats representing graduates and teachers. The BJP won six and the Samajwadi Party five. Yadav described the results as a setback for the ruling party and linked them to his party's preparations for the 2027 state assembly election, scheduled for next year.

National Conference legislators convene amid cabinet reshuffle dispute

A group of National Conference legislators held a closed-door meeting in Srinagar on Friday, exposing growing dissatisfaction within Jammu and Kashmir's ruling party over Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's cabinet reshuffle and the functioning of his government.

Seventeen National Conference legislators and one Independent supporting the government reportedly attended the meeting at the residence of Lolab MLA Qaiser Jamsheed Lone in Humhama. Participants discussed ministerial appointments, internal decision-making and grievances concerning the distribution of responsibilities within the administration.

The gathering followed Tuesday's cabinet expansion, which brought four National Conference legislators into the government while Independent MLA Satish Sharma was dropped. Several senior party figures who had expected ministerial positions expressed disappointment over their exclusion.

Legislators familiar with the discussions indicated that participants favoured replacing ministers who have completed two years in office with other elected representatives. They also sought greater consultation within the party before ministerial appointments and changes involving senior government functionaries.

However, Gurez legislator Nazir Ahmad Khan Gurezi disputed suggestions that the gathering constituted an organised rebellion. He said Lone had invited legislators for a meal and that party matters were discussed during the interaction.

Gurezi maintained that the meeting was not a protest against the cabinet expansion or an assembly of legislators denied ministerial positions. His explanation contrasted with accounts of participants discussing coordinated demands concerning the composition and performance of the government.

The legislators were also understood to have considered approaching National Conference president Farooq Abdullah and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to communicate their concerns. There was no immediate official confirmation of a formal resolution adopted by the gathering.

Tuesday's expansion saw Ali Mohammad Sagar, Mir Saifullah, Shamima Firdous and Altaf Ahmad Wani, popularly known as Altaf Kaloo, inducted into the Council of Ministers. Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha administered their oaths at Lok Bhawan in Srinagar.

The appointments generated dissatisfaction among legislators who believed seniority, electoral experience and regional representation should have received greater consideration. Eleven legislators supporting the ruling alliance stayed away from the swearing-in ceremony, although individual reasons for their absence were not uniformly established.

Former Assembly Speaker Mubarak Gul emerged among the prominent figures disappointed by the reshuffle. His supporters demonstrated in Srinagar after he was excluded from the cabinet, questioning the treatment of a senior party leader.

Farooq Abdullah subsequently appointed Gul as the National Conference's general secretary, an organisational position previously held by Sagar. Gul nevertheless attended Friday's gathering, alongside legislators representing constituencies across Kashmir and Jammu.

Abdul Majeed Larmi, representing Anantnag West, also questioned the ministerial selections. He argued that his seniority warranted consideration, particularly when other legislators had been accommodated.

Bijbehara legislator Bashir Ahmad Veeri separately criticised the continuation of ministers whose performance he considered unsatisfactory. His objections reflected dissatisfaction extending beyond the legislators excluded from the new appointments.

Concerns raised during Friday's discussions reportedly included the role of Chief Minister's adviser Nasir Aslam Wani and the continuation of Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary. Some legislators questioned whether administrative responsibilities and development resources were being distributed equitably.

These complaints remained allegations by individual legislators, with no independent findings establishing administrative wrongdoing or improper allocation of funds. The government had not publicly accepted the accusations arising from the meeting.

Participants were also said to favour establishing a parliamentary board to introduce broader consultation into future cabinet selections. Such an arrangement would give legislators a more structured channel for expressing preferences before the leadership finalised appointments.

The developments come as National Conference MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi has signalled his intention to resign from Parliament and the party on November 3. Gurezi said Friday's gathering was unrelated to Ruhullah's position.

Despite the disagreement, there was no confirmed move by the legislators to withdraw support from Omar Abdullah's government or challenge his leadership through a formal legislative process.

The National Conference holds 41 seats in the 90-member Legislative Assembly. Its government enjoys additional backing from Congress, the CPI(M) and Independent legislators, giving the ruling arrangement a majority above the 46 seats required.

Congress has maintained its support while declining cabinet participation pending restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.

Newly inducted minister Altaf Ahmad Wani sought to minimise the significance of internal dissatisfaction, describing differences over appointments as matters arising within a political family.

Among those identified at Friday's meeting were former judge Hasnain Masoodi, Hilal Akbar Lone, Aijaz Jan, Javaid Choudhary, Sajad Shafi, Javid Ahmad Mirchal, Mushtaq Ahmad Guroo, Khurshied Ahmad and Pirzada Farooq Ahmad Shah.

ISRO launch returns NavIC to four-satellite configuration

India's regional navigation network NavIC regained its minimum four-satellite configuration after the Indian Space Research Organisation successfully launched NVS-03 from Sriharikota late on Friday, October 30.

ISRO chairman V Narayanan said the new spacecraft would join three functioning satellites, including NVS-01, restoring the constellation's capacity to provide independent positioning, navigation and timing services. His announcement followed the successful injection of NVS-03 into its designated geosynchronous transfer orbit aboard the GSLV-F18 rocket.

The rocket lifted off at 11.51pm from the second launch pad at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Andhra Pradesh. Approximately 18 minutes later, the spacecraft separated in its planned transfer orbit, completing the launch phase of a mission intended to address a shortage of working satellites in the NavIC network. The mission is listed in ISRO’s official launch register as its 107th recorded launch from the coastal Sriharikota spaceport.

Narayanan said the launch vehicle's systems had performed as predicted and the satellite had been delivered precisely to its designated orbit. The achievement established the minimum constellation needed for independent regional navigation, although deployment into a transfer orbit does not by itself confirm completion of subsequent orbital manoeuvres or operational commissioning.

NavIC, formally Navigation with Indian Constellation, supplies positioning and timing signals over India's landmass and an area extending approximately 1,500 kilometres beyond its boundaries. Its applications include tracking trains, road vehicles and ships, alongside services requiring accurate time synchronisation.

The chairman described the constellation as a strategic national asset and highlighted its contribution to the government's One Nation, One Time initiative, which seeks greater consistency in national timekeeping. He said three satellites were already functioning before Friday's launch, making NVS-03 particularly important for the network's minimum operating strength.

The successful launch also marks a significant recovery from difficulties encountered with NVS-02, which was launched in January 2025 but could not complete the orbit-raising operations necessary to reach its intended working position. An investigation identified a failure to deliver the electrical command required to operate a valve in the propulsion system.

That setback left the navigation programme facing an additional challenge as ageing spacecraft and failures reduced the number available for reliable service. ISRO subsequently examined the technical problems and introduced corrective measures before proceeding with the next spacecraft in the series.

NVS-03 is the third spacecraft in the next-generation navigation programme, designed to maintain continuity of the original regional satellite system. It carries an atomic clock developed domestically alongside procured clocks, providing the precise timing measurements essential to satellite navigation.

The spacecraft also supports an L1 navigation signal in addition to the L5 and S-band signals used by the system. The additional frequency is intended to improve compatibility with a wider range of navigation receivers, including devices used for civilian positioning applications.

Four functioning satellites constitute the minimum configuration for positioning and navigation calculations, while the wider planned constellation offers additional coverage, redundancy and resilience. Restoring the numerical threshold is therefore an important milestone, but the reliability of services will also depend on the new spacecraft completing its remaining orbital and technical checks.

Friday's mission was the twentieth flight of the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle and the second GSLV mission within 56 days. Narayanan described that interval as the shortest turnaround between successive missions of the rocket, following the September launch of the EOS-05 Earth observation satellite.

He said EOS-05 was functioning properly and supplying high-quality data. The spacecraft's performance was cited alongside the successful navigation launch as evidence of progress in the agency's ongoing satellite missions, although the two spacecraft serve different purposes.

The GSLV employs a cryogenic upper stage to place heavier satellites into transfer orbits from which they can subsequently reach their operational positions. For NVS-03, the immediate task was accurate orbital injection, followed by the spacecraft's own manoeuvres and commissioning activities.

Narayanan also acknowledged the contribution of industrial partners and academic institutions to the launch. He said nearly 80 per cent of the mission budget had gone to domestic industry, underscoring the role of suppliers in manufacturing and supporting the hardware required for the programme.

The spacecraft carries both domestically developed and externally procured atomic clocks, an arrangement intended to support dependable timing signals while expanding local technological capability. Precise onboard clocks are fundamental to determining distances between satellites and receivers, making their performance a central part of the navigation system's operation.

Zakir Naik faces criticism over Taliban education defence

Zakir Naik has drawn criticism from campaigners and commentators across South Asia after defending Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities over their continuing exclusion of girls and women from secondary schools and universities.

The Malaysia-based preacher argued in a circulating video that restrictions had been misunderstood and that education beyond primary school had been postponed because of security concerns and insufficient female teachers. His explanation prompted objections from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, where critics challenged both his account and the implications of an indefinite suspension.

“Everything that comes in the media is not true,” Naik said, claiming that he had personally discussed the policy with Taliban representatives. He maintained that girls could attend classes until the sixth grade and that further schooling depended on conditions becoming safe and suitably qualified women being available to teach.

“So if someone delays the education till they have the right teacher, there is no problem at all,” he said. Naik also asserted that women could undertake advanced Islamic studies, including postgraduate qualifications in Sharia, Arabic and the Quran. He did not provide independently verifiable figures establishing the scale of such opportunities.

Ziauddin Yousafzai, a Pakistani education campaigner and father of Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, described Naik’s justification as “deeply troubling and disappointing”. He questioned how an indefinite exclusion could be presented as a temporary interruption without a credible plan to restore access or train additional teachers.

Afghan commentators made similar objections. Azim Shinwari, a former member of Afghanistan’s security forces living in Belgium, asked how the country could produce more qualified female teachers while preventing girls from continuing their studies. He also demanded evidence for Naik’s claims about women obtaining advanced religious qualifications.

Mariam Solaimankhil, associated with Afghanistan’s Parliament in Exile, questioned the logic of invoking a shortage of women teachers when Taliban policies had also restricted women’s employment. Mahbob Shah Mahbob, editor of Afghan International Pashto, challenged the description of closed classrooms as a mere postponement.

The objections reflect a substantial difference between Naik’s characterisation and the documented position of Afghanistan’s education system. UNICEF said in August that more than 2.6 million girls had been denied secondary education since the Taliban returned to power in 2021. Afghanistan remains the only country where secondary and higher education are effectively closed to girls and women.

Girls have been excluded from formal schooling beyond grade six since September 2021. Women were barred from universities in December 2022. The authorities have not announced a timetable for restoring general access, leaving successive groups of pupils unable to complete their education.

UNICEF executive director Catherine Russell urged the authorities in August to lift the restrictions immediately. The agency warned that prolonged exclusion increased exposure to child labour, early marriage, abuse and other forms of gender-based violence, particularly among families facing poverty or displacement.

The teacher shortage cited by Naik is itself an issue highlighted by international assessments. UNICEF estimated that the number of female teachers in basic education fell from almost 73,000 in 2022 to approximately 66,000 in 2024. Its analysis warned that continued restrictions could cost Afghanistan up to 20,000 women teachers by 2030.

The agency also estimated that curbs on women’s education and participation in employment were costing the economy about $84 million annually. These calculations concern broader restrictions, rather than the impact of the secondary school prohibition alone.

A Faizur Rahman, an Islamic scholar from India, questioned the support Naik enjoys in Malaysia and addressed Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim over his continued presence there. Historian S Irfan Habib likewise questioned the Malaysian government’s accommodation of the preacher.

Naik left India in 2016 and lives in Malaysia, where he holds permanent residency. He is wanted by authorities in India in connection with allegations including money laundering and promoting religious hatred. He denies wrongdoing, and efforts to secure his return have not succeeded.

The debate has also drawn attention to education programmes operating outside conventional secondary schools. UNICEF said 442,000 children participated in community-based learning during 2025, with girls accounting for 66 per cent. Such initiatives provide educational support but do not amount to the reopening of secondary schools or universities.

Supreme Court orders scrutiny of Uttar Pradesh voter objections

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to examine allegations that applications seeking deletion of voters were submitted in bulk during the electoral roll revision in Uttar Pradesh, and to report on corrective action.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued the direction on Friday after petitioners questioned the handling of Form 7 applications, including objections allegedly targeting voters from a particular community. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana were also on the bench.

The court instructed the petitioners to provide a written note identifying outstanding irregularities to senior counsel representing the Election Commission. The commission must examine the factual allegations, take necessary corrective steps and file a compliance report before the court.

Senior advocate D S Naidu, representing the commission, acknowledged that bulk applications had been submitted but maintained that election officials had found them false and had not acted on them.

“We found that bulk Form 7 applications had been submitted. Our officers checked and cross-checked them. They were false, and we have not acted upon them,” Naidu told the bench.

Counsel for the petitioners disputed the adequacy of that response, alleging that 32 applications in one assembly constituency sought the removal of voters belonging to a particular community. The lawyer also claimed that two applications bore the signatures of booth-level officers.

Those assertions remain allegations before the court. The commission's position is that the disputed applications did not lead to deletions, while the petitioners contend that the circumstances surrounding their submission require further examination.

The commission said officers had checked the relevant submissions individually before deciding that no action was warranted.

The bench directed that the outstanding complaints be presented formally so the commission could verify individual instances rather than address the dispute solely through general submissions made during the hearing.

The proceedings arose from petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh. Among the petitioners are Congress MP Tanuj Punia and Samajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh.

Form 7 allows an eligible applicant to object to a proposed inclusion or seek removal of a name already appearing on an electoral roll. Applications must be considered under prescribed procedures, rather than resulting automatically in deletion.

Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, electoral registration officers must examine objections and provide the affected elector an opportunity to be heard before issuing a reasoned decision. These safeguards are central to the dispute over whether mass applications were properly handled.

The Election Commission, in a counter-affidavit filed on September 16, maintained that names were not deleted without notice and reasoned orders from electoral registration officers or their assistants. It said complaints concerning Form 7 were examined under applicable rules.

The commission further stated that the applications identified in the petition had not been submitted in accordance with statutory requirements and revision guidelines. Consequently, it argued, no deletions had resulted from those particular applications and allegations of systemic misuse were unfounded.

Its affidavit recorded 465,520 deletions through Form 7 across Uttar Pradesh and 252 appeals against orders of electoral registration officers, including deletion decisions. Those statewide figures do not establish that the disputed bulk applications caused any removals.

The petitioners nevertheless questioned whether rejecting the applications was a sufficient response to suspected irregularities. Their counsel referred to complaints in Karnataka and Telangana, where, the court was told, comparable allegations had prompted directions for registration of police cases.

The submission drew a distinction between preventing an improper deletion and investigating how questionable applications came to be filed. The court did not make a finding that officials or applicants had engaged in wrongdoing, instead requiring the commission to assess the particulars supplied.

The Uttar Pradesh revision concluded with publication of the final electoral roll on April 10. Friday's direction therefore concerns scrutiny of alleged irregularities in an exercise already completed, rather than an order to restart the revision.

The court also considered electoral roll revision disputes involving other states during the hearing. Regarding Kerala, it asked petitioners to provide details of people allegedly unable to submit enumeration forms, directing the commission to consider their cases sympathetically and report back.

Separately, the bench allowed the commission four weeks to respond to a petition alleging large-scale voter deletions in Chhattisgarh. Those proceedings were distinct from the Uttar Pradesh complaints concerning Form 7 applications.

Rabbi Mizrachi draws criticism for mocking Hindu traditions

Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi faces criticism across India and Israel after a video mocking Hindu reverence for cows and making disparaging claims about doctors circulated widely on social media.

The Israeli-American Orthodox Jewish preacher, also known as Yossi Mizrachi, alleged that Hindus consumed cow urine and suggested that medical professionals participated in the practice. His comments prompted accusations of racism and religious intolerance, including objections from an Israeli researcher and Palestine's ambassador to India.

The footage, drawn from a sermon streamed on 28 October, shows Mizrachi describing a man from India whom he claimed had helped manage his Facebook page and expressed interest in converting to Judaism. The preacher used that account to make generalisations about Hindu households and religious practices.

He alleged that families brought cows into their living rooms and consumed urine left on the floor. He also claimed that cow urine was purchased from pharmacies, without offering evidence that the practices he described were widespread.

Mizrachi then turned to doctors, suggesting that a patient visiting a hospital in New Delhi might encounter a physician who had consumed cow urine the previous evening. He also joked about a cow sitting in a road and holding up traffic because commuters would not move it.

At the end of the segment, he expressed gratitude to God for not having made him like the people he was describing. The statement intensified objections to a passage that critics said went beyond discussing religious customs and instead demeaned an entire population.

Israeli researcher and writer Yeshaya Rosenman, who lives and studies in India, publicly criticised the preacher. Rosenman described the international damage to Israel's reputation caused by Mizrachi as “astounding in its scope”.

Rosenman also accused him of making offensive statements about members of other religions, people with disabilities and patients suffering from serious illnesses. He expressed hope that Mizrachi would be barred from entering Israel, citing an earlier controversy surrounding a planned visit to Britain.

Palestine's ambassador to India, Abdullah M Abu Shawesh, joined the public discussion on Friday with a message condemning religious hatred. His post did not name Mizrachi, but it accompanied circulation of the disputed footage and addressed the mocking of religious traditions.

“Those who incite hatred against people of any religion or belief, mock their faith or insult their religious traditions are not merely spreading intolerance,” the ambassador wrote. He warned that such behaviour threatened the foundations of shared humanity and added: “Racists are a danger to us all.”

Other social media users from India and Israel condemned the remarks, with some explicitly calling the preacher racist. The criticism centred on his portrayal of Hindus as a uniform group and his attempt to associate medical professionals with an unsubstantiated caricature.

The controversy spread across several social media platforms as users shared excerpts of the sermon and challenged the preacher's assertions. Responses included demands for greater respect towards religious communities and objections to stereotyping.

Cow reverence has an important place in several Hindu traditions, although beliefs and practices vary considerably among communities. The religious significance of cattle does not establish that the behaviour described by Mizrachi is customary among Hindus, much less among doctors practising modern medicine.

The dispute also attracted attention because of the close diplomatic relationship between India and Israel. The two governments maintain extensive cooperation across defence, security, technology and agriculture. However, Mizrachi was speaking as an independent religious preacher, not as a representative of Israel's government.

Mizrachi operates Divine Information, a religious outreach platform, and has faced criticism from within Orthodox Jewish circles over earlier sermons. In 2016, a group of 16 Orthodox rabbis condemned aspects of his teaching and described some statements as objectionable and dangerous.

He had previously made a false claim about the number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust, substantially understating the established figure of approximately six million. He subsequently apologised after criticism from Holocaust scholars and others.

A planned speaking tour of Britain in 2019 was cancelled amid questions about whether he would be permitted to enter the country. Mizrachi later said he had chosen not to board his flight because he feared being questioned or refused entry. British authorities did not publicly confirm an individual exclusion order.

The video circulating this week contains excerpts of Mizrachi's remarks rather than evidence supporting the claims he made about Hindu families, hospitals or doctors.

Congress welcomes Jamia decision on students’ union elections

The Congress on Thursday hailed protesting students at Jamia Millia Islamia after the university committed to restoring its students’ union and announced a timetable for elections following an 18-day agitation.

Congress general secretary (organisation) K C Venugopal described the outcome as a victory for student power, accusing the university administration of attempting to suppress the movement. His comments followed an October 29 order setting May 15, 2027, as the deadline for approving and implementing the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union constitution.

“The students of Jamia Millia Islamia Central University have won!” Venugopal wrote on X. He added: “In the end, the fascists had to bend before student power. Democracy was hard-fought but was won eventually!”

The Congress leader alleged that the administration, which he characterised as BJP-controlled, had tried to divide and discredit the protesters. He also accused the authorities of sending leaders of the Congress-affiliated National Students’ Union of India to Tihar Jail for participating in the agitation. Those accusations were political claims, rather than findings established by the university’s order.

Venugopal praised the students for what he called their non-violent struggle and said the outcome should serve as a lesson to those seeking to silence young people. The university’s decision itself did not endorse the Congress leader’s characterisation of the dispute.

The order, issued by the registrar’s office, said the competent authority had examined a request submitted by students and their representatives on Thursday. It directed that the union constitution be approved and implemented by May 15 next year, providing a specific deadline that protesters had demanded during negotiations.

The administration also undertook to notify elections after approval of the constitution, following the recommendations and guidelines of the Lyngdoh Committee, which governs important aspects of student union elections at universities.

Voting is to take place within six weeks of the beginning of the next academic session, expected to commence around July 16, 2027. The schedule places the anticipated elections in the following weeks, although the precise polling date has not been announced.

The university further directed the withdrawal of ongoing show-cause notices, disciplinary inquiries, rustications, suspensions and campus entry bans imposed in connection with participation in the protest. That assurance addressed another principal demand of the demonstrators, who had challenged disciplinary measures taken during the confrontation.

The registrar’s order called on students to end their protest and hunger strike immediately. Student representatives subsequently announced that they were calling off the agitation, marking the end of a standoff that had disrupted activities on the New Delhi campus.

The protest began on October 12, with students seeking the return of an elected representative body and a firm commitment on when union elections would be held. The university has not held students’ union elections for approximately two decades, making the proposed timetable a significant institutional change.

Earlier negotiations had failed to resolve the dispute because an administrative assurance did not specify a deadline for approving the constitution. Protesters also objected to disciplinary restrictions and provisions concerning apologies, prompting further discussions with university officials.

The October 29 decision addressed the absence of a timetable and the disciplinary measures, although implementation of the constitution and the actual conduct of elections remain future administrative steps. Approval of the framework should therefore not be confused with an elected union already taking office.

The announcement coincided with the university’s foundation day, when students were marking the institution’s anniversary amid the continuing mobilisation. Demonstrators welcomed the order and celebrated on campus after receiving confirmation of the administration’s commitments.

The dispute had also affected teaching arrangements. The university announced that offline classes would resume from November 2, following a period when academic activities had been shifted online during the agitation.

The Lyngdoh Committee guidelines referred to in the order provide the framework for the electoral process, including requirements governing candidates and campaigning. The university will have to incorporate the applicable provisions when it issues its election notification after the constitution is approved.

The registrar’s directive followed a written request from the hunger strikers and their delegates dated October 29. It covers disciplinary measures connected specifically with participation in the protest, rather than announcing a general withdrawal of unrelated university proceedings. The university’s formal election notification remains dependent on completing the constitutional approval process within the stipulated deadline.

Shiv Sena renews leadership demand after Maharashtra poll setback

Shiv Sena leaders have renewed their demand to replace Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis with Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde following the ruling Mahayuti alliance's defeat in three of five Legislative Council constituencies, including the politically significant Nagpur graduates' seat.

The demand has exposed tensions within the BJP-led coalition, with Shiv Sena leaders arguing that the electoral setback demonstrates the need for different leadership. BJP representatives have rejected the suggestion and defended Fadnavis, while acknowledging shortcomings in the alliance's election campaign.

Shiv Sena leader Ravindra Dhangekar said the results reflected dissatisfaction among educated young voters, particularly graduates preparing for competitive examinations and seeking government employment. He attributed their discontent to allegations of examination paper leaks and irregularities in recruitment.

Dhangekar argued that Shinde, who previously served as chief minister, maintained stronger connections with ordinary voters and could restore confidence in the government. He called for a change of leadership, presenting the election results as evidence that the coalition needed to reassess its political approach.

Former Maharashtra minister and Shiv Sena leader Abdul Sattar supported the demand, describing Shinde as an experienced leader whose political standing had been acknowledged by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Sattar maintained that Shinde had played a central role in bringing the Mahayuti alliance to power and remained capable of leading the coalition. He said Shiv Sena leaders wanted their party chief to return as chief minister, although no formal decision on replacing Fadnavis has been announced.

BJP leader Pravin Darekar rejected the leadership demand, defending Fadnavis's performance and questioning the motives of those advocating his replacement. He accused the Shiv Sena figures making the demand of pursuing an agenda against the chief minister.

The disagreement followed a disappointing performance by Mahayuti in elections held on October 23. The opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi secured three seats, while the ruling coalition won two. Counting began on October 27, with the closely contested Nagpur result confirmed after prolonged scrutiny of ballots.

Congress candidate Abhijeet Wanjari retained the Nagpur graduates' constituency, defeating BJP nominee Sudhakar Kohale by 3,271 votes. Wanjari received 67,231 votes against Kohale's 63,960, securing another term despite an intensive campaign by the ruling party.

Nagpur carries considerable political significance because it is Fadnavis's home city and also the political base of Union minister Nitin Gadkari. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, regarded as the BJP's ideological parent organisation, has its headquarters there.

The BJP had sought to recover the constituency after losing it to Congress in 2020. Wanjari's victory therefore represented a failure to regain a seat that the party and its predecessor had controlled for decades, rather than the loss of an incumbent BJP-held constituency.

The BJP also lost the Pune graduates' constituency, where the Nationalist Congress Party faction led by Sharad Pawar secured victory. That opposition party additionally captured the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar graduates' seat.

Mahayuti's victories came through BJP candidate Kaustubh Gawade in the Pune teachers' constituency and Shiv Sena candidate Kiran Sarnaik in the Amravati teachers' constituency. The Nationalist Congress Party faction headed by Sunetra Pawar failed to win its allotted seat.

The results have triggered competing accusations over coordination among coalition partners. Maharashtra BJP chief spokesperson Navnath Ban alleged that Shiv Sena had failed to provide the expected support to alliance candidates in constituencies where the BJP was contesting.

Shiv Sena representatives countered that the BJP had disregarded the political interests of its partners during seat-sharing negotiations. Dhangekar argued that the larger party should stop taking its allies for granted, citing the election outcome as a warning against unilateral decisions.

Senior BJP leader and Maharashtra minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule said the party would examine the reasons for its defeat and determine whether alliance partners had fulfilled their campaign responsibilities.

Bawankule, who oversaw the Nagpur campaign, accepted responsibility for shortcomings and said the coalition would review whether instructions from party leaderships had been followed at constituency level.

He also acknowledged that coordination had been inadequate in some places, despite BJP legislators and parliamentarians campaigning for the Shiv Sena candidate in Amravati.

The Pune contests had already exposed disagreements before polling, with Shiv Sena supporting an independent candidate against the BJP in the teachers' constituency. BJP leaders have identified such competing candidatures as matters requiring examination during the alliance's proposed review of the election results.

Delhi court withholds mosque prayer access amid protection assurance

The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to permit worshippers to offer namaz at the Race Course Mosque near the Prime Minister’s residence, while the Centre assured the court that the structure would not be demolished pending a decision on a representation from the Delhi Waqf Board.

Justice Anish Dayal heard a petition filed by Syed Ahmed Saud, a worshipper seeking protection against possible demolition and restoration of access to the mosque. The court did not grant his request for immediate permission to pray at the premises.

Central government standing counsel Ashish Dixit, representing the Land and Development Office (L&DO), informed the court that the Waqf Board’s representation would be considered expeditiously and decided within four weeks. He assured the bench that no action would be taken against the mosque while that process remained pending.

The assurance provides interim protection against demolition but does not resolve the separate dispute over entry to the premises. Worshippers have complained that restrictions on movement prevent them from offering prayers, despite the mosque’s asserted religious and heritage status.

Dixit maintained that access could not be restored because demolition operations in the surrounding area created safety concerns. The government’s position was challenged by advocate M Sufian Siddiqui, appearing for Saud, who argued that photographs taken on Thursday showed no demolition activity continuing at the location.

Siddiqui submitted that the clearance exercise had already been completed and questioned the justification for keeping the mosque inaccessible. The court recorded his objections and directed the Union government to submit a status report accompanied by photographs.

The disagreement over conditions at the site remains material to the request for access. While the authorities have cited public safety, the petitioner maintains that the continuing restrictions interfere with worship without sufficient justification.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for December 16, leaving the access question open while the L&DO examines the Waqf Board’s representation. The government’s undertaking concerns action against the structure and does not amount to permission for religious gatherings.

Dixit also challenged Saud’s standing to maintain the proceedings. He argued that entertaining petitions from individual worshippers could encourage numerous similar applications. Siddiqui opposed that objection, maintaining that his client was entitled to seek protection of his own religious rights.

Saud has invoked constitutional protections, including Article 25, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. His petition seeks unobstructed entry and exit, alongside safeguards against demolition or other coercive measures.

The petitioner has also asked the court to require the Delhi Waqf Board to fulfil its statutory responsibilities concerning the mosque. He contends that the board failed to take adequate measures to preserve the property and protect access after restrictions were imposed.

The mosque stands within the Race Course Club premises, an area covering approximately 53 acres near 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, the Prime Minister’s official residence. The wider locality has been affected by government efforts to recover land and remove structures identified for clearance.

According to the petition, electricity and water supplies to the mosque were disconnected on October 7 during demolition operations involving nearby settlements. Saud argues that the mosque itself was not identified among the encroachments targeted in the clearance exercise.

His petition describes the mosque as a notified Waqf property, referring to a 1977 notification published in the Delhi Gazette. It also cites a 2009 notification which, he maintains, recognises the premises as a Grade-II heritage structure.

Those classifications form part of the petitioner’s case against demolition. The proceedings on Thursday did not finally determine the mosque’s legal status, the validity of the restrictions or the competing claims concerning use of the land.

At an earlier hearing on Tuesday, the Centre had indicated that no demolition action would be taken against the mosque before Thursday. The court sought clearer instructions about the authorities’ intentions, leading to the undertaking presented at the subsequent hearing.

The petitioner has additionally alleged that officials verbally warned the mosque’s imam to vacate the premises. That allegation remains part of his account of the apprehended demolition rather than a finding made by the court.

The Delhi Waqf Board had approached the authorities separately concerning the mosque. Its representation is now the subject of the four-week decision period communicated to the High Court by the L&DO.

Bhushan seeks prosecution over Election Commission affidavits

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan on Thursday accused the Election Commission of India of filing fabricated affidavits before the Supreme Court and demanded prosecution of officials responsible for preparing and authorising them.

At a New Delhi press conference with activists Anjali Bharadwaj, Yogendra Yadav and Neha Bora, Bhushan challenged the Commission’s October 26 counter-affidavit defending decisions behind the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The allegations remain disputed, and the Supreme Court has not found that the affidavit was fabricated.

The central disagreement concerns whether the three-member Commission collectively authorised the revision and associated administrative changes. The Commission maintains that its principal SIR orders were approved unanimously. Bhushan and the activists argued that records disclosed under the Right to Information Act and objections attributed to two election commissioners contradicted that position.

Bharadwaj said an information request seeking records of the decision to undertake the nationwide exercise had produced a response stating that no relevant file was available. She said the Commission’s appellate authority subsequently indicated that no decision to launch the nationwide SIR had been taken in 2025. She questioned how that response could be reconciled with the affidavit’s account of unanimous approvals.

The disputed affidavit identifies orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, as having received collective approval. The activists demanded the underlying files, minutes and electronic communications to establish when the decisions were made and which commissioners agreed to them.

Bhushan also challenged the Commission’s explanation that urgent decisions communicated electronically could be formally incorporated into official records afterwards. He argued that contemporaneous communications were necessary to establish whether proper approval had actually been obtained, rather than merely recorded retrospectively.

Another disputed issue involves objections attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The activists said these showed disagreement over significant operational decisions, including the centralisation of electoral roll management. The Commission has characterised individual observations as part of its consultative process rather than evidence that its final decisions lacked consensus.

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar heads the panel alongside Sandhu and Joshi. The Commission has denied allegations that Kumar unilaterally authorised the revision and has maintained before the court that the exercise and its principal orders complied with the law.

The controversy also extends to the computer systems used to manage voter records. The activists questioned whether centralised technology operations could interfere with the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers to add, remove or correct entries. They sought information about who could access and alter the database and what safeguards governed those changes.

The Commission’s affidavit describes a high-level committee established on October 14 to examine whether its ECINet system complies with applicable legal requirements. The panel includes senior election officials, state Chief Electoral Officers and independent specialists associated with IIT Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.

Changes to the online version of Form 6, used for new voter registration, formed another part of the criticism. The activists alleged that an additional declaration was introduced without proper authorisation. The Commission has maintained that the statutory form itself was not amended, while acknowledging issues concerning the online implementation that required correction.

The activists additionally questioned approximately 16 lakh appeals challenging voter inclusion in West Bengal. They sought to establish who instructed officials in the state Chief Electoral Officer’s office to submit the appeals, whether the Commission had approved them and whether automated systems played any role in generating the filings.

At Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant gave petitioners time to respond to the Commission’s affidavit. The judges declined to issue a separate direction requiring preservation of internal files and communications but indicated that the court would examine the material. The matter was tentatively listed for November 17.

The proceedings also involve allegations concerning the treatment of voters removed from electoral rolls and asked to apply afresh using Form 6. Petitioners have argued that its declaration can create difficulties for people who were previously registered. The legality of disputed verification practices remains before the court.

Bhushan and his fellow activists called for disclosure of the relevant approval records, correspondence and instructions, alongside scrutiny of the officials responsible for contested administrative actions. Their demand for criminal prosecution has not itself resulted in any judicial finding of wrongdoing.

Supreme Court declines mandatory public disclosure of fund ownership

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to direct the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to publicly disclose the ultimate beneficial owners and investment portfolios of alternative investment funds (AIFs), foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) and their intermediaries, citing the absence of a legal framework mandating such disclosures.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna, R Mahadevan and D K Upadhyaya disposed of a public interest petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, holding that the judiciary could not compel the market regulator to introduce disclosure requirements unsupported by existing legislation or regulations.

The court distinguished between information available to regulatory authorities and information required to be placed in the public domain. It noted that investment details were already submitted to SEBI or designated custodians, enabling regulatory supervision and investigations where necessary.

Examining SEBI's response, the bench found that neither the AIF Regulations nor the FPI Regulations required public disclosure of investments on an entity-by-entity basis. Consequently, the requested directions would effectively establish obligations beyond the existing regulatory framework.

The judges observed that Article 32 of the Constitution did not empower the court to impose the particular disclosure regime sought by Moitra without an appropriate statutory or regulatory foundation.

The bench clarified that courts could direct authorities to comply with existing legal requirements where violations were established. However, issuing a writ of mandamus to enforce obligations that had not been prescribed presented a fundamentally different question.

The ruling leaves the existing disclosure arrangements unchanged while preserving the authority of the Union government and SEBI to consider additional transparency requirements through appropriate policymaking and regulatory procedures.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Moitra, argued that the absence of specific legislation should not prevent judicial intervention where market transparency and investor protection were involved.

He contended that opaque ownership structures could facilitate market manipulation by allowing investors operating through multiple entities to influence share prices without their ultimate identities becoming publicly known.

Bhushan maintained that ordinary investors could face disadvantages when substantial investments were routed through structures whose underlying beneficiaries remained undisclosed. These concerns formed part of the petitioner's case rather than findings established by the court.

The advocate referred to earlier judicial interventions requiring electoral candidates to disclose criminal antecedents, educational qualifications and financial assets. He argued that the judiciary had previously directed transparency measures even without explicit statutory provisions.

The bench distinguished those electoral disclosure cases from the regulatory questions raised by the petition, indicating that the circumstances and legal considerations were not comparable.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna questioned why Moitra, as a member of Parliament, had approached the judiciary instead of raising the matter through parliamentary proceedings.

The bench suggested that legislative discussion offered an appropriate avenue for examining whether broader disclosure obligations should be introduced. It nevertheless considered the petition and SEBI's response before declining the requested relief.

SEBI maintained that confidentiality protections did not prevent regulators and enforcement agencies from accessing relevant ownership and portfolio information. Its submissions indicated that beneficial ownership details were available under applicable regulatory requirements, including provisions connected with anti-money-laundering compliance.

The regulator explained that information supplied by funds and their custodians supported supervision, investigations and policy formulation. Making those records accessible to authorities, however, was distinct from publishing them for unrestricted public examination.

Moitra's petition sought identification of the natural persons ultimately controlling or benefiting from investments, including those conducted through layered corporate entities, trusts and financial intermediaries.

It argued that limited public visibility over such arrangements created risks involving market manipulation, money laundering, tax evasion and the potential circulation of funds through offshore structures.

Those concerns were presented as grounds for strengthening disclosure obligations. The court did not determine that the alleged practices had occurred or that particular investment funds had violated securities regulations.

The petition also highlighted the scale of investments handled by the affected entities. Figures cited before the court indicated that 1,647 registered AIFs held assets worth approximately Rs 14.17 lakh crore, while 11,999 FPIs accounted for approximately Rs 78.66 lakh crore.

These figures formed part of the petitioner's submissions and were not independently adjudicated by the bench.

Alternative investment funds typically pool capital for investments under specialised strategies, while foreign portfolio investors channel overseas capital into securities markets. Both operate under separate regulatory frameworks administered by SEBI.

The petition specifically sought disclosure covering intermediaries alongside the investment vehicles themselves, extending the proposed transparency requirements beyond identification of registered funds to the individuals ultimately controlling their investments.

The proceedings also addressed whether the requested information could be obtained through existing supervisory channels, with SEBI maintaining that regulated entities already supplied investment information to the designated authorities.

Rijiju rebukes Naseeruddin Shah over student protest remarks

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju has criticised veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah for describing himself as a “dimagi naxal” while supporting university students protesting against alleged government interference in educational institutions.

Rijiju, the minister for minority affairs, accused Shah of holding views harmful to democracy after the actor posted a video questioning the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government's treatment of students and its approach to dissent.

Responding on X on Wednesday, Rijiju wrote: “I thought Naseeruddin Shah was just an ordinary actor. I used to respect & like him.. I never knew that he was a dangerous urban Dimagi Naxal!”

The minister added in Hindi that he had discovered Shah's true character too late and described the actor as extremely harmful to the country's democracy.

His intervention followed a Facebook video released by Shah on Tuesday, expressing solidarity with students at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi who are demanding restoration of their students' union.

Shah, 76, appeared wearing a badge bearing the words “Dimagi Naxal”, a political expression loosely referring to an intellectual associated with Naxalite ideology. He embraced the description while challenging labels applied to critics of the government.

“I proudly declare that I am Dimagi Naxal,” Shah said, referring to expressions including “anti-national” and “tukde-tukde gang” that have featured prominently in political arguments over dissent.

The actor questioned whether the government was attempting to undermine the confidence of young people, weaken educational institutions and endanger democratic freedoms.

“What else will you do to break the courage of our country's youth, to destroy the education system, and to put our democracy at risk?” Shah asked.

His allegations were directed at the central government, although the video did not establish that the authorities had adopted a coordinated policy to suppress student movements.

Shah referred specifically to Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute and Jamia Millia Islamia, alleging that students across these institutions had faced mistreatment.

He warned that what he described as injustices against students would not be forgotten and expressed support for young people challenging university administrations and government policies.

The exchange has drawn attention to the use of politically charged terminology in arguments about dissent. While Shah employed the expression to identify himself with government critics, Rijiju used it to question the actor's political outlook.

The phrase “dimagi naxal” has also appeared in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's political speeches. Government leaders have used comparable terminology when alleging that certain intellectuals and activists sympathise with extremist ideologies.

Such descriptions remain politically contested, particularly when applied to individuals expressing criticism without any established connection to unlawful organisations.

The immediate dispute centres on demonstrations at Jamia Millia Islamia, where students have demanded a timetable for restoring their representative union and conducting elections.

Student union elections at the university have remained suspended since 2006 following campus violence. Protesters are seeking a definite election schedule and a deadline for approving the union's constitution.

The agitation has continued for more than two weeks, with confrontations between protesters and university authorities adding to tensions on campus.

Videos circulating from the demonstrations have shown damage to university property, including gates and security infrastructure. Allegations concerning responsibility for the damage remain separate from the students' demands for elected representation.

University authorities have cited security concerns while responding to the unrest. Students maintain that restoring their union is necessary to provide a formal mechanism for raising grievances and participating in institutional decisions.

The university has also shifted certain academic activities online amid the disruption, including arrangements affecting examinations and classes.

Shah's intervention followed his expressions of support for students at the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute in Kolkata, where protests have involved allegations concerning campus violence.

Actor Puneet Issar has separately criticised Shah's statements, arguing that political disagreements should be addressed through democratic electoral processes rather than allegations against an elected government.

The disagreement between the two actors adds another dimension to the controversy, with competing views emerging over the appropriate boundaries of political criticism by public figures.

Shah concluded his video by offering encouragement to protesting students and invoking lines associated with the freedom struggle, including a verse from Bismil Azimabadi's poem “Sarfaroshi ki tamanna”.

The Jamia protesters have sought a firm commitment from the university administration on the proposed election timetable and the approval of the students' union constitution.

Contractor alleges Rs 2-crore bribe demand by CEC

A contractor associated with Kerala’s MC Road development project has accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of demanding a Rs 2-crore bribe from a Malaysian engineer and withholding payments during his tenure as the state’s Public Works Department secretary.

Sajan B O, who participated in the World Bank-funded project, made the allegation at a press conference in Thiruvananthapuram on Wednesday. He claimed that Kumar’s refusal to clear outstanding bills contributed to financial pressures that ultimately drove Lee See Been, chief project manager of the Indo-Malaysian joint venture PATI-BEL, to suicide in 2006.

Sajan said he possessed documents supporting his allegations and would submit them to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), which is examining suspected irregularities in the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP).

The contractor alleged that payments approved by other officials were withheld by Kumar, who demanded Rs 2 crore to facilitate their release. He maintained that the Malaysian company refused to meet the demand, resulting in prolonged financial difficulties for the consortium and its subcontractors.

According to Sajan, the road development contract covered approximately 124 kilometres across the Alappuzha-Changanassery and Changanassery-Madukkamoodu stretches, with an estimated value of Rs 274 crore. Work was suspended in 2005 amid mounting financial and contractual difficulties.

Sajan further alleged that Lee transferred funds from another company project in Bengaluru to settle outstanding liabilities associated with the Kerala contract. The diversion allegedly created additional financial complications, leaving the engineer unable to meet obligations arising from the stalled project.

The allegations concerning the bribe demand and its connection with Lee’s death remain unproven. No independent finding establishing criminal wrongdoing by Kumar has been made public.

The contractor’s statements come as the Kerala government pursues a fresh examination of allegations associated with the project and Lee’s death in Kuala Lumpur in November 2006.

Public Works Minister P K Basheer told the Legislative Assembly on Thursday that the VACB’s preliminary inquiry was continuing and its findings had not yet been received.

Responding to questions from BJP legislators B B Gopakumar, V Muraleedharan and Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Basheer said discrepancies identified in the earlier investigation had prompted the decision to undertake another examination.

The minister also referred to an alleged loss of Rs 700 crore to the government arising from irregularities involving officials connected with the project. The figure remains an allegation pending investigative findings.

Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala ordered the fresh inquiry earlier this month following a complaint submitted by Congress leader Malayinkeezhu Venugopal. The complaint sought scrutiny of Kumar’s conduct during his tenure as PWD secretary and the circumstances surrounding the Malaysian engineer’s death.

Chennithala subsequently informed the Assembly that the government would examine available documents before determining whether further proceedings were warranted.

The renewed investigation is examining whether the original Vigilance inquiry adequately considered allegations of corruption, improper administrative intervention and financial pressure on the construction consortium.

An earlier inquiry was closed after investigators failed to establish sufficient evidence supporting the allegations. The present examination is also expected to consider whether relevant material was overlooked or whether outside pressure influenced the original proceedings.

Lee, who supervised the consortium’s construction activities, reportedly left suicide notes referring to difficulties encountered during the execution of the road contract. Allegations that Kumar was named in those communications have formed an important element of the complaint seeking further investigation.

Investigators have faced difficulties obtaining the purported suicide notes, which could be significant in establishing the precise nature of Lee’s grievances and identifying individuals against whom he made allegations.

The VACB’s investigation primarily concerns suspected corruption and administrative misconduct. A separate examination of circumstances surrounding the suicide has also been considered because allegations involving criminal responsibility for a death fall outside the bureau’s principal investigative remit.

The project itself encountered disputes over land acquisition, construction delays, payment obligations and demands for revision of contractual terms. These issues complicated the relationship between the government and the consortium during implementation.

PATI-BEL was formed through cooperation between a Malaysian construction company and Kerala-based Bhageeratha Engineering. Its assignment formed part of the larger programme to upgrade major road corridors with World Bank assistance.

Sajan has expressed willingness to cooperate with investigators and provide documentary material concerning payment clearances, contractual liabilities and administrative decisions taken while Kumar supervised the department. His proposed submission could become part of the evidence examined during the ongoing preliminary inquiry.

Supreme Court requires Raut’s presence at contempt hearing

The Supreme Court has ordered Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut to appear personally on November 17 in criminal contempt proceedings concerning remarks about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi directed journalist Nikhil Wagle, the other respondent in the petition, to attend the same hearing through video conferencing. The proceedings are scheduled for 2 pm.

The directions came on Wednesday as the court examined a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which alleges that statements made by the two men undermined the authority of the judiciary. Neither respondent has been found guilty of contempt. The court’s order concerns their attendance and the handling of their responses, rather than a determination of the allegations contained in the petition.

The bench said the matter concerned the judiciary as an institution and required further consideration. It declined at this stage to discharge the notice issued to Wagle, notwithstanding an unconditional apology submitted on his behalf.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Wagle, informed the court that the journalist had withdrawn the social media post at issue and expressed remorse. She sought permission for him to participate remotely, pointing to his location in Mumbai and the earlier exemption from personal attendance.

The judges accepted the request for virtual attendance but required Wagle to be present during the next hearing. His affidavit containing the apology was brought to the bench’s attention, and Jaising requested that the show-cause notice against him be discharged. The court did not accept that request and asked counsel for further assistance.

Raut, meanwhile, had no lawyer appearing on his behalf when the matter was called. The bench was informed that advocate Vishnu Sharma had filed a vakalatnama, an authorisation to represent him, and that a reply affidavit had also reportedly been submitted.

The court noted, however, that the registry’s records did not reflect a formal appearance and that the purported reply was not available before the judges. It directed the registry to place any filed affidavit on record and ordered Raut to attend personally on November 17.

Speaking after the hearing, Raut said he would comply with the direction. He also indicated that he did not have full details of what had transpired because his lawyers were not present during the proceedings.

The SCBA initiated the case after obtaining written consent from Attorney General R Venkataramani under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. That consent is a procedural requirement for a private party seeking criminal contempt action before the Supreme Court.

Venkataramani granted consent on October 15, taking the preliminary view that the statements attributed to Raut and Wagle were capable of lowering public esteem for the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice. The allegations remain subject to judicial examination. Consent from the Attorney General permits the association to pursue the petition; it does not establish the truth of its accusations or decide the outcome.

The controversy followed the Chief Justice’s refusal to grant a meeting to a delegation of opposition leaders. The SCBA alleges that Wagle responded with an abusive social media message and that Raut made statements questioning the conduct and political associations of judges.

During Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocates Pradeep Rai and Rahul Kaushik, appearing for the association, drew attention to the disputed statements. They argued that the language used against the Chief Justice went beyond permissible criticism and warranted the court’s intervention.

The association also referred to allegations concerning judges purportedly playing badminton with political figures in London. Its representatives maintained that similar claims had circulated despite an earlier Delhi High Court order restraining false material on the subject.

On October 16, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued show-cause notices to both respondents. It exempted them from appearing personally at the following hearing while allowing them an opportunity to explain their statements.

The notices did not determine whether either man had committed contempt. The pending petition requires the court to assess the statements, their context and the explanations offered before deciding whether further action is justified.

Jaising also told Wednesday’s bench that lawyers sometimes experienced frustration with the institution, while affirming her willingness to assist the court. The judges requested her assistance as they considered the allegations and Wagle’s apology.

Justice Kaul rejects mentoring claims involving CJP activist

Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has denied mentoring Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) activist Saurav Das, saying their limited acquaintance began when Das worked as a journalist.

Kaul's clarification followed the circulation of a photograph showing the two together at a Diwali gathering about a year ago. The former judge said the image was being interpreted as evidence of an ideological association that he did not acknowledge.

Speaking in an interview on Wednesday, Kaul said Das had met him only once or twice in his capacity as a journalist. He described his appearance at the Diwali gathering as a brief social visit, rather than an indication of involvement with Das or the political group to which he now belongs.

“He was a journalist, maybe met me a couple of times,” Kaul said. He explained that Das had pressed him to attend the gathering, although he already had another engagement. Kaul said he agreed to stop for approximately ten minutes before continuing with his plans.

The former judge also addressed suggestions that he had guided Das's public activities. He acknowledged having offered advice about the language Das used, but drew a distinction between that exchange and a continuing mentoring relationship.

“I was not mentoring him,” Kaul said, recalling that he had suggested Das should “taper down a little” in his language. His remarks were directed at the tone of communication, he explained, rather than at the objectives or activities of the CJP.

Kaul said his concern reflected differences between generations over acceptable forms of public discussion. People accustomed to more restrained exchanges could find confrontational language uncomfortable, he suggested, while acknowledging that younger speakers sometimes communicated differently.

Asked whether increasingly forceful language might become commonplace in courtrooms, Kaul said restraint was important. He suggested that speakers should be mindful of how their words affected others, particularly those accustomed to a different style of debate.

The former judge declined to give the CJP's younger members advice on whether they should moderate their approach to political campaigning. He indicated that offering such guidance could itself be portrayed as evidence that he was advising the organisation, the very impression he was seeking to correct.

The clarification comes amid scrutiny of the CJP following an October 13 demonstration at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The protest led to police action against activists associated with the organisation, including Das, and subsequent proceedings concerning the maintenance of public peace.

Das and fellow activist Ashutosh Ranka were released from judicial custody after furnishing bonds and written undertakings before a Special Executive Magistrate. The proceedings concern preventive measures and do not, by themselves, establish guilt in relation to any alleged offence.

The magistrate directed each activist to provide a personal bond and surety of Rs 50,000 and comply with conditions while the enquiry continues. Their undertakings included commitments not to disturb public tranquillity and to keep any future demonstrations within constitutional and legal requirements.

The activists also undertook not to call for protests at Jantar Mantar until the location is restored as a designated protest site under the applicable rules. Police have alleged that participants breached restrictions governing access to the area during the October 13 gathering.

The controversy surrounding the photograph developed against that background, with questions raised about whether Kaul's presence at the earlier gathering signified sympathy for the organisation. Kaul's account placed the encounter before the present dispute and described it as a personal invitation accepted for a short period.

Das had worked as a legal journalist before becoming associated with the CJP. Kaul said the activist was not attracting the same public attention at the time of the Diwali meeting, a circumstance he cited when explaining why he had attended.

The CJP activists have also faced requests to appear before the Delhi Police Crime Branch for questioning over the protest. Their representatives have indicated that they communicated difficulties attending an earlier scheduled appearance and were awaiting further arrangements.

The Crime Branch had summoned Das, Ranka and Shinde to its Rajouri Garden office on October 22. Ranka said the activists had informed investigators that they could not attend that appointment.

At a subsequent hearing, Das, Ranka and another activist, Ajinkya Shinde, appeared in connection with verification of sureties. The proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate are scheduled to continue in the third week of November.

Congress secures Nagpur graduates’ seat after prolonged count

Congress candidate Abhijeet Wanjari retained Maharashtra’s Nagpur Division Graduates’ constituency on Thursday, defeating Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) challenger Sudhakar Kohale by 3,271 votes after a closely contested election that required more than 41 hours of counting.

Wanjari, the sitting member of the Maharashtra Legislative Council, secured 67,231 votes against 63,960 polled by Kohale, a former legislator. The result was declared early Thursday after the counting process, which began on Tuesday, extended into successive rounds of preferential voting.

The victory carries particular political significance because Nagpur is the hometown of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, both prominent BJP leaders who campaigned for Kohale. The city also houses the headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological organisation associated with the BJP.

The outcome denied the BJP an opportunity to reclaim a constituency it had controlled for decades before Wanjari first won the seat in 2020. His re-election gives Congress a second consecutive victory in territory traditionally regarded as an important BJP organisational stronghold.

The contest witnessed a reversal during counting. Kohale had established a lead of 4,294 votes after the first-preference ballots were counted, receiving 60,924 votes against Wanjari’s 56,630. Independent candidate Nitesh Karale secured 24,249 first-preference votes, making the subsequent transfer of preferences crucial.

Neither principal candidate reached the required quota of 75,438 votes during the initial counting rounds. Election officials consequently proceeded with the elimination of lower-ranked candidates and the redistribution of their ballots according to voters’ subsequent preferences.

Wanjari overtook Kohale during these elimination rounds and finished with the higher tally. As neither candidate attained the prescribed quota even after the redistribution, Wanjari was declared elected on the basis of his final vote total.

Returning Officer and Nagpur Divisional Commissioner Vijayalakshmi Bidari issued the election certificate to Wanjari following completion of the counting process at the Divisional Sports Complex in Mankapur.

The counting operation involved 84 tables and continued for more than 41 hours. Election observer Harshdeep Kamble, assistant returning officers and district election officials were associated with the exercise.

Election figures showed that 165,906 ballots were counted, of which 150,874 were considered valid and 15,032 were rejected. The substantial number of invalid ballots formed another notable feature of an election decided through the preferential voting system.

Wanjari’s victory also altered the overall balance of the five Legislative Council constituencies that went to the polls on October 23. The opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) secured three seats, while the ruling Mahayuti alliance won two.

The Nationalist Congress Party faction led by Sharad Pawar won the graduates’ constituencies of Pune and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Congress added Nagpur to the opposition alliance’s tally.

Within the ruling alliance, the BJP secured the Pune Teachers’ constituency through Kaustubh Gawade, while the Shiv Sena led by Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde won the Amravati Teachers’ constituency through Kiran Sarnaik.

The Nagpur result attracted particular attention because the BJP had invested considerable political effort in the contest. Fadnavis and Gadkari actively supported Kohale’s campaign, seeking to restore the party’s representation in a constituency with longstanding connections to its senior leadership.

Gadkari himself represented the Nagpur graduates’ constituency for 24 years, from 1990 until 2014. The BJP subsequently lost the seat to Wanjari in 2020, when he defeated its candidate Sandip Joshi.

Congress leaders highlighted Thursday’s result after earlier political exchanges over the party’s performance in the Council elections. The Maharashtra Congress challenged claims that the party had failed to secure a seat, pointing to the final Nagpur outcome.

The result nevertheless represented a successful defence of an existing Congress seat rather than a new constituency gain. Wanjari entered the election as the incumbent, while the BJP sought to reverse its defeat six years earlier.

The graduates’ constituency differs from an ordinary Assembly constituency because its electorate comprises registered graduate voters meeting the prescribed eligibility requirements. Such constituencies elect representatives to the Legislative Council rather than the directly elected Legislative Assembly.

The voting system also differs from the first-past-the-post method used in Assembly elections. Voters rank candidates by preference, allowing ballots to be transferred when candidates are eliminated during counting.

Polling for the Nagpur Division constituency took place on October 23, with voting scheduled between 8 am and 4 pm. The Election Commission had announced the election programme on September 22 and issued the formal notification on September 29. The electoral process was scheduled for completion by October 31.

Delhi magistrate mandates disclosure of six Bora FIRs

A Special Executive Magistrate in New Delhi has directed Delhi Police to provide All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora with copies of six First Information Reports cited against her in preventive proceedings, setting November 20 as the deadline.

Magistrate Ritu Raj issued the direction on Wednesday after Bora’s lawyer, Abhik Chimni, submitted that documents supplied by police were incomplete and failed to disclose essential particulars of the cases being used to justify a proposed peace bond.

The magistrate’s order requires police to furnish the FIRs before the next hearing, enabling Bora’s legal team to examine the allegations and prepare its response to the proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Chimni argued that police had relied upon six FIRs as evidence of Bora’s alleged criminal antecedents while withholding copies of those documents. The omission, he submitted, prevented the defence from adequately addressing the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice.

Police legal consultants Prashant Prakash and Bhagwan Dass told the magistrate that the FIRs were sensitive in nature. They undertook to provide the documents by November 20, when the matter is scheduled for further consideration.

The directive follows a Delhi High Court judgment on October 23 dismissing Bora’s petition challenging the initiation of peace-bond proceedings. Although the court upheld the validity of the notice, it instructed police to disclose all material relied upon and required the magistrate to observe principles of natural justice before making any final order.

The High Court found sufficient material for initiating proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS. Its decision did not establish Bora’s guilt in any criminal case or determine whether she must ultimately execute the proposed bond.

The distinction remains significant because preventive proceedings concern an apprehended breach of public peace rather than punishment following conviction. The authorities must establish grounds for requiring an undertaking, while the person concerned must receive an opportunity to contest the material presented.

Bora appeared before the magistrate at Mandir Marg on Wednesday afternoon but again declined to furnish the bond. Her legal representatives instead sought additional documents concerning the allegations, maintaining that the information previously supplied was insufficient.

The police had earlier provided a kalandara, a formal police report submitted for preventive action, dated October 17, together with three general diary entries recorded at different police stations.

Chimni maintained that these records did not contain the complete particulars of the six FIRs mentioned in the proceedings. The fresh application consequently focused on disclosure of documents rather than an immediate determination of the underlying allegations.

The dispute concerns a notice issued after Bora was detained during a protest at Mandi House on October 16. Demonstrators associated with AISA demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging irregularities involving electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision exercise.

Bora was released the following morning, after which police initiated preventive proceedings seeking a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and one surety to maintain peace.

The notice referred to alleged provocative sloganeering at Mandi House, demonstrations around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders and accusations that Bora encouraged people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place.

These remain police allegations, contested by Bora, rather than judicial findings establishing criminal liability.

Bora has maintained that requiring her to execute a peace bond for participating in political demonstrations interferes with democratic dissent. She has repeatedly refused to sign the undertaking and challenged the legality of the proceedings before the High Court.

The High Court rejected her challenge to the notice, holding that the magistrate possessed sufficient material to begin an inquiry. It nevertheless emphasised that procedural safeguards must be observed before any decision requiring a bond.

The judgment also required the magistrate to examine the material independently and record reasons when reaching a final determination, preserving Bora’s opportunity to challenge the allegations during the inquiry.

Wednesday marked Bora’s fourth refusal to furnish the bond. The proceedings were deferred after her counsel renewed the demand for documents that police had cited but not supplied.

The October 28 hearing had been fixed following an earlier appearance on October 24, when police provided records pursuant to the High Court’s directions and Bora’s lawyers sought time to examine them.

The six FIRs remain central to the pending inquiry because police have relied upon them in describing Bora’s antecedents. Their disclosure will allow the defence to examine the specific cases before submitting its response at the November 20 hearing.

Jio listing elevates Reliance above Tata in market value

Reliance Group has overtaken Tata Group as India's most valuable business conglomerate after Jio Platforms made a powerful stock market debut on Wednesday, lifting the combined market capitalisation of Mukesh Ambani's listed companies above that of its longstanding rival.

Jio Platforms shares closed at Rs 1,419, gaining 26.8% over their initial public offering price of Rs 1,119. The performance valued the telecommunications and digital services company at approximately Rs 13.1 lakh crore, placing it second among India's listed companies, behind parent Reliance Industries.

The listing pushed Reliance Group's aggregate market capitalisation towards Rs 30 lakh crore, surpassing Tata Group, valued at approximately Rs 25 lakh crore. The change ended Tata's longstanding leadership among diversified business groups measured by the combined market value of their listed companies.

Reliance Industries retained its position as India's largest listed company, with a market capitalisation of approximately Rs 15.7 lakh crore at Wednesday's close. Jio Platforms displaced Bharti Airtel from second place, reshaping corporate rankings and highlighting investor demand for telecommunications businesses with substantial digital operations.

Jio's debut followed India's largest initial public offering, which raised Rs 30,213 crore. The issue attracted subscriptions exceeding 22 times the shares offered, demonstrating strong institutional and retail participation despite volatility across domestic equity markets.

Shares opened at Rs 1,358 on both major exchanges, representing a premium of approximately 21.4% to the offer price. Further buying during Wednesday's session carried the stock higher, producing a closing valuation exceeding its initial listing valuation of approximately Rs 12.5 lakh crore.

The offering attracted more than 13 million applications, while combined demand across the public issue and anchor placement exceeded Rs 7.4 lakh crore. The subscription was completed within approximately 100 minutes of opening, establishing an exceptionally strong response for an offering of its size.

The market debut also placed Jio ahead of several established financial and technology companies. HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank remained among the country's five largest listed businesses, while Tata Consultancy Services slipped further down the rankings.

Tata Group's diversified portfolio includes information technology, automobiles, steel, consumer products and hospitality. Its aggregate listed valuation had previously provided a substantial advantage over competing conglomerates, although market fluctuations and changes in individual company valuations have narrowed that difference.

The new rankings require an important qualification. Reliance Industries retains majority ownership of Jio Platforms, meaning the market capitalisations of the parent and subsidiary overlap economically. Adding their listed valuations provides a conventional conglomerate ranking but does not represent an equivalent increase in underlying shareholder wealth.

Reliance's ownership of Jio Platforms is expected to stand at approximately 64.4% following the offering, compared with 66.35% beforehand. The separate listing nevertheless establishes a publicly traded valuation for Jio's operations, allowing investors to assess the digital business independently.

Jio's telecommunications operations serve more than 500 million subscribers, making the company one of the world's largest mobile network operators by customer numbers. Telecommunications remains its principal earnings contributor, although management is pursuing expansion into artificial intelligence, cloud computing and enterprise digital services.

For the financial year ended March 2026, Jio Platforms recorded revenue of approximately Rs 1.47 lakh crore, representing growth of 14.6%. Net profit increased 15.1% to about Rs 30,049 crore, reflecting continued expansion in its core operations.

International investors have substantial interests in the business. Meta and Google are among its shareholders, alongside global investment firms that participated in earlier fundraising rounds. Their involvement has supported Jio's development beyond mobile connectivity into broader technology services.

The flotation gives investors direct access to those operations while creating a separately quoted market benchmark for the company's financial performance. Its valuation will depend on earnings growth, competitive conditions, capital expenditure and the commercial performance of its expanding digital portfolio.

Market participants are also assessing whether Jio's strong debut can sustain investor interest in large public offerings. Several major flotations have struggled to maintain their issue prices, making the performance of a transaction of this scale particularly significant for capital market sentiment.

Jio will not immediately qualify for inclusion in the Nifty 50 benchmark index. Exchange requirements governing derivatives trading and index eligibility must first be satisfied, potentially delaying its entry despite its substantial market capitalisation.

The listing ceremony in Mumbai brought together four generations of the Ambani family, with Mukesh Ambani joined by relatives spanning his mother and grandchildren. His son Akash Ambani, managing director of Reliance Jio Infocomm, has outlined ambitions to expand the company's digital services into additional technology markets.

Mehbooba faults Sheikh Abdullah for Kashmir’s political estrangement

Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti has accused National Conference founder Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah of undermining Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India through his subsequent support for Pakistan, a plebiscite and separatist politics.

Addressing an Accession Day gathering at her party headquarters in Srinagar on Monday, the former chief minister alleged that Abdullah’s political reversal strengthened Hindutva organisations and provided ammunition for their campaign against Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status.

Mufti said Abdullah, initially a leading advocate of accession, subsequently adopted positions that encouraged suspicion towards Kashmiris and damaged relations between the region and the Union government.

She maintained that his political transformation helped strengthen demands for “one nation, one flag and one Constitution”, a campaign associated with opposition to Jammu and Kashmir’s separate constitutional arrangements.

The PDP leader questioned what had transpired between Abdullah and the central leadership to produce such a dramatic change in his political position.

Recalling the relationship between Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru, Mufti said the first prime minister had envisioned Jammu and Kashmir as a demonstration of India’s secular and democratic character.

She argued that Abdullah’s subsequent disenchantment with New Delhi altered the political atmosphere surrounding accession and created opportunities for organisations seeking the withdrawal of constitutional protections.

Mufti particularly criticised Abdullah’s involvement in the plebiscite movement following his dismissal and arrest in 1953. She said his prolonged campaign contributed to a perception that Kashmiris were politically unreliable despite their original acceptance of accession.

According to Mufti, Abdullah pursued that political course for approximately 22 years before reaching an agreement with the central government in 1975 and returning to office.

She alleged that his eventual abandonment of the plebiscite demand did little to reverse the distrust generated during the intervening period.

Her criticism represented a direct challenge to the political legacy of the National Conference founder, whose role in Jammu and Kashmir’s accession and subsequent constitutional disputes remains central to competing interpretations of the region’s history.

Abdullah supported accession in 1947 but subsequently clashed with New Delhi over Jammu and Kashmir’s political autonomy. His dismissal in 1953 was followed by years of detention and political mobilisation around the question of self-determination.

The 1975 accord with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi facilitated Abdullah’s return as chief minister within the constitutional framework of India.

Mufti’s interpretation places responsibility for the deterioration of political trust partly on Abdullah, although his dismissal, detention and disputes with successive central governments also shaped the political developments of that period.

The PDP president linked that history to the constitutional changes introduced by the BJP-led government in August 2019, when provisions of Article 370 were revoked and the former state was reorganised into two Union Territories.

She argued that the removal of special status represented a further erosion of assurances associated with accession, particularly protections concerning identity, land and employment.

Mufti maintained that Jammu and Kashmir had joined India because its people trusted the secular commitments of leaders including Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, B R Ambedkar and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

Those commitments, she said, had helped reassure the Muslim-majority region that its distinct cultural and political identity would be respected within the Union.

She accused the central government of relying excessively on security restrictions and investigative agencies instead of establishing political confidence through dialogue.

The former chief minister cited arrests, police summons, travel restrictions and difficulties obtaining passports as examples of what she described as continuing pressure on residents.

She also disputed the BJP’s portrayal of public silence as evidence of normality, arguing that restrictions on political expression could not be equated with popular acceptance.

Her remarks came as the BJP organised separate Accession Day commemorations, celebrating the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh to join India.

BJP representatives praised the former ruler for rejecting the two-nation theory and choosing accession during the upheaval surrounding Partition.

The party’s Jammu and Kashmir unit described the signing of the Instrument of Accession as a historic decision that secured the region’s future within India.

Accession Day commemorates October 26, 1947, when Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession following an invasion by Pakistan-backed tribal forces.

The document provided the legal basis for accession, which took effect on October 27.

October 26 became an official public holiday in Jammu and Kashmir in 2020, following the constitutional reorganisation of the former state.