Raut dismisses NDA entry for Sharad Pawar faction

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut on Sunday ruled out Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) joining the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, as speculation intensified over a possible reunion of the two NCP factions.

“The NCP (SP) headed by Sharad Pawar won’t join the NDA,” Raut told reporters in Mumbai, drawing a distinction between discussions about organisational reunification and any decision to enter the ruling alliance.

His remarks followed meetings involving senior figures from the NCP led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and the veteran opposition leader. The contacts have prompted competing assessments of whether the parties could reunite after their split in 2023.

Maharashtra minister Sanjay Shirsat, a leader of the Shiv Sena allied with the BJP, said on Sunday that developments surrounding a possible merger appeared to be approaching their final stages. He cautioned, however, that the direction of any merger and the roles of individual leaders remained to be determined.

“I think the developments are in their final stages, and the roles of various people will soon be decided,” Shirsat said in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. His assessment was not accompanied by an announcement from either NCP faction confirming an agreement.

Parth Pawar, son of the late Ajit Pawar and a leader of the NCP, visited Sharad Pawar at his Silver Oak residence in south Mumbai on Saturday. The meeting followed the veteran politician’s discharge from hospital after treatment for a chest infection.

NCP working president Praful Patel had separately met Sharad Pawar at Breach Candy Hospital. A video circulating online showed the two discussing another meeting after November 10, although the exchange did not establish that a merger had been agreed.

Patel subsequently said he had discussed national and Maharashtra politics with Sharad Pawar during the hospital visit, rather than internal party matters. The explanation left unanswered questions about whether political negotiations were taking place through other channels.

NCP state president Sunil Tatkare added to the discussion by saying that reunification would have occurred in February had Ajit Pawar been alive. Ajit Pawar, whose breakaway faction joined the state’s ruling coalition in 2023, died in a plane crash in January this year.

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said on Saturday that the decision on any merger belonged to the NCP leadership. Since the party was a constituent of the NDA, he expected it to consult its alliance partners before taking a decision.

Fadnavis also said neither faction had informed the BJP of merger discussions. His comments stopped short of endorsing or opposing reunification, underscoring the absence of any formally disclosed arrangement between the parties.

The issue carries immediate significance for Maharashtra’s political alignments. Sharad Pawar’s faction is associated with the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi, alongside Shiv Sena (UBT) and Congress, while the NCP headed by Sunetra Pawar participates in the BJP-led Mahayuti government.

Sharad Pawar had told party workers in September that his organisation would not merge with another party merely to obtain power. He urged those wishing to work with him to join his organisation and emphasised strengthening its independent structure.

Raut had also questioned the BJP’s position on a potential reunion, arguing that the party had benefited politically from the earlier NCP split. Those comments reflected opposition concerns about the implications of a merger, rather than evidence of a settled negotiating outcome.

The NCP leadership had also rejected suggestions of an internal rift after senior party figures met Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Delhi without Sunetra Pawar. The gathering, attended by Patel and Tatkare among others, had attracted attention because of the absence of the party president and her sons. Party representatives characterised the interaction as routine.

Separately on Sunday, Raut criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Fadnavis over their Diwali engagements with security personnel and farmers. He described the visits as one-day affairs and argued that symbolic appearances could not substitute for sustained government action.

Modi spent Diwali with Central Reserve Police Force personnel at a camp in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Raut said such visits could not by themselves prevent cross-border incursions or attacks of the kind seen at Pulwama and Pahalgam.

Fadnavis visited farmers in Lohari Savanga village in Nagpur district during the festival weekend. Raut said drought-affected cultivators needed concrete assistance and more regular engagement from the state government, rather than attention confined to a festive occasion.

Rahul Gandhi challenges Centre over Karnataka ethanol findings

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Centre on Saturday of allowing excessive ethanol blending in petrol, citing Karnataka laboratory findings that oil marketing companies have rejected as unreliable.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha alleged that 11 of 14 fuel samples tested from seven districts contained more than 20 per cent ethanol, exceeding the level associated with the government's E20 programme. He demanded an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and action against companies found breaching fuel specifications.

“E20 turned into 420 – stealing petrol from the public's cars!” Gandhi wrote on X, invoking the number associated with cheating under the former penal code. His accusation followed Karnataka's disclosure of test results that have triggered a dispute over sampling procedures, laboratory methods and the composition of petrol sold at filling stations.

Gandhi cited ethanol concentrations of 31.2 per cent in a sample associated with Indian Oil Corporation and 30.5 per cent in one associated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. He also named Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Nayara Energy and Shell among suppliers whose samples, he alleged, exceeded the specified proportion.

The allegations remain contested. Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum issued a joint rebuttal, maintaining that their E20 petrol complies with Bureau of Indian Standards requirements. They challenged the state's testing process and said the evidence supplied was insufficient to validate its conclusions.

The companies said tests on 56 Karnataka samples showed ethanol content between 19 and 20 per cent. They sought full laboratory documentation, information identifying the retail outlets and access to retained samples so that testing could be repeated jointly under agreed procedures.

The disagreement leaves two competing sets of findings before consumers, without a publicly established reconciliation of the measurements. A laboratory result showing excessive blending would raise questions about compliance, but the disputed Karnataka figures do not by themselves establish that petrol across the country contains more ethanol than permitted.

Karnataka Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Minister Rizwan Arshad said the state had commissioned independent examination after laboratories associated with fuel companies failed to provide the ethanol percentages sought by officials. He identified the Shriram Research Institute, an accredited testing facility, as the laboratory involved in the state's investigation.

The broader Karnataka exercise involved 63 samples collected across seven districts. Gandhi highlighted a subset of 14 results in his intervention, rather than the entire exercise. The districts covered Bengaluru, Bengaluru Rural, Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Ramanagara, Tumakuru and the Mangaluru area.

Arshad has argued that consumers deserve accurate information about what they purchase and that excess ethanol could affect vehicles, including models designed for E20 fuel. He has called for accountability if violations are established and raised the question of compensation for motorists facing demonstrable losses.

Gandhi similarly questioned whether motorists were paying petrol prices while receiving fuel with a greater ethanol share than advertised. He alleged that excessive blending could reduce mileage, affect vehicle performance and increase maintenance expenditure, particularly where vehicle components were not designed for higher concentrations.

He asked why filling stations did not clearly display ethanol percentages and accused fuel companies' own laboratories of failing to disclose the information. He challenged Modi to explain the actual blending levels and said the issue could be included in his proposed public debate with the prime minister.

The Centre has defended ethanol blending as a means of reducing crude oil imports and supporting domestic agricultural production. Its E20 initiative targets a blend of approximately one fifth ethanol, although the precise compliance question depends on applicable fuel specifications and validated testing methods.

The oil companies said their petrol meets the relevant national standard and objected to tests conducted without their representatives or corresponding retention samples. They maintained that laboratory certificates cited by Karnataka lacked details needed to assess how ethanol content was determined.

The dispute also concerns how the measurements should be interpreted. Karnataka officials have presented their results as evidence of fuel sold above the stated blending level, while the suppliers insist that properly collected and tested samples demonstrate compliance. Neither side has announced an agreed independent retest resolving the contradictory figures publicly available so far.

Arshad said on Saturday that he would provide a detailed response to the companies' objections on Monday. The disagreement has therefore moved beyond the initial measurements to the documentation and procedures required for independently checking them.

Trump weighs further Iran strikes despite stated reluctance

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump has said he would prefer to avoid further destruction in Iran but might order additional military action, leaving Washington's next move uncertain after his Republican Party suffered major losses in the midterm elections.

Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Trump said a decision on whether to intensify the campaign against Tehran would become clear soon. His remarks combined an apparent reluctance to escalate with another warning that Iran could face devastating attacks.

“I would rather not destroy the rest of the country, if possible, but maybe I'll have to,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “You'll know soon enough.”

Trump said the United States was considering whether to go further to ensure Iran could not again develop capabilities Washington regards as threatening. He described the possible objective as making certain that the confrontation would never recur, without identifying specific military targets or announcing an operational decision.

The president estimated that Iran would need 25 years to rebuild following the damage inflicted during the conflict. That assessment was his own projection, and he provided no supporting reconstruction figures.

His comments followed Tuesday's congressional elections, which delivered control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to Democrats. The outcome has intensified scrutiny of the administration's conduct of the war and its economic consequences for American households.

Trump acknowledged after the vote that the Iran conflict had contributed to Republican defeats. He nevertheless defended his decision to launch military operations, maintaining that he had acted correctly and would make the same choice again.

The shift in emphasis is notable because Trump had previously threatened extensive attacks on remaining Iranian infrastructure, including energy facilities and bridges. His latest language left open the possibility of further strikes while emphasising that he would prefer to avoid destroying more of the country.

The president's remarks also coincided with diplomatic contacts concerning Iran's nuclear programme. Qatar has been involved in conveying proposals between Washington and Tehran, although the parties have not announced an agreement or a timetable for formal negotiations.

An Iranian official indicated that Tehran had submitted a nuclear proposal through Qatar but would discuss it only after Washington addressed seven Iranian demands. Those conditions include sanctions relief, the release of frozen assets, compensation for wartime damage and an end to the American naval blockade.

Other demands concern the withdrawal of US forces from the region, a permanent end to hostilities involving Iran and its allies, and assurances against further threats. There was no confirmation that Washington had accepted those conditions.

Asked about Iranian consideration of proposals, Trump insisted that Tehran could not proceed without American approval. “They're not doing anything without our approval,” he said, adding that Iran would not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon.

The claim underscored the gulf between Washington's stated insistence on controlling Iran's nuclear activities and Tehran's demand for guarantees before negotiations can advance. Neither government has publicly established a mutually accepted framework for resolving the dispute.

The conflict, which began with US and Israeli attacks in February, has become a significant domestic political issue. Democratic candidates criticised the administration over rising fuel costs and the broader economic burden associated with the fighting, while the White House maintained that military action was necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the campaign on Thursday, describing it as a historic effort to prevent Iranian nuclear armament. Facing political criticism, he also urged lawmakers to support a $1.5 trillion defence funding request covering the Iran war and other Pentagon priorities.

Hegseth rejected efforts to remove him from office, while Trump publicly backed his performance. The president said the defence secretary had done a fantastic job, despite questions about whether the administration might change its senior national security team after the election setback.

Trump had earlier said American forces were prepared to resume operations if necessary, while also indicating that no immediate attack was planned. Those statements, alongside his latest warning, have left the timing and scope of any additional campaign undefined.

The administration has not disclosed any new diplomatic concessions. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf welcomed the American election result, interpreting the Republican defeat as opposition to the war. His remarks reflected Tehran's political reading of the vote rather than an official American policy change.

Modi’s Pawar telephone call stirs Maharashtra political debate

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s telephone conversation with Sharad Pawar has revived questions about Maharashtra’s divided Nationalist Congress Party, although the exchange was described by the veteran politician’s aide as an enquiry about his health.

Vitthal Maniyar, a close associate of Pawar, said Modi called on Wednesday and urged the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) president to rest following treatment at a Pune hospital. Maniyar attributed to the Prime Minister remarks suggesting Pawar’s daughter, Lok Sabha member Supriya Sule, was ready to shoulder national responsibilities.

Neither Modi nor Pawar publicly confirmed the precise wording of the conversation. There has been no official announcement of an alliance negotiation, party reunification or proposed government position for Sule arising from the call.

Maniyar told journalists in Pune that Modi had spoken warmly to Pawar and asked him to take complete rest. He quoted the Prime Minister as saying that Sule was ready and could help look after the country while her father recovered.

Pawar thanked Modi for his concern and indicated that he was resting, according to Maniyar. The account prompted discussion because Sule remains a prominent figure in the opposition INDIA grouping, while the other NCP faction participates in the BJP-led governing coalition in Maharashtra.

Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale separately suggested that Sule could be considered for a Union Cabinet position if she joined the National Democratic Alliance. His remarks were conditional and did not constitute an offer from Modi or confirmation of any discussions with Sule.

The political uncertainty follows renewed differences within the NCP organisation led by Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar. Senior party figures met Union Home Minister Amit Shah earlier this week, amid disagreements over internal decision-making and demands concerning the finance portfolio in Maharashtra’s government.

State NCP president Sunil Tatkare subsequently said the party would continue under Sunetra Pawar’s leadership and ruled out a merger with the Sharad Pawar faction. He acknowledged that reunification had figured in discussions, but his public position offered no indication that an agreement was approaching.

The rival organisations have remained separate since Ajit Pawar broke with his uncle Sharad Pawar in 2023 and aligned with the BJP. Ajit Pawar died in an aircraft crash in January 2026, after which his wife Sunetra Pawar became deputy chief minister. The leadership transition brought renewed attention to possible reconciliation within the wider political family.

Sharad Pawar has previously rejected suggestions that his organisation was preparing to merge with the rival faction. Any change would have implications for the balance of power within Maharashtra’s governing Mahayuti alliance and for opposition cooperation at the national level.

Sule, who represents Baramati in the Lok Sabha, has continued to participate in opposition politics. Her position makes any suggestion of a move towards the NDA politically significant, but neither her participation in government nor a change of allegiance has been established.

The immediate reason for Modi’s call was Pawar’s health. The veteran leader was admitted to Ruby Hall Clinic in Pune on Monday after complaining of a cough and pleuritic chest pain. Hospital officials said he underwent medical evaluation and observation before being discharged on Wednesday.

Dr Purvez K Grant, chairman and managing trustee of Ruby Hall Clinic, said Pawar was stable and doing well at discharge. Sule said her father was feeling better and thanked the hospital team for its care.

Later on Wednesday, however, Sule disclosed that Pawar had been admitted to Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai for further tests. The additional hospital visit followed his transfer from Pune and was not accompanied by an announcement of a new diagnosis.

Modi’s conversation took place against this medical backdrop, with Maniyar describing advice on rest and recovery rather than a formal political proposal. His account nevertheless drew attention to Sule’s standing and to unresolved questions surrounding the NCP’s two organisations.

The NCP divisions also involve questions over party organisation and leadership authority. Tatkare’s statements underline the distinction between informal conversations among politicians and decisions authorised by the parties. No joint statement from the two factions has outlined a timetable or terms for reunification.

A proposed visit by Modi to Baramati for the inauguration of a museum complex at Vidya Pratishthan has also been under discussion. An earlier date was postponed, and a revised programme had not been officially confirmed.

Democrats capture Senate majority as Republicans lose ground

Democrats have regained control of the United States Senate after sweeping Republican-held seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections, delivering a major setback to President Donald Trump as his party struggles to retain its majority in the House of Representatives.

The result ends Republican control of both chambers of Congress and gives Democrats the power to block presidential appointments, scrutinise administration decisions and challenge legislation during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. The House remained undecided as counting continued, although Democrats had gained at least seven Republican-held seats.

Democratic victories extended beyond the competitive states initially expected to decide the Senate. The party captured seats in Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Ohio, overturning longstanding Republican advantages in several states that backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

Texas state legislator James Talarico defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, becoming the first Democrat elected to the Senate from Texas since 1988. His victory followed a campaign centred on household costs and questions surrounding Paxton’s conduct. Paxton, who had Trump’s endorsement, argued that Talarico’s positions on social issues were outside the state’s political mainstream.

Former Democratic senator Sherrod Brown defeated Republican incumbent Jon Husted in Ohio, returning to the chamber after losing his seat in 2024. Brown told supporters they had sent an unmistakable message and pledged to represent Ohio residents regardless of how they voted.

South Carolina elected Democrat Annie Andrews, who defeated Republican Darline Graham. Andrews said she would defend the state’s interests even when that required opposing fellow Democrats. The result marked another unexpected loss for Republicans in territory where the president had enjoyed substantial electoral support.

Former governor Roy Cooper defeated Republican Michael Whatley in North Carolina, while Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff retained his Georgia seat against Republican congressman Mike Collins. Democratic congressman Chris Pappas also won in New Hampshire, succeeding retiring senator Jeanne Shaheen and preserving the party’s hold on that seat.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described the outcome as a transformation of the electoral map. “Five words for the American people: relief is on the way,” he told reporters in Washington, promising a change in direction after two years of Republican dominance.

The election was shaped by dissatisfaction over living costs, the war in Iran and concerns about corruption. An election-day voter survey found widespread unhappiness with the country’s direction and the economy, with many respondents saying inflation had placed substantial pressure on their households.

Trump had urged supporters to vote as though his name appeared on the ballot. He maintained before the results that inflation had been solved, despite government figures showing consumer prices rising by 3.6 per cent over the year to September. His administration’s handling of the economy became a central issue in contested states.

The president subsequently said he would accept the election results and was willing to work with Democrats. He has also indicated that he would use his veto against legislation he opposes, raising the prospect of disputes between the White House and a Senate controlled by the opposition.

A Democratic Senate majority will affect the confirmation of federal judges, senior executive officials and any Supreme Court nominees. Senators can also use committee hearings and investigations to demand testimony and documents from administration officials. Passing major legislation, however, would still require agreement across Congress and either presidential approval or sufficient votes to override a veto.

Democrats were also gaining ground in the House, where the outcome remained unresolved. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries promised to focus on affordability and oversight of the administration. Republicans had sought to defend their narrow majority through campaign spending and changes to congressional district boundaries, but several Democratic incumbents targeted by redistricting survived.

The party’s gains extended to governors’ races. Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Governor Greg Abbott in Texas, while Keisha Lance Bottoms won Georgia, Amy Acton prevailed in Ohio and Rob Sand captured Iowa. Those results shifted several state executive offices away from Republican control.

In California, Democrat Xavier Becerra defeated Republican Steve Hilton to succeed outgoing Governor Gavin Newsom. Missouri voters separately rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have restored restrictions on most abortions, following another statewide vote on abortion rights two years earlier. The proposed measure had been referred to voters by the Republican-controlled state legislature and included provisions concerning medical procedures for transgender minors.

Sunetra Pawar summons legislators after NCP leaders meet Shah

Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar has called a meeting of Nationalist Congress Party legislators in Mumbai on Tuesday after senior colleagues held talks with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, exposing competing accounts of the party’s internal leadership arrangements.

The meeting, scheduled at her Devgiri residence, follows discussions in New Delhi involving prominent figures from the NCP organisation previously led by her late husband, Ajit Pawar. Party officials insist the delegation’s visit was authorised and deny suggestions of a leadership rebellion.

Among those who met Shah were Praful Patel, Maharashtra NCP president Sunil Tatkare, ministers Chhagan Bhujbal and Hasan Mushrif, and senior politicians Dilip Walse-Patil and Dhananjay Munde. Sunetra Pawar and her son, Rajya Sabha member Parth Pawar, did not attend.

The absence of the two prompted questions about divisions within the party, although its leadership maintains that the engagement was planned in advance. Accounts from people familiar with the discussions suggest that organisational decision-making, consultation with senior figures and relations with the ruling Mahayuti alliance were raised.

Tatkare rejected suggestions that the delegation represented a dissident group. He said the party remained united and that the meeting with Shah had been arranged beforehand. The NCP has also disputed claims that Sunetra Pawar and Parth were deliberately excluded.

National spokesperson Umesh Patil said Sunetra Pawar had herself requested time for senior colleagues to meet Shah during an earlier interaction with the home minister. He described suggestions of deliberate exclusion and internal confrontation as an attempt to create a misleading impression about the organisation.

Tuesday’s gathering is expected to bring together NCP legislators and senior office-bearers, providing an opportunity for Sunetra Pawar to address questions about coordination and organisational priorities. Attendance and statements emerging from the meeting could indicate the extent of agreement among the party’s elected representatives, although no formal leadership contest has been announced.

Senior figures held further consultations in Mumbai after returning from Delhi. The sequence of meetings has drawn attention to the distribution of authority within the party following Ajit Pawar’s death in January and Sunetra Pawar’s subsequent assumption of its leadership.

Another issue under discussion is the party’s position within the Maharashtra government headed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. Some NCP leaders have pressed for the return of the finance portfolio, which Ajit Pawar held before his death and which subsequently passed to the BJP.

Differences have also surfaced over appointments and representation in government. Questions surrounding Cabinet vacancies, the selection of organisational office-bearers and consultation with established leaders have added to concerns about how decisions are taken. No official party resolution confirming a challenge to Sunetra Pawar has been made public.

The possibility of bringing together the NCP and the separate organisation associated with Sharad Pawar has featured in political discussions. Some accounts of the Delhi engagement suggested that a merger and its implications for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance were considered, but the NCP has not announced any agreement.

Tatkare said discussions about a merger had ended, seeking to distinguish speculation about reunification from the party’s immediate organisational business. Leaders associated with the Sharad Pawar camp have likewise not announced a decision to join the governing alliance.

The competing accounts matter because the NCP is a constituent of the Mahayuti government alongside the BJP and the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde. Its internal arrangements influence the coordination of ministers and legislators within the coalition, even as its leaders publicly emphasise unity.

Shah’s participation has added a national dimension to what party representatives describe as routine consultations between alliance partners. The home minister has not publicly announced any intervention in the NCP’s leadership structure or endorsed a particular faction within it.

For Sunetra Pawar, Tuesday’s meeting offers a forum to hear legislators directly and discuss the party’s next organisational steps. The party has indicated that strengthening its structure and improving coordination will form part of the agenda.

The dispute over consultation has also drawn attention to the roles of experienced party figures who supported Ajit Pawar when the organisation split in 2023. Their continued participation in government and party affairs remains important to maintaining coordination across constituencies and administrative responsibilities.

The gathering is scheduled for Tuesday evening in Mumbai, with legislators and senior organisational figures invited to attend. Details of any decisions taken are expected to emerge only after the discussions.

BJP alleges Rahul sidelined Priyanka at opposition rallies

The Bharatiya Janata Party has accused Rahul Gandhi of deliberately sidelining his sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, alleging that an internal power struggle has divided the Congress into rival camps.

BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra made the allegations on Sunday, November 1, claiming that Priyanka was denied opportunities to address two INDIA bloc gatherings in New Delhi because Rahul feared being overshadowed by her growing political prominence.

Patra, in a video posted on Instagram, questioned why Priyanka had not spoken at Saturday's mock Parliament or Sunday's opposition rally at Ramlila Maidan. He suggested that the Congress leadership was restricting her public role to protect Rahul's position.

The accusations have not been substantiated by evidence establishing that Rahul prevented his sister from speaking. Priyanka's absence from the speakers' lists does not independently demonstrate an internal dispute or deliberate exclusion.

Patra claimed that Priyanka appeared unhappy at both gatherings and suggested that differences between the siblings were becoming apparent during opposition activities.

"Could it be that Rahul Gandhi fears that if Priyanka Vadra is projected as a leader, he might be sidelined?" Patra asked in his video message.

The BJP spokesperson also invoked the opposition's campaign against alleged electoral manipulation, suggesting that Priyanka's "vote has also been stolen" within the Gandhi family itself.

The remarks followed two consecutive days of demonstrations organised by the INDIA bloc against alleged electoral irregularities and the Election Commission's handling of voter registration.

Saturday's symbolic parliamentary proceedings included a purported public impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Opposition leaders accused the election authority of acting under the influence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government and undermining voting rights.

The allegations against the Election Commission remain contested. The opposition's symbolic impeachment exercise carried no constitutional authority to remove the chief election commissioner.

Sunday's Ramlila Maidan gathering brought together opposition leaders protesting alleged electoral malpractice and the revision of electoral rolls. Rahul addressed the rally alongside representatives of parties participating in the alliance.

Patra maintained that several political figures, including individuals who were not members of Parliament, had addressed Saturday's gathering while Priyanka was not offered a speaking opportunity.

"Priyanka Vadra was not given an opportunity to speak by Rahul Gandhi or the Congress party," he alleged while discussing the mock parliamentary proceedings.

He claimed that the situation was repeated at Ramlila Maidan, where several opposition representatives addressed supporters but Priyanka did not deliver a speech.

Another BJP spokesperson, Pradeep Bhandari, reinforced the accusations, questioning whether separate Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi factions had emerged within the Congress.

Bhandari alleged that Rahul was attempting to suppress his sister's political advancement and questioned the arrangements made for her participation in the opposition programmes.

He pointed to Priyanka's seating position during the mock Parliament, claiming that she had been placed in the second row despite her standing within the Congress leadership.

The seating arrangement, however, does not establish that a factional struggle exists. Neither BJP spokesperson presented documentary evidence of instructions preventing Priyanka from addressing the gatherings.

The Congress had not issued a substantiated response to the specific accusations in the accounts available following Sunday's statements. There was likewise no verified public statement from Priyanka confirming that she had sought permission to speak and been refused.

Rahul serves as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, while Priyanka represents Wayanad in Parliament. Both have participated in the Congress campaign questioning electoral procedures and the functioning of the Election Commission.

The BJP's intervention also formed part of a broader exchange between the governing party and the opposition over Sunday's demonstration.

Patra separately challenged claims about the rally's attendance, accusing Congress leaders of exaggerating the number of participants. He cited images of the venue and disputed projections that the gathering would attract one million people.

Those attendance claims were contested, and no independently verified crowd estimate established the figures advanced by either side.

The confrontation had intensified before the rally when Rahul alleged that Union Home Minister Amit Shah was attempting to prevent opposition supporters from travelling to Delhi.

Patra rejected that accusation on Friday and demanded evidence identifying people who had been stopped from reaching the capital.

He also questioned the opposition's organisational arrangements after its symbolic parliamentary exercise was shifted from Friday to Saturday, attributing the change to inadequate preparations, an explanation offered by the BJP rather than independently established fact.

Rahul Gandhi asks Delhi rallygoers to patronise local traders

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has urged supporters attending Sunday's INDIA bloc rally at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan to shop at local markets, responding to traders' fears that the demonstration could disrupt crucial festive sales.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha made the appeal in a video posted on X on Saturday, asking visitors arriving from across the country to combine their participation in the protest with purchases from small shops.

"Along with protesting, marching and attending the rally tomorrow, do a little shopping too," Gandhi said. He argued that the influx of participants could provide additional customers for traders preparing for Diwali, Chhath and Bhai Dooj.

"I know that our rally will not hurt the traders. The BJP is spreading rumours because it is scared," he said, accusing the governing party of exaggerating the commercial risks. The allegation was his own; traders' associations have separately raised specific concerns about access to markets and potential losses.

Gandhi said lakhs of people were expected to travel to the capital and urged them to make purchases from neighbourhood businesses. His message sought to reconcile the opposition alliance's political mobilisation with the interests of merchants dependent on festival shopping.

The intervention followed requests from business organisations to postpone or relocate the November 1 gathering. The Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI) warned that crowds, traffic restrictions and security arrangements could impede customers and deliveries across central Delhi during an important trading period.

CTI chairman Brijesh Goyal sought a meeting with Gandhi to explain the concerns of representatives from around 20 markets. The organisation had urged the Congress leadership to defer the rally until after Diwali rather than risk interrupting trade when retailers were preparing for heavy customer demand.

Among the commercial areas identified were Chandni Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Khari Baoli, Bhagirath Palace, Chawri Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Karol Bagh, Ajmeri Gate and Daryaganj. Traders feared that congestion around the rally venue could extend beyond its immediate surroundings and deter shoppers from visiting wholesale and retail districts.

Business representatives also questioned whether restrictions on vehicle movements would affect the transportation of merchandise. Their objections concerned not only possible closures but also uncertainty over how easily customers, employees and suppliers could reach shops during the demonstration.

The scale of the potential disruption remains contested. Estimates circulated by traders' organisations about expected attendance, affected establishments and possible financial losses are projections, not verified measurements of business forgone. Equally, Gandhi's expectation of increased purchases does not establish that additional spending will offset any disruption.

Delhi Police granted conditional permission for the rally, with organisers instructed to use designated parking areas. Traffic authorities warned of possible diversions between 10 am and 5 pm, requiring motorists to anticipate restrictions around central Delhi as political supporters assembled. The restrictions were particularly sensitive for businesses relying on weekend footfall, when customers often make multiple stops across adjoining markets before the major festivals.

The INDIA bloc called the demonstration to challenge alleged electoral irregularities, including concerns surrounding electoral rolls. Opposition leaders have also demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Those allegations remain political claims and do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing by election authorities.

The programme included a march towards Ramlila Maidan, with political parties, student groups and civil society representatives expected to participate. Organisers had prepared the venue for a large gathering, while the authorities faced the task of managing protest movements alongside ordinary commercial traffic.

Gandhi's video message focused on the practical choices facing those travelling to Delhi. Rather than asking participants to avoid commercial districts, he encouraged them to spend money locally while attending the political programme. He presented shopping and protesting as compatible activities during the festive period.

For traders, however, the distinction between visitors entering the city and customers reaching individual markets remains significant. Crowds attending a political event may not necessarily follow established shopping routes, particularly when road diversions, parking limitations and security checks complicate movement.

The traders' requests had been addressed to senior Congress figures, including party president Mallikarjun Kharge, as associations sought assurances before the demonstration. Their stated priority was preserving access to busy marketplaces rather than taking a position on the opposition's electoral demands.

Gandhi closed his message with Diwali greetings, reiterating his request that rally participants buy goods from small shops while visiting the capital.

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.

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.

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.

Delhi Police retains conditional clearance for INDIA rally

Delhi Police has confirmed that its permission for the Congress-led INDIA bloc's November 1 rally at Ramlila Maidan remains valid, subject to strict security, crowd-control and timing conditions.

The clarification on Tuesday followed Congress allegations that authorities were obstructing preparations for the opposition gathering, called to protest alleged electoral irregularities and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Police rejected suggestions that the no-objection certificate had been withdrawn.

The certificate, issued on October 17, covers the booking of Ramlila Maidan from October 25 to November 3. The rally itself is authorised between 10 am and 5 pm on November 1, provided organisers secure the land-owning authority's permission and observe the conditions attached to police clearance.

Participants must begin dispersing immediately after 5 pm, with no extension permitted. Organisers cannot allow anyone to remain overnight at the ground, either before or after the programme. Police have also prohibited marches from the venue towards other destinations.

Security arrangements are being prepared for a potentially large gathering. Delhi Police has outlined plans to deploy around 3,500 personnel, including reserve forces, and monitor the site through more than 200 CCTV cameras. The venue has been divided into 14 zones for crowd management, with senior officers assigned supervisory responsibilities.

The organisers must separately install high-definition CCTV cameras at entrances, exits, the stage, seating enclosures and other strategic locations. Their surveillance arrangements must include recording facilities and a dedicated control room with at least five monitoring screens.

The police conditions also require adequate drinking water, water tankers and toilets, including separate facilities for women. Sufficient volunteers must be deployed to guide participants and maintain order. Volunteers must wear identifiable clothing or badges so that security personnel can distinguish them from the crowd.

Speakers must not make statements likely to inflame tensions or disturb communal harmony on grounds including religion or caste. If inflammatory or threatening remarks are made, organisers must stop the speech, switch off the microphone and remove the speaker from the stage, under the stipulated conditions.

Organisers are responsible for preventing violence, disorder and unruly conduct throughout the gathering. Police have warned that violations could result in legal action or cancellation of permission, making compliance essential to holding the event as scheduled.

Transport restrictions form another substantial part of the arrangements. Buses, cars and other vehicles bringing supporters must use parking locations designated by traffic police. Organisers have been instructed to submit vehicle details, including the number of buses expected and their registration numbers.

They must also provide police with lists of invitees and volunteers and a minute-by-minute programme. Police are coordinating with traffic authorities and other agencies over access routes, parking and movement around the ground.

The Congress has set a target of attracting 10 lakh participants, although the actual turnout remains uncertain. Party organisations are mobilising supporters from different states, and the authorities are assessing the security and transport requirements for the proposed gathering.

The rally forms part of an opposition campaign challenging the handling of electoral rolls and demanding accountability from Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Congress and its allies allege that the revision exercise has created risks of eligible voters being excluded. Those allegations remain contested political claims rather than established findings.

The dispute over rally arrangements intensified after Congress general secretary K C Venugopal alleged that police intervention had disrupted preparations and that permission for a separate October 30 opposition programme at Ashok Hotel had been withdrawn. The proposed event was intended as a symbolic protest against the chief election commissioner.

Venugopal has also held organisational meetings with party representatives to review mobilisation and logistics for November 1. Congress treasurer Ajay Maken participated in discussions involving party functionaries in Delhi.

The police communication was addressed to Congress functionary Manish Chatrath, who is responsible for the party headquarters. It specified that the no-objection certificate covered law-and-order considerations rather than dispensing with approvals from other competent authorities. The distinction became significant after competing accounts emerged over whether preparations could proceed. Police maintained that the clearance remained operative, while the Congress questioned restrictions affecting its planned activities and arrangements at the venue ahead of the rally.

Ramlila Maidan is among the designated protest venues identified after Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from that category on October 12. The other notified locations are Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara.

Election Commission contests plea to restrain Gyanesh Kumar

The Election Commission told the Supreme Court on Monday that a petition seeking to prevent Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from performing his duties was not maintainable under the constitutional safeguards governing his office.

In a counter-affidavit filed on October 26, the Commission invoked Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which stipulates that a Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.

The Commission also rejected allegations that Kumar had taken decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without the consent of fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It maintained that its three principal SIR orders were approved unanimously.

The response concerns a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh questioning whether the Chief Election Commissioner could individually exercise powers vested in the three-member constitutional body. The petitioner sought judicial intervention over alleged departures from collective decision-making and asked that Kumar be restrained from functioning.

The Commission argued that the petition relied entirely on one newspaper investigation without independently establishing the allegations. It said the petitioner had neither approached the Commission for clarification nor sought to verify the underlying facts before requesting extraordinary judicial relief.

The affidavit stated that a newspaper account could not, by itself, establish the truth of its contents. The Commission also pointed out that the petition did not challenge the legality of its composition or dispute that Kumar had been appointed in accordance with the law.

It consequently described the request for a writ of quo warranto, requiring a public officeholder to establish the authority under which the position is held, as misconceived.

The Commission further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision requires members to endeavour to reach unanimous decisions and provides for majority decisions when they disagree.

Restraining the Chief Election Commissioner, the affidavit argued, would interfere with the statutory arrangements through which the constitutional body conducts its business. These submissions represent the Commission's position before the court, rather than a judicial determination of the petition's merits.

The Commission said orders governing the SIR issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 had received the agreement of all three members. It distinguished questions, comments and suggestions recorded during internal file circulation from final decisions formally approved by the Commission.

According to its account, files move through both Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner. Urgent approvals may be obtained electronically and subsequently recorded. Decisions are then implemented through the Commission's secretariat.

The affidavit itself, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, was unanimously approved by Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi, the Commission said. It denied authorising the release of internal notes or files to the press.

The proceedings follow allegations that objections by the two Election Commissioners had been disregarded in decisions connected with the electoral roll revision exercise. Those allegations remain contested, and the Supreme Court has not established that Kumar acted without the requisite authority.

On October 5, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant declined to suspend Kumar through an interim order without hearing the other side. The court nevertheless agreed to examine the challenged decisions and their compatibility with the governing law.

The matter was listed for further hearing on Tuesday, October 27. The Commission requested permission to submit a fuller, paragraph-by-paragraph response, explaining that its immediate affidavit had been prepared amid the Dussehra court vacation.

Addressing a separate issue concerning voter registration, the Commission maintained that Form 6, used for applications to enter electoral rolls, had not been amended. It said an additional SIR declaration was a separate document, although its online presentation could have created confusion.

The Commission said the online application process had been adjusted from October 21 to distinguish the two documents. It also maintained that changes to voter records on its digital platform require an order from the appropriate Electoral Registration Officer.

For voters whose details cannot be matched during the revision exercise, the Commission said booth-level officers would ordinarily collect supporting documents at their homes, with personal hearings reserved for exceptional circumstances. Such hearings would preferably be conducted online, while officials would seek necessary documentation directly from households wherever that was feasible.

BJP announces nationwide protests over Kharge’s Modi remark

The BJP has announced nationwide protests on Monday after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge invoked Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s father during a heated exchange at a gathering in Patna, prompting accusations of personal abuse and demands for an apology.

The confrontation occurred on Sunday during an event commemorating the 139th birth anniversary of Bihar’s first chief minister, Shri Krishna Singh. Kharge was addressing the audience when a man interrupted with words suggesting that Modi would not leave power.

“Modi ka baap bhi jayega,” Kharge responded, a Hindi expression meaning “Even Modi’s father will have to go.” He repeated the remark as disorder broke out inside the venue, drawing immediate condemnation from leaders of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah accused Kharge of crossing the limits of decency and said the Congress had repeatedly targeted Modi and his family. Shah argued that the opposition party’s electoral setbacks had led its leaders to substitute personal attacks for substantive political arguments.

BJP president Nitin Nabin also condemned the language, describing it as indecent and unparliamentary. He said voters were watching the Congress leadership’s conduct and would respond to it politically. Other BJP representatives accused Kharge of insulting the prime minister’s late father and undermining standards of public debate.

The controversy acquired another dimension when the audience member, identified as Santosh Kumar, said his words had been misunderstood. Speaking outside the venue, he maintained that he had not intended to defend Modi’s continuation in power or disrupt Kharge’s speech.

“I was saying that unless there is a revolt, Modi will not go. But only a part of it was heard and was misunderstood,” Kumar said. His explanation suggested that the exchange began with a sentence Kharge had interpreted differently from its intended meaning.

Kumar said he wanted Modi to leave power but believed political change would require stronger public resistance. His account challenged the initial portrayal of him as a supporter of the prime minister heckling the Congress leader, although the full exchange remained difficult to establish from the words audible in the hall.

People attending the function confronted Kumar after the interruption. Footage showed a disturbance as several men surrounded him, and accounts of the incident said he was assaulted before being removed from the auditorium. The circumstances of the confrontation and responsibility for the alleged assault were not independently established.

The BJP’s decision to organise demonstrations extended the dispute beyond the Patna meeting. The party said protests would take place across the country on Monday, turning a confrontation at a state-level commemorative function into a national political issue. Its response also drew attention to the distinction between criticism of an elected leader and remarks involving family members who hold no public office.

The Congress defended its president amid the escalating exchange of accusations.

The disagreement over the interrupted sentence became central to the competing interpretations of the episode.

Kharge’s speech had otherwise concentrated on electoral accountability and the opposition’s objections to the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. He alleged that the exercise could be used to exclude opposition supporters from voter lists and accused the BJP-led government of weakening democratic safeguards.

The Congress president warned that protecting voting rights required sustained public mobilisation. He described opposition to alleged electoral manipulation as a second struggle for independence and called for resistance to actions he said threatened the Constitution.

Those allegations remain disputed. The electoral roll revision is administered by the Election Commission, and accusations that it is being deliberately used to disadvantage opposition voters have not been established merely by Kharge’s statements.

Kharge also criticised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, challenging its ideology and accusing it of contributing to communal divisions. He questioned Modi’s past promises concerning black money and argued that the government had failed to deliver on key commitments.

The Congress gathering took place amid a broader dispute between the two parties over the conduct of elections and the functioning of democratic institutions. Those policy arguments were largely overshadowed on Sunday by the reaction to Kharge’s choice of words.

The commemorative programme was held at Bapu Sabhagar in Patna to honour Shri Krishna Singh, who served as Bihar’s first chief minister after independence. The interruption occurred during Kharge’s address to those assembled for the anniversary observance.

Farooq Abdullah faces BJP backlash over Pakistan remarks

National Conference president Farooq Abdullah has triggered a political controversy by crediting Pakistan with protecting Kashmiris through its international advocacy, prompting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to demand an apology and legal action against the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister.

Addressing a party workers’ convention in Baramulla on Saturday, Abdullah claimed that Pakistan’s efforts to keep the Kashmir dispute alive internationally had prevented New Delhi from pursuing policies detrimental to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The remarks drew condemnation from BJP leaders, who accused Abdullah of legitimising Pakistan’s position on Kashmir while questioning the intentions of the central government.

Abdullah argued that international attention generated by Pakistan had restrained New Delhi, which he accused of failing to deliver justice to the region.

“What hope will you have from them? Will you expect that they will do justice for you?” Abdullah asked, referring to the central government.

He urged party workers to remain courageous and defend their political identity, warning that failure to resist policies they considered harmful could undermine their rights.

Referring to Pakistan without initially naming it, Abdullah said international discussion of Kashmir had compelled the authorities to exercise restraint.

“They are silent today because there is noise in the world, and our neighbour is constantly behind this,” he said.

Abdullah maintained that Pakistan repeatedly raised the unresolved Kashmir question internationally and suggested that this diplomatic activity had helped safeguard the region’s interests.

His assertion that the neighbouring country was protecting Kashmiris became the central point of contention, particularly because Pakistan has faced longstanding accusations from New Delhi of supporting militancy in Jammu and Kashmir.

Jammu and Kashmir BJP spokesperson Altaf Thakur described Abdullah’s statement as “seditious and anti-national” and demanded police action against him.

Thakur argued that a political leader who had sworn allegiance to the Constitution should not question the country’s intentions towards its citizens while appearing to endorse Pakistan’s position.

He accused Pakistan of contributing to decades of terrorism, violence and instability in Kashmir, rejecting Abdullah’s suggestion that Islamabad could be regarded as a protector of the region’s population.

The BJP spokesperson also challenged Abdullah to explain how Pakistan’s involvement had benefited Kashmiris, maintaining that its policies had instead caused widespread suffering.

Another BJP spokesperson, Abhijeet Jasrotia, demanded an unconditional public apology, describing Abdullah’s comments as politically irresponsible and damaging to national unity.

Jasrotia said political criticism of government policies was legitimate but argued that public representatives should avoid statements that could strengthen Pakistan’s diplomatic narrative.

He defended the central government’s record on infrastructure, investment, tourism and democratic participation in Jammu and Kashmir, rejecting Abdullah’s portrayal of New Delhi’s intentions.

The controversy also brought attention to Abdullah’s broader criticism of the political treatment of Muslims across the country.

During his Baramulla address, Abdullah alleged that Muslims were facing discrimination in BJP-governed states, citing demolition drives involving mosques, residential properties and commercial establishments.

He questioned whether the destruction of homes and shops reflected equal treatment under the law. The allegations formed part of his wider criticism of the government’s approach towards religious minorities.

Abdullah nevertheless emphasised that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had never rejected their constitutional relationship with India.

“We never said that we are not Indians,” he declared, recalling the region’s accession and invoking the political ideals associated with Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

He said the commitment to a secular and inclusive political order had shaped Kashmir’s historical relationship with the country.

Abdullah also accused political forces of encouraging divisions between Hindus and Muslims for electoral advantage, expressing concern about the consequences for communal relations.

His remarks reflected the National Conference’s continuing disagreement with the BJP over constitutional protections, regional autonomy and the political rights of Jammu and Kashmir’s population.

The party has consistently sought restoration of statehood and challenged the consequences of the 2019 constitutional changes that removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

Jasrotia separately criticised Abdullah over his reported description of the media as compromised, arguing that sweeping allegations against journalists undermined press independence.

He said political leaders were entitled to dispute individual news accounts but should substantiate accusations rather than question the integrity of the entire profession.

The BJP spokesperson urged media organisations to defend their professional independence against what he characterised as unsupported political attacks.

Congress questions Modi over continuing Arunachal border face-offs

The Congress on Friday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of maintaining silence over continuing confrontations with Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh, demanding an explanation of the government's handling of border security and its diplomatic concessions to Beijing.

The opposition's criticism followed remarks by Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Director General Shatrujeet Kapur acknowledging that face-offs with China's People's Liberation Army had occurred at several locations along the frontier and that tensions were continuing.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh accused the government of making what he described as calibrated concessions to China while withholding information about developments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Ramesh said the ITBP chief had rightly praised the force's performance during confrontations with Chinese personnel but questioned why Modi and his administration had not publicly addressed the situation.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge intensified the criticism, demanding greater transparency about territorial security, military preparedness and the outcome of diplomatic engagements with Beijing.

"Enough clean chits to China. PM Modi must come clean before India!" Kharge declared, questioning whether another serious confrontation was developing along the disputed frontier.

The Ministry of External Affairs subsequently acknowledged that disturbances occurred when Chinese forces departed from established patrolling patterns. Its spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, referred questions concerning specific incidents to the Ministry of Defence.

Jaiswal said both countries continued using established diplomatic and military mechanisms to resolve outstanding issues and prevent misunderstandings or miscalculations along the LAC.

He emphasised that maintaining peace and tranquillity in border areas remained essential for the overall development of bilateral relations. The spokesperson also referred to discussions aimed at improving understanding of the disputed boundary in appropriate areas.

Kapur's remarks, delivered during an ITBP function in Alwar, Rajasthan, provided official acknowledgement of continuing confrontations along the Arunachal Pradesh frontier. However, he did not publicly identify every affected location or disclose operational details.

The developments have renewed questions about the Taksing sector of Arunachal Pradesh, where allegations emerged earlier this year that Chinese personnel had obstructed access to traditional patrolling points.

Kharge questioned whether security forces had lost access to areas previously covered by established patrols. The alleged restrictions have not been independently established through publicly available official records.

The Congress also referred to corps commander-level discussions held in September at the Wacha-Damai border meeting point following tensions in the Taksing area.

Ramesh argued that the continuation of confrontations after those discussions raised questions about the effectiveness of existing arrangements for managing disputes.

At a press conference, Congress leader Pawan Khera demanded a fuller account of the situation and questioned whether diplomatic engagement had produced measurable improvements in border security.

Khera also challenged the government's decisions concerning economic engagement with China, including the easing of certain restrictions affecting investment and visas.

The opposition linked its security concerns to India's widening trade imbalance with China, arguing that growing commercial dependence could weaken New Delhi's negotiating position.

Ramesh cited a trade deficit of approximately $112 billion during 2025-26, compared with $99 billion in the preceding financial year. He maintained that the imbalance was damaging domestic manufacturers, particularly micro, small and medium enterprises.

The Congress questioned whether expanding economic engagement was appropriate while territorial disputes remained unresolved. Its criticism reflected broader concerns about the relationship between trade policy, diplomatic negotiations and national security.

Kharge also sought clarification about the results of repeated meetings between Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, asking whether those engagements had secured meaningful progress on outstanding border questions.

The government has maintained that diplomatic engagement and military communication are necessary for managing differences with China. Its latest statement reiterated the importance of avoiding misunderstandings while addressing unresolved matters through established channels.

The renewed controversy comes as both countries pursue improved bilateral relations despite continuing disagreements over the alignment of their disputed boundary.

Congress leaders also raised concerns about China's construction of a major hydropower project on the Brahmaputra system and Beijing's practice of assigning Chinese names to locations in Arunachal Pradesh.

Ramesh questioned the implications of the proposed 60,000-megawatt hydropower development for downstream water security and the ecological interests of communities dependent on the river.

New Delhi has consistently rejected Beijing's territorial claims over Arunachal Pradesh, maintaining that the state is an integral part of India.

The ITBP, which operates under the Union Home Ministry, is responsible for guarding substantial stretches of the frontier with China and works alongside the Army in sensitive border areas.

Kapur praised specialised ITBP personnel for their handling of confrontations and outlined efforts to strengthen operational capabilities through improved equipment, drones, counter-drone systems and specialised training.

ITBP chief confirms continuing confrontations along Arunachal frontier

Face-offs involving Chinese troops are continuing at several locations along the Arunachal Pradesh frontier, Indo-Tibetan Border Police director general Shatrujeet Kapur said on Thursday, providing the clearest official acknowledgement of the extent of tensions since July.

Kapur told personnel at an awards ceremony in Alwar, Rajasthan, that newly established Shaurya commando teams had participated in handling the confrontations. His remarks came weeks after senior military officers from India and China held talks intended to address the situation along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC).

“Face-offs happened at several locations in Arunachal, and it still continues,” he said, describing the activity of the specialised units. He did not identify each location, disclose troop numbers or announce any resolution. Nor did he indicate that the encounters had developed into armed clashes.

The standoff has centred partly on the Taksing area of Upper Subansiri district, where patrols from the two countries encountered each other near Maja during July. Accounts of the deployment indicate that Chinese personnel subsequently established tents in territory that New Delhi regards as lying on its side of the LAC. The precise positions and competing territorial claims have not been independently established.

Troops from India have maintained a substantial presence in the sector. The Army and the ITBP both operate along the frontier, where differences over the alignment of the undemarcated boundary can produce encounters between patrols. The latest remarks suggest that military contacts have not eliminated friction on the ground.

Corps commanders met on September 6 at the Wacha-Damai border personnel meeting point in Arunachal Pradesh. The meeting followed exchanges between local commanders and broader diplomatic discussions. The two governments have not publicly announced a settlement covering the locations identified by Kapur. The September meeting was notable because corps commander discussions connected with the China boundary had previously mainly concentrated on the western sector, especially eastern Ladakh.

The diplomatic contacts included a meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs on August 6 and talks between the countries’ special representatives on the boundary question in Beijing on August 26. National Security Adviser Ajit Doval represented India at the latter discussions.

Earlier, government officials had maintained that the Army and ITBP were equipped to monitor Chinese activity and respond to developments in the sector. They said encounters could arise from differing perceptions of the LAC and were addressed through established protocols. Kapur's account establishes that confrontations remain active, although it does not determine responsibility for their occurrence.

China claims Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory, a position rejected by New Delhi. The unresolved boundary disagreement has complicated efforts to stabilise relations even as senior representatives from both countries maintain diplomatic and military channels. There was no independently verified Chinese response to Kapur's Thursday comments.

Kapur used the ceremony to outline changes to the ITBP's operational capabilities, including the expansion of its Shaurya commandos into a specialised high-altitude fighting formation. Teams have already been established in border battalions, with plans to build a dedicated battalion. He said mountain operations remained central to the force's responsibilities.

The director general also called for replacement of ageing weapons, saying personnel had continued using equipment based on designs familiar to officers who entered service decades ago. He argued that modernisation was necessary to meet challenges from a military whose weapons and infrastructure had undergone extensive development.

Uncrewed aerial systems constitute another priority. Kapur said the ITBP had spent 70 per cent of a ₹400-crore modernisation allocation on drones and reserved ₹1,000 crore for similar equipment under a further proposed programme valued at ₹3,500 crore to ₹4,000 crore.

Drone platoons have been formed in border-guarding battalions, while the force is training pilots and producing some systems internally. Kapur emphasised counter-drone capabilities alongside surveillance and deployment, citing changes in warfare that have increased the vulnerability of exposed positions.

He also described pilot projects for underground structures at border outposts. Such shelters, he said, would provide protection against attacks on positions above ground. Plans envisage expanding the structures across the force's forward network after initial designs are assessed.

The ITBP, established in 1962, performs border-guarding duties under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Its deployment covers remote, high-altitude stretches where weather limits access and makes sustained patrolling difficult, particularly outside the June-to-October operating period in parts of Arunachal Pradesh.

US technology workers return to India in growing numbers

An estimated 12,700 technology professionals returned from the United States to India during the first nine months of 2026, as tighter immigration policies under President Donald Trump and uncertainty over employment prospects accelerated the movement of skilled workers.

Data compiled by staffing firm Xpheno indicates that the number of returnees could surpass the record 15,100 recorded throughout 2025. The figures highlight a sustained increase in professionals relocating from the US, although the number travelling in the opposite direction remains higher.

Xpheno recorded 7,200 returnees in 2023 and 9,800 in 2024, before the figure climbed sharply last year. The latest tally represents approximately 84 per cent of the previous annual record, with three months remaining when the September figures were compiled.

Kamal Karanth, co-founder of Xpheno, expects the annual total to exceed last year's level. He indicated that changes affecting the H-1B visa programme could accelerate the movement and potentially reverse the traditional imbalance between professionals leaving India and those returning.

Nearly 14,500 technology professionals moved from India to the US between January and September, compared with 12,700 travelling back, according to Xpheno. The difference suggests that outward migration continues, but the gap between the two flows has narrowed substantially.

The figures cover white-collar technology professionals moving between the two countries and are not restricted to H-1B visa holders. They therefore reflect broader workforce mobility rather than departures directly attributable to individual immigration measures.

Trump's administration has tightened scrutiny of employment-based immigration, introducing additional costs and restrictions affecting employers seeking overseas talent. The changes have increased uncertainty for technology workers whose ability to remain employed in the US depends on visa sponsorship.

The administration maintains that stronger immigration controls are necessary to protect domestic employment and prevent misuse of programmes intended to address specialised labour shortages. Technology employers, however, have warned that restrictions can complicate recruitment and retention of skilled personnel.

Recruitment specialists identify immigration uncertainty, redundancies across major US technology companies and changing career opportunities as factors influencing relocation decisions. Individual circumstances differ, making it difficult to establish how many workers returned specifically because of government policy.

Karanth cautioned that professionals returning to India face considerable difficulties securing suitable employment. Domestic technology recruitment has remained uneven following the expansion of hiring during 2021, leaving employers selective about additional appointments.

Neeti Sharma, chief executive of TeamLease Digital, said employers increasingly prioritise specialised capabilities and relevant experience rather than overseas employment credentials alone. Demand is concentrated in artificial intelligence, machine learning, data management and product leadership.

Cloud computing, cybersecurity and enterprise applications of artificial intelligence also feature among the skills sought by employers. Professionals possessing these capabilities may find stronger opportunities than candidates whose experience does not match current business requirements.

Compensation presents another obstacle. Recruiters estimate that returning professionals may receive only 25 to 33 per cent of their previous US salaries, depending on their responsibilities, experience, employer and location.

Xpheno's compensation assessment places the average annual earnings of a full-stack engineer employed in the US on an H-1B visa at approximately $105,000. Salaries for such positions generally range between $70,000 and $150,000.

Comparable professionals occupying the highest-paying segment of India's employment market may earn between $20,000 and $32,000 annually. These differences can complicate relocation decisions, particularly for workers accustomed to substantially higher dollar-denominated compensation.

Recruiters say employers generally follow domestic salary structures rather than matching overseas remuneration. Candidates consequently face decisions involving lower earnings, different career opportunities and the financial implications of relocating their households.

Sharma estimates that professionals working in applied artificial intelligence can command annual salaries ranging from approximately Rs 16 lakh to Rs 35 lakh, although experienced specialists in senior positions may receive substantially higher packages.

Global capability centres operated by multinational companies offer another employment avenue for returnees. These facilities recruit specialists across engineering, product development, analytics and technology operations, but overseas applicants compete with experienced professionals already working in India.

Xpheno's assessment draws on its candidate database, recruitment management systems and employment platforms covering domestic and international hiring. The firm uses these records to identify patterns in professional mobility, experience and compensation across the two markets.

The estimates represent observed recruitment and workforce movements rather than a government census of returning citizens. They consequently provide an industry-level indication of changing migration patterns, with the figures covering a defined segment of technology employment rather than every occupational category.

The September assessment also distinguishes movements between countries from changes in visa status, an important consideration because professionals may relocate for personal, career or financial reasons without losing their legal eligibility to work in the United States.

UN experts demand independent probe into protest policing

More than 20 United Nations human rights experts have called for an independent investigation into alleged excessive police force and arbitrary detentions during youth-led protests across India, expressing concern over restrictions on peaceful demonstrations.

The experts, issuing a joint statement in Geneva on Tuesday, criticised what they described as a repeatedly heavy-handed police response to demonstrations in New Delhi and other cities over the past three months. They urged authorities to protect peaceful assembly and ensure accountability for alleged human rights violations.

The statement called for an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the conduct of law enforcement agencies and affiliated forces, alongside justice and reparations for victims of established abuses.

The experts demanded an immediate end to excessive force, blanket restrictions on public gatherings, misuse of digital surveillance and disruptions to internet services.

They said security personnel had reportedly used batons against unarmed students and prevented thousands of demonstrators from participating in protests, despite the largely non-violent character of the gatherings.

According to information received by the experts, more than 7,000 young people, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and political activists were allegedly detained in New Delhi and transferred to distant detention facilities.

The statement alleged that detainees had their mobile phones confiscated and protest-related material deleted. Most were reportedly released within 24 hours, including several protest organisers.

The experts also expressed concern about injuries sustained by demonstrators and allegations of ill-treatment, sexual violence and other forms of gender-based abuse during protests and detention.

Their intervention follows demonstrations organised by student associations, opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party against changes to electoral rolls and government decisions affecting education.

The protests have intensified over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which critics say has resulted in the deletion of approximately 130 million names.

Protest organisers allege that the exercise disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities, including Muslims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Election Commission maintains that revisions are intended to remove duplicate and ineligible entries and improve electoral accuracy.

Demonstrators have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the electoral authorities of compromising the fairness of the voting process. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and election authorities have rejected allegations of politically motivated manipulation.

Police have defended restrictions on demonstrations by citing public order concerns, prohibitory regulations and alleged violations of conditions governing assemblies.

The UN experts nevertheless maintained that restrictions on peaceful gatherings must satisfy international legal requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.

They expressed particular concern over the reported invocation of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which permits authorities to issue preventive orders under specified circumstances.

According to the statement, these powers had allegedly been used to impose broad assembly restrictions, disrupt public transportation and facilitate internet shutdowns.

The experts warned that indiscriminate restrictions could undermine fundamental protections covering freedom of expression, personal liberty and peaceful assembly.

Human Rights Watch separately accused police of using unnecessary force against protesters and detaining people without adequate justification. Its Asia director, Elaine Pearson, urged authorities to engage with demonstrators over concerns about electoral fairness rather than suppress peaceful participation.

Amnesty International, CIVICUS, Front Line Defenders and South Asians for Human Rights also demanded the release of people arbitrarily detained for exercising their right to peaceful assembly.

Their joint intervention highlighted alleged mistreatment of journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders, alongside restrictions affecting communication and movement.

The UN experts said allegations of sexual violence and gender-based abuse required particular scrutiny, including consideration of the different consequences that policing measures could have for women participating in demonstrations.

They also cautioned against the misuse of biometric technologies and other surveillance measures to identify, monitor or intimidate people exercising their rights.

The statement referred to an earlier incident in March involving 10 student and labour-rights activists who were reportedly detained by plain-clothes officers in New Delhi.

Those activists were allegedly held without outside communication for more than 24 hours and subjected to threats, coercion and ill-treatment before being released following habeas corpus proceedings.

The experts said the March allegations formed part of their wider concerns about restrictions on civic participation and the treatment of student activists.

The signatories are independent human rights specialists appointed under United Nations Human Rights Council procedures. They examine alleged violations and communicate concerns to governments but do not exercise judicial authority or issue legally binding rulings.

Their statement also urged authorities to examine the gender-specific consequences of restrictions on peaceful assembly and alleged reprisals against protesters, including the treatment of women during detention and police questioning.