eNewsroom India Logo
Search here...

Worried about police brutality abroad, but what about violence that takes place in your own backyard?

Shahnawaz Akhtar
-
0
Worried about police brutality abroad, but what about violence that takes place in your own backyard?

Ranchi: The murder of George Floyd by the police has triggered a global movement that raises a voice against police brutality. In India, too, #blacklivesmatter was trending, with everyone from celebrities, social activists to the common man registering their voice and demanding justice. But by the looks of it, the movement has failed to make an impact in India, as we recently witnessed a father-son-duo (Jayaraj-Fenix) being brutally tortured to death in police custody in Tamil Nadu.

The multiple injuries on the bodies indicated the brutality inflicted on them was far worse than what Floyd had to endure while being choked to death. The case also highlights the fact that custodial deaths are a reality in India, to which many choose to turn a blind eye. Sadly, they often even fail to create outrage as in the case of Minhaj Ansari of Jharkhand.

Ansari’s murder is a prime example of police getting away with killing people in custody in India, unlike the four officers in Minneapolis, who have been charged with second-degree murder of George Floyd. The case is now under trial.

Ansari, resident of Jamtara, owner of a mobile repairing shop and a father of an eight-month-old daughter, died in police custody just because he was the admin of a WhatsApp group, in which someone had allegedly shared pictures of beef. For this, he was picked up by the police. Harish Pathak was then the officer of Narayanpur police station. Later, Ansari was brutally beaten up by police and also by the complainant — Sonu Singh, a Bajrang Dal member. Pathak and Singh allegedly assaulted Minhaj in front of his mother too. They mercilessly beat him to so much that Ansari succumbed to his injuries when he was rushed for treatment, just like the father-son duo who died in Tamil Nadu.

However, the injustice did not stop there, after a lot of struggle the family managed to get a murder charge slapped on Pathak, but eventually his suspension order was revoked. The trial against him did not begin and Pathak was able to get a stay on his case. Singh’s name was also erased from the charge-sheet filed by the police.

Four years down the line, the trial is yet to start. However, Pathak has now been posted in a police station which falls in the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Hemant Soren’s constituency.

police brutality custodial death jharkhand minhaj ansari
The torture marks on the body of Minhaj, before he was buried (file picture)

“My brother was made the admin of a WhatsApp group by his friend, and then one of the members sent the alleged picture of beef to the group. Sonu Singh complained to police about his religious sentiments being hurt. After which the police picked up Minhaj (Ansari) from his house along with several others in the Whatsapp group on October 2, 2016, around 9 pm. Later, all were released by the police barring Minhaj. All those released by police had wounds from being beating on their bodies,” recalled Hazrat Ansari, Minhaj’s brother while talking to eNewsroom.

He paused and then added: “Next morning, when Ammi (Ajhela Bibi) went to visit Minhaj at the police station, she saw both Harish Pathak and Sonu Singh beating Minhaj. When my father and the Mukhiya reached the police station and confronted them, they were abused and sent back.”

An NDTV report had also claimed that when the police had called a press conference, Minhaj was seen slumped against the wall, without much body movement. His face was also covered with a piece of cloth suggesting that he had been subjected to severe beating.

“When police were taking him to Narayanpur from Jamtara, there is a village named Pobia. It was here that he was taken out of the vehicle and handed over to Sonu Singh, who beat him again mercilessly,” alleged the brother.

police brutality custodial death jharkhand minhaj ansari
Autopsy report of Minhaj Ansari, clearly mentions grave external and internal injuries on his body

After Ansari was declared dead in RIMS, Ranchi on October 9, his post-mortem report said there were signs of torture on his body. Doctors had even pointed out that Ansari might not have been fed for long while in police custody.

Ansari’s lawyer accused the police of murdering the young man in connivance with outsiders and then suppressing the victim’s case. “Our case against Pathak was registered on 6 October, 2016, which is four days after Pathak’s FIR against Minhaj. However, with Minhaj dying on 9 October, a departmental inquiry was set up against Pathak. But senior officials who had to start the inquiry did not begin it. They maintained that the department would start the inquiry only when Pathak’s criminal case proceedings ended,” said advocate A Allam while talking to eNewsroom.

“Pathak had registered two cases against Minhaj, one for circulating the beef message and the other against the victim’s family for attacking him. So we initially demanded that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) club all three FIRs and investigate the matter,” said Allam.

In the charge-sheet not only was Sonu Singh’s name removed, but the section 302 (murder) of IPC had been changed to 304 (unintentional murder). “However, in our fight, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed and section 302 of IPC was mentioned in the case,” informed Allam.

The senior lawyer added, “His anticipatory bail was rejected twice by the court. However, six months ago Pathak managed to get a stay in the case.”

When contacted, Jamtara MLA Irfan Ansari, expressed concern and mentioned the Tweets he had posted after Harish Pathak became the Officer In-charge of Barhait police station. “This police officer is a psycho. He does not deserve to be posted anywhere, leave aside the CM constituency. Wherever he has gone, he committed wrong acts, his career is full of misdeed. I have raised this issue and will keep raising it.”

Meanwhile, Minhaj’s father Umar Mia recalled Rajya Sabha MP and JMM President Shibu Soren’s promise. He had promised the old man that he would help him get justice for his son.

eNewsroom tried reaching out to Pathak, but he could not be contacted for a comment.

AISA President Neha Moves Delhi High Court Against Peace Bond Notice, Alleges Police Intimidation

Aakash
-
0
AISA President Neha Moves Delhi High Court Against Peace Bond Notice, Alleges Police Intimidation

Delhi: All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued by the New Delhi District Police directing her to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry.

According to an AISA press statement issued on October 19, the notice, dated October 17 and served on Neha on October 18, directed her to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), New Delhi District, at 2 pm on October 19. It was issued under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Neha has challenged the notice in the High Court, seeking an immediate stay and its withdrawal. The petition reportedly argues that the notice is prima facie ambiguous, factually incorrect and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect fundamental freedoms and the right to life and personal liberty.

AISA said the legal team, led by Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Moksha and others, would approach the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to seek an urgent hearing. The lawyers would also appear before the SEM on Neha’s behalf to respond to the notice and inform the magistrate about the challenge pending before the High Court.

AISA alleges police intimidation

The student organisation has also questioned why Neha has allegedly been followed by Delhi Police personnel in plain clothes since her release from detention on October 16.

“Is this Delhi Police Protocol to Intimidate Neha?” AISA asked in its statement, raising concerns about what it described as police intimidation.

The organisation alleged that the peace-bond notice was an attempt to curb and criminalise the right to peaceful protest. It linked the action to demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the rollback of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the repeal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

AISA accused the Narendra Modi-led government of targeting protesters who have raised concerns over alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI). It also alleged that students participating in the protests had faced police brutality and attacks by right-wing groups.

Row over restrictions on protests

The organisation further accused Delhi Police of repeatedly invoking Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to restrict demonstrations. It alleged that authorities had deployed more than 40,000 paramilitary personnel, shut metro stations and disrupted internet connectivity to suppress protests against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Questioning the police’s justification for seeking a peace bond against Neha, AISA argued that the authorities themselves had contributed to tensions by restricting demonstrations and failing to prevent alleged attacks on protesters.

The organisation described the notice as part of a broader effort to discourage dissent and peaceful mobilisation against the Election Commission’s actions.

AISA said it would continue to challenge what it considers unlawful action through peaceful protests and legal proceedings, asserting its commitment to defending democracy and the Constitution.

The allegations against Delhi Police and the government are based on AISA’s press statement. The police’s response and the Delhi High Court’s position on the petition were not available in the statement.

Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s Aggression: Is There More to His Tribal Protest Than Meets the Eye?

Milind Ghatwai
-
0
Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s Aggression: Is There More to His Tribal Protest Than Meets the Eye?

Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s unusually strong attack on the Mohan Yadav government in Madhya Pradesh has fuelled speculation that trouble is brewing within the BJP leadership.

Chouhan stirred the political pot by staging a brief dharna in Budhni to protest the demolition of houses belonging to tribal families. The BJP’s longest-serving chief ministers include Chouhan, who is now a Lok Sabha member representing Vidisha, which includes Budhni.

The veteran not only staged a brief sit-in against a government run by his own party but also used language he would normally reserve for rival governments and criminals. He dubbed the forest department officials who carried out the demolition “monsters” (narpishach). He felt slighted because the demolition went ahead even after he had asked the chief secretary and the state BJP chief to stop it.

A day after Chouhan’s outburst, Yadav ordered an inquiry, saying that if a senior leader had flagged an issue, it must be addressed. However, the district collector’s report maintained that the tribal families were not victims but encroachers. The report accused the families of removing plantations and encroaching on forest land over the past five years.

Chouhan described the anti-encroachment drive as the “height of oppression”. Forests are among the portfolios held by Yadav, who replaced Chouhan as chief minister in 2023. The collector’s report further stated that the tribal families owned pucca houses on revenue land in nearby villages.

The former chief minister led a delegation to Yadav’s official residence on Friday. Yadav assured Chouhan that a “practical solution” would be found, without providing further details. Following the assurance, the tribal families called off their procession to Bhopal, the state capital.

Chouhan, who was reluctant to move to Delhi, appears keen to remain relevant in state politics. In the Assembly elections held in late 2023, the BJP registered a spectacular victory, winning 163 of the 230 seats.

Though Chouhan was the incumbent chief minister and hoped to secure another term, the party high command had other plans. The Assembly campaign’s theme was “MP ke mann mein Modi, Modi ke mann mein MP”. When the newly elected legislators met in Bhopal, the leadership announced Yadav’s name as the next chief minister.

Yadav had served as higher education minister in the Chouhan cabinet, but his name was little known outside the state. Few expected the soft-spoken leader to emerge as a challenger to the established leadership, particularly under the powerful leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.

After the election verdict, Chouhan stayed put in Bhopal while other contenders for the top job camped in the national capital. “I would prefer to die in Bhopal than go to Delhi and ask for something for myself,” he had said dramatically when reporters asked why he had chosen not to seek another term.

When Chouhan was eventually inducted into the Modi cabinet and allotted the agriculture portfolio, it was widely believed that he had received his due. More than two years into his national role, however, Chouhan has repeatedly indicated that he is more comfortable in his home state.

Yadav began his tenure as chief minister cautiously but has not shied away from reversing decisions taken by his predecessor. The two leaders have traded barbs while avoiding a direct public confrontation.

The latest episode, however, appears to have changed that.

Farmers’ Protests and Ladli Behna Scheme Deepen the Rift

The closest the two leaders had come to openly challenging each other was over farmers’ demand for 100% procurement of moong (green gram). Thousands of aggrieved farmers laid siege to Bhopal, taking the Yadav government by surprise.

Farmers constitute a major political constituency in the agrarian state. In a bid to wriggle out of the difficult situation, Yadav sought to shift the blame to the NDA government at the Centre. Chouhan, in turn, blamed the state government, saying it had not even procured the sanctioned quota.

More recently, Yadav told an interviewer that the Ladli Behna scheme had proved very expensive. Conceived by Chouhan, the populist scheme has been adopted by several state governments despite the substantial costs of making monthly payments to lakhs of women beneficiaries.

While expressing anger over the demolition of tribal houses, Chouhan also responded to Yadav’s criticism of the scheme. He said women and tribal voters had backed the BJP in large numbers, helping Yadav become chief minister.

The episode has given the Opposition Congress fresh ammunition against the BJP government. “The friction between BJP leaders is taking its toll on governance,” the Congress claimed.

Congress Doubles Down on ‘Regime Change’ Calls as BJP Targets SIR Protests

Aakash
-
0
Congress Doubles Down on ‘Regime Change’ Calls as BJP Targets SIR Protests

New Delhi: The Congress has doubled down on its defence of calls for “regime change”, arguing that replacing an elected government through the ballot box is a legitimate democratic objective, not a conspiracy to seize power.

The latest intervention came on Saturday, October 17, when senior Congress leader and former Union minister P. Chidambaram defended the phrase amid a growing political confrontation over protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

In a post on X, Chidambaram said the Opposition’s duty was to “oppose, expose and depose” the government, explaining that this meant opposing it politically, exposing its actions in Parliament and removing it through elections. He questioned why the BJP had reacted so strongly to the phrase “regime change”, arguing that the prospect of changing governments was a normal feature of democracy.

His remarks followed a sharp exchange between the Congress and the BJP after senior advocate Prashant Bhushan described the agitation against Gyanesh Kumar as a “fight for regime change”. Student activist Neha Bora also referred to the Gen Z movement in Bangladesh, prompting BJP leaders to accuse the Opposition of pursuing a political agenda beyond electoral reform.

The Congress has rejected the charge that it wants to remove the government outside the electoral process. Its argument is that peaceful protests, demands for accountability and efforts to defeat an incumbent government in elections are legitimate parts of democratic politics.

Pawan Khera challenges BJP over meaning of regime change

On Friday, Congress leader Pawan Khera pushed back against Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s criticism of the Opposition’s language.

Singh had questioned whether references to “regime change” revealed that the Opposition’s campaign was about removing the government rather than addressing concerns over electoral reforms and the SIR exercise.

Khera responded that the Congress had openly stated its intention to defeat the government through elections. Referring to the party’s “Vote Chor, Gaddi Chhod” campaign, he argued that replacing the ruling party was precisely what an Opposition was expected to seek.

He also recalled the 1977 election, when the Congress lost power at the Centre after the Emergency, and questioned why the BJP was uncomfortable with the prospect of another electoral change of government.

Khera further pointed to the BJP’s earlier support for movements involving Prashant Bhushan, arguing that political mobilisation against an incumbent government had not always been treated as a threat when the BJP itself was in Opposition.

The BJP, meanwhile, has maintained that the language used by some protest organisers raises questions about the movement’s intentions. The disagreement has turned the meaning of “regime change” into a political flashpoint, with both sides contesting whether the protests should be understood primarily as a campaign for electoral accountability or as a broader challenge to the government.

Supreme Court hears two sides of the SIR controversy

The political confrontation is unfolding alongside two separate proceedings in the Supreme Court.

On October 15, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders.

The petition challenges decisions relating to the SIR process and raises concerns about alleged large-scale voter deletions and the transparency of electoral rolls. The Opposition has sought disclosure of relevant records, an audit of deletions, publication of booth-wise information and safeguards against removing eligible voters without notice and an opportunity to be heard. It has also sought suspension of the exercise pending judicial consideration.

Separately, the court issued notice to Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other Opposition leaders on a petition challenging the October 12 march to the Supreme Court and seeking restrictions on political demonstrations inside court premises.

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice said the judiciary could not be browbeaten and indicated that one of the petitioners would be asked to explain his conduct during the march. The two cases raise distinct questions: one concerns the legality and transparency of the electoral revision process, while the other concerns the conduct of the demonstration at the Supreme Court.

Election Commission’s new revision process adds to debate

The Election Commission’s October 15 announcement of an annual Special Summary Revision across 17 states and Union Territories has also entered the political debate.

Unlike the SIR exercise, the Special Summary Revision is a periodic update of electoral rolls intended to add newly eligible voters and remove entries of people who have died or moved away. Existing electors do not have to submit additional documents merely to have their names carried forward into the revised rolls.

The Congress has separately highlighted the Commission’s direction that recognised political parties receive copies of draft and final electoral rolls in a readable PDF format. The party has long demanded machine-readable voter lists, arguing that they would make it easier to search records, compare entries and identify possible discrepancies.

However, it remains important to establish whether the new direction delivers genuinely machine-readable data or simply provides PDFs that are easier to access. That distinction matters because searchable digital records and scanned images do not offer the same ability to conduct large-scale, automated audits.

For the Congress, the issue is not simply the number of names removed from electoral rolls but whether the process is transparent, independently verifiable and equipped with effective safeguards for eligible voters. The Election Commission, for its part, says the revision exercise is intended to improve the accuracy of electoral rolls.

Congress invokes India’s history of political change

The Congress has also sought to place the current controversy within India’s history of political mobilisation and changes of government.

The 1977 election remains a central example. After the Emergency, voters removed the Congress from power at the Centre, demonstrating that even a government with a long record in office could be defeated through elections. Subsequent changes of government, including the BJP’s victory in 2014, further illustrate the electorate’s power to determine who governs.

The party has also invoked former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the mass movements associated with Jayaprakash Narayan and George Fernandes during the 1970s to question why street protests and calls for political change should now be characterised as conspiratorial.

The argument is not that every protest or political slogan is beyond scrutiny. Rather, the Congress maintains that demanding the removal of an incumbent government is different from seeking to overthrow the constitutional order.

That distinction has become central to the dispute. The BJP has questioned the intentions behind the protests, while the Congress insists that its objective is to defeat the government through elections and press for accountability over the electoral process.

With the SIR controversy now playing out both on the streets and in court, the dispute over “regime change” has become part of a larger argument about electoral transparency, the limits of political protest and the role of the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy.

Four Years, Two Autopsies, Zero Accountability: The Battle for IITian Faizan Ahmed

Shahnawaz Akhtar
-
0
Four Years, Two Autopsies, Zero Accountability: The Battle for IITian Faizan Ahmed

Kolkata: Four years after IIT Kharagpur student Faizan Ahmed was found dead in his hostel, his mother, Rehana Ahmed, is still fighting for justice. No arrests have been reported despite a court-ordered Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe. The case remains unresolved, with the Calcutta High Court continuing to hear proceedings related to the investigation.

On October 14, 2022, the partially decomposed body of the third-year mechanical engineering student was found in a hostel room on the IIT Kharagpur campus. The postmortem report later suggested that he had died three days earlier, on October 11.

A resident of Tinsukia, Assam, Faizan was the only child of Rehana and Salim Ahmed. He had secured an All India Rank (AIR) of 11 in JEE Main 2020. Inspired by Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO and an IIT Kharagpur alumnus, Faizan chose the institute for his engineering studies. The COVID-19 lockdowns delayed his arrival on campus until December 2021. Within months, he had joined two robotics research teams funded by the Centre.

However, the initial postmortem did not conclusively establish the cause of death, and the police classified it as suicide.

His parents refused to accept this conclusion and approached the Calcutta High Court. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha appointed forensic expert Dr Ajay Kumar Gupta to examine photographs and videos of Faizan’s body. After reviewing the material, Gupta recommended a fresh postmortem to establish the cause of death.

The second postmortem was conducted at Calcutta Medical College in May 2023 after Faizan’s body was exhumed in Assam and brought to Kolkata.

Faizan Ahmed Case: Second Autopsy Leads to SIT Investigation

The findings prompted Justice Mantha to observe that Faizan’s death appeared to be homicidal in nature. In June 2023, the court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate the case, with the probe led by senior IPS officer K Jayaraman.

The order marked a significant turning point in the case, which had initially been treated as suicide.

Both the West Bengal government and IIT Kharagpur challenged the single bench’s orders before a division bench. The state government opposed the changes to the investigation, while IIT Kharagpur questioned the second postmortem and sought to overturn the order.

On August 16, 2023, a division bench comprising then Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya upheld the central direction for an SIT investigation. The case continued under the court’s directions, with the second postmortem report playing a central role in the proceedings.

More than three years have passed since that order. Yet, no arrests have been reported, and Faizan’s family continues to wait for answers.

Faizan Ahmed Case Hearing: Calcutta High Court Seeks Documents

In subsequent hearings on September 29 and October 12, 2026, the Calcutta High Court dealt with the exchange of documents in the case. Neither order records a decision on the West Bengal government’s request for the constitution of a medical board to examine the two postmortem reports.

In its September 29 order, Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi directed the court-appointed forensic expert to provide his report to the petitioners’ lawyer. The court also asked the petitioners to furnish a list of documents relied upon by the state in its report.

In the October 12 order, the court directed that the documents sought by the petitioners be supplied within a week of the reopening of the court after the Puja vacation. The matter has been listed for November 30, 2026.

The two orders do not establish whether the court will accept or reject the state’s request for a medical board at a later stage. The issue therefore remains unresolved in these proceedings.

Over the past four years, Faizan’s parents have travelled repeatedly to Kharagpur and Kolkata and attended hearings at the Calcutta High Court. His mother also wrote to then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, seeking a meeting and her intervention to expedite the investigation. However, Banerjee never met her, according to Rehana.

faizan ahmed iit kharagpur death case no arrests kgp rehana ahmed homicide suicide CMO letter
The West Bengal CID’s September 1, 2026, letter forwarding Rehana Ahmed’s grievance to the ADGP, Special Task Force, for necessary action on jurisdiction.

After the government led by Suvendu Adhikari came to power, Rehana sought the new chief minister’s intervention. Adhikari met her on July 30, 2026, and assured her of support.

In another development, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal, forwarded Rehana Ahmed’s grievance to the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Special Task Force, West Bengal, on September 1, 2026, for necessary action on the question of jurisdiction. The letter, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operations), refers to grievance number CM021754907 and identifies it as a petition submitted by Rehana. The communication marks another official intervention in the family’s continuing efforts to seek action in Faizan’s case.

IIT Student Deaths: 171 Deaths Reported Between 2005 and 2025

The case has also drawn attention to the wider issue of student deaths at the country’s premier engineering institutions. Reports suggest that at least 171 student deaths, including suicides and other unnatural deaths, were recorded across the IITs between 2005 and 2025. Between 2021 and 2025 alone, 53 student deaths were reported.

Student deaths have also triggered protests at IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay, with concerns over student welfare and institutional accountability.

“I lost my only child, but I have not received justice. I strongly believe that student deaths at IITs could have been prevented if an example had been set in Faizan’s case, new rules had been framed and implemented, and the accused had been arrested. But none of this happened. As a result, the loss of brilliant young lives across the country continues, with more students dying inside these premier institutions,” Rehana Ahmed, Faizan’s mother, told eNewsroom.

 

INDIA Bloc Escalates Anti-SIR Fight, Seeks Early SC Hearing as Defects Cleared

Aakash
-
0
INDIA Bloc Escalates Anti-SIR Fight, Seeks Early SC Hearing as Defects Cleared

Delhi: A day after taking its campaign against alleged electoral irregularities to the streets of the national capital, the INDIA bloc on Tuesday signalled its intention to sustain pressure on the Central government and the Election Commission.

At a high-tea strategy meeting hosted by Rahul Gandhi at his residence, senior Opposition leaders, student activists and civil society representatives discussed the next phase of their agitation against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Addressing the media after the meeting on October 13, Gandhi said the Opposition’s political resistance would continue and rejected suggestions that different groups were organising competing protests.

The meeting followed Monday’s march towards the Supreme Court, where Opposition leaders sought scrutiny of the revision process and action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The campaign has since moved on two fronts: continued political mobilisation and a legal challenge to the Election Commission’s decisions.

The petition encountered an initial procedural hurdle when the Supreme Court registry flagged 14 defects. Later on Tuesday, National Herald reported that the defects were understood to have been corrected and that the petitioners had sought an early hearing on Wednesday, October 14. However, earlier reports from other outlets said the defects remained unresolved and the petition had not been listed. The latest listing status could not be independently confirmed.

The Opposition alleges that the SIR process risks excluding eligible voters and lacks adequate transparency. The Election Commission and the BJP have rejected accusations of partisan conduct.

Rahul Gandhi Calls for Sustained Movement, Questions Curbs on Dissent

Tuesday’s meeting brought together Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress representatives, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, NCP (SP) leader Supriya Sule, CPI general secretary D Raja and CPI(M) leader M A Baby, alongside student activists and civil society representatives.

The participation of leaders and organisations from different political backgrounds reinforced the alliance’s effort to demonstrate that concerns over voter-list revisions extend beyond the Congress.

Addressing reporters after the meeting, Rahul Gandhi rejected suggestions of competing protests within the Opposition. “There are no parallel protests, there is one singular protest,” he said, describing the agitation as a collective campaign to restore democracy.

Gandhi said the alliance respected the judiciary but maintained that political mobilisation would continue alongside its legal challenge. The message was that the Opposition would not depend exclusively on court proceedings to pursue its concerns over electoral transparency.

The alliance also raised concerns over reported restrictions on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, a designated protest venue in New Delhi. Opposition leaders argued that peaceful assembly requires accessible public spaces and indicated that they would challenge the reported restrictions.

By linking the controversy over electoral rolls with the right to protest, the INDIA bloc has widened its campaign beyond the mechanics of voter-list revision. It is also raising questions about the space available for peaceful dissent.

The participation of regional parties alongside Congress leaders gave the meeting political significance, although a joint appearance does not necessarily mean that all alliance partners share identical electoral strategies or priorities. The challenge will be to maintain that coordination beyond joint meetings and press conferences.

Supreme Court Plea: 14 Defects Flagged, Early Hearing Sought

The legal challenge encountered an initial procedural hurdle after the Supreme Court registry flagged 14 defects in the joint petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and 10 other Opposition leaders. The objections reportedly included an illegible copy of Kharge’s identity card, missing or unsigned vakalatnamas authorising lawyers to represent some petitioners, a court-fee shortfall of ₹220 and queries concerning the inclusion of individual Election Commissioners as respondents.

These were procedural objections, not a judicial ruling on the merits of the petition. Their identification did not establish whether the Opposition’s allegations against the Election Commission were correct or incorrect.

There were conflicting reports about the status of the corrections on Tuesday. While reports by The Times of India and India Today said the petition had not been listed because the defects remained unresolved, National Herald subsequently reported that the defects were understood to have been corrected and that the lawyers had sought an early hearing on October 14.

A request for an early hearing does not, by itself, mean that a matter has been formally listed. The latest status therefore needs confirmation from the Supreme Court’s cause list or a subsequent court report.

The petition names the Election Commission, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents. It seeks scrutiny of the SIR process and greater transparency in decisions concerning electoral rolls.

Among the reported demands are:

  • Disclosure of deleted electors’ names and the reasons for their removal.
  • Safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.
  • Access to relevant records and electoral databases, as sought by the petitioners.
  • Independent scrutiny or an audit of the revision process.
  • Interim relief, including suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise.

The precise scope of these demands should be understood from the petition itself. Their inclusion in a legal filing does not mean that the court has accepted them or directed the Election Commission to comply.

The Opposition argues that large-scale deletions require scrutiny, particularly where eligible citizens may have been excluded without adequate notice or an effective opportunity to correct errors. Electoral rolls require periodic revision to remove deceased, duplicate and otherwise ineligible entries. The central question is whether the process is accurate and transparent and whether voters whose names have been wrongly removed have an effective remedy.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had earlier declined the Opposition leaders’ request for a personal meeting, indicating that their grievances could be pursued through formal judicial proceedings. He subsequently assured petitioners that their cases would be listed once the registry’s objections were addressed.

The next significant development will be the formal status of the petition and whether the court takes it up for hearing. Until then, the Opposition’s allegations remain claims requiring examination rather than judicially established findings.

Delhi Police Register FIRs as BJP Rejects Opposition’s Allegations

Delhi Police registered two FIRs in connection with Monday’s demonstration, according to a report published by National Herald on October 13. The cases were registered at Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police stations.

Police alleged that the procession lacked the necessary permission and claimed that barricades were breached during the march. The demonstration had prompted heavy security deployment and traffic restrictions in central Delhi, with police stopping sections of the procession as demonstrators attempted to move towards the Supreme Court.

The allegations recorded by the police should not be treated as findings of guilt. The FIRs concern the conduct of the demonstration and do not determine the validity of the Opposition’s separate allegations about voter-list revisions.

The BJP rejected the Opposition’s allegations against the Election Commission, accusing its political rivals of attempting to undermine the credibility of constitutional institutions. The Election Commission, for its part, has maintained that eligible voters can seek enrolment or correction of their details through the prescribed procedures.

The competing positions leave the central question unresolved: whether the revision process has wrongfully excluded eligible voters and whether the available safeguards are sufficient to identify and correct such errors.

The INDIA bloc is attempting to keep that question at the centre of national political debate by combining a legal challenge with public mobilisation. Its high-tea meeting on Tuesday helped maintain a united public front after Monday’s march, but the long-term impact of the campaign will depend on what follows.

The petitioners must pursue their legal challenge and substantiate their allegations with verifiable evidence. The Election Commission, meanwhile, faces the task of demonstrating that voter-list revisions are conducted transparently and that eligible citizens have effective avenues for redress.

The dispute has therefore moved beyond a single day of street protest. Whether the INDIA bloc can turn its show of unity into meaningful scrutiny of electoral procedures will depend on the progress of the legal challenge, the evidence placed before the court and the Election Commission’s response to demands for transparency.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Rahul Gandhi met protesters who alleged that they had been brutally beaten by Delhi Police while demonstrating against the SIR. The protesters recounted to the Leader of the Opposition and the media the harassment they said they had faced while trying to exercise their right to peaceful protest. Their accounts added another dimension to the INDIA bloc’s campaign, which now extends beyond voter-list revisions to concerns over the treatment of those opposing the exercise.

The Camera Is Now a Crime? Delhi Police Crack Down on Journalists Covering Protests

Staff Reporter
-
0
The Camera Is Now a Crime? Delhi Police Crack Down on Journalists Covering Protests

Written by:Maria Teresa Raju, Jahnavi, Jisha Surya, Shabbir Ahmed, Anisha Sheth, Pooja Prasanna

As Delhi witnessed a wave of protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the Delhi Police and the CRPF, deployed to maintain law and order, came down heavily on journalists covering the demonstrations.

Journalists were detained and assaulted, their equipment was damaged, and their phones were taken away. In fact, several journalists were detained by the Delhi Police even after a Supreme Court order on the afternoon of October 11 clearly stated that lawyers, journalists, and other professionals “shall not be hindered in the discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”

The News Minute spoke to around 20 journalists who covered the protests, several of them from digital media organisations. Totally, the accounts reveal how journalists on the ground were subjected to detention, physical assault, intimidation, and the seizure or destruction of their equipment as they reported on the protests.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests ryan thomas

“You have to treat him with a gun, he is not listening”

I was at Connaught Place near Sansad Marg around 6 pm on October 11.

I was following some protesters who were being detained by the police. Suddenly one of the police officers turned toward me. It was ASI Kapil Kumar. He started questioning me very aggressively, saying, ‘What are you doing here?’

I put my hands up, saying, ‘Sir, I will go. Mujhe koi problem nahi karna hai, mujhe bas cover karna hai.’ [I don’t want to create any problem, I just want to cover the protest].
Four–five people came from behind and started manhandling me.

I told them, ‘Sir I am coming, I am cooperating.’ But they kept shoving me.

They were wearing khaki, so could have been Delhi Police. But my colleagues told me that their dialect sounded like they were from Haryana, so they could have been Haryana Police too.

They shoved me, grabbed me by the collar, and kept hitting my head. Four or five of them kept pushing me. I tried resisting a little bit, but after a point, they would have torn my t-shirt also, so I thought I’ll just go.

Then they shoved me inside a bus, made me sit down, tried snatching my phone and breaking my camera. So I put my phone in my pocket and kept the camera inside the bag and held it tightly so they wouldn’t snatch it. They kept beating throughout that time. Saying, ‘A lot of nationalism you have suddenly when you have a camera.’

This was the normal orange bus.

Another group of police officers came inside this bus. They said, ‘Put him in another vehicle and take him somewhere else, because he is not understanding.’ The first police officer who you can see in the video then handed me over to the group of police officers.

The moment I told them, ‘Sir please do not beat me, I am cooperating,’ I was slapped again. They kept pushing and shoving me while I said, ‘Sir I am coming with you, I have a press card also, you don’t have to detain me.’

But they didn’t listen, they threw me inside a police car after a lot of tussle.

Then they tried to threaten me with the butt of a gun. They took out the gun and they were just poking it in my stomach and with the stick also they were poking inside and they just kept beating, shoving around for some time.

They kept hitting my face and one of them said, “You have to treat him with a gun, he is not listening.”

This was at 6 pm. The SC order was already out by that time. I mentioned it to them also, ‘Sir, today only the SC said again to allow free movement,’ but they laughed it off.

They were like, ‘We will show you’ kind of thing.

One guy I was following was also put in the bus and car I was in. He was also beaten.
After a point I just pretended to delete it on my phone. I just selected all the pictures and they thought I had deleted the pictures, so then they were like, ‘Cool now you can go. Just keep walking straight and then right.’

It’s only because I kept insisting that I have a press card (that I was let go then).

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests pragya Mishra

“I could walk on my own” — Pragya Mishra on Being Dragged by Delhi Police

On October 11 afternoon, I went over to RK Ashram, as I knew a demonstration with AISA leader Neha Bora was about to take place. I went there with my cameraman to cover the protest. Upon reaching, I saw protesters demonstrating in small groups. A young man was hit with a lathi and fell down. I went over to cover that. In that short duration, the police surrounded us and dragged my cameraman away. They injured him. When I rushed to protect him, a police officer came up from behind and started shouting loudly—it’s all recorded on camera—saying, “Catch her! Grab her! Put them on the bus!”

Then multiple female officers came, forcefully stuffed us into the bus, and dragged us. I kept telling them, “I have my mic ID, we are just doing our job. We are reputed journalists. We were doing our duty, showing what you were doing. And for showing that, you detained us!” I had my mic ID and my ID card. I repeatedly told them, “I could walk on my own, but you deliberately did this to humiliate and insult us.”

After being forced onto the bus, my cameraman, Anuj, somehow managed to follow behind in a vehicle. He heard me and, with great difficulty, I was able to retrieve my phone.
Multiple officers dragged me in such a rough manner—you can see it in the video—that my clothes got torn. To tell you the truth, I had no choice but to go and change my clothes first.

Footage shows journalist Pragya Mishra being physically lifted and carried away by at least four police personnel. The officers are seen holding her by her arms and legs as they carry her towards a waiting police bus, while she continues to hold her microphone and protest her detention.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests Sajin A

“They held them by their hands and legs” — Journalist covering Suhail Mohammed and Rahul

We were walking towards a protest at RK Ashram to cover it. My camerapersons were walking around 200 meters ahead. It was then that I noticed that police were detaining journalists along with protesters. I began capturing visuals using my phone.

I saw police carrying 24 News reporter Suhail Mohammed and cameraman Rahul into the bus. They held them by their hands and legs and dragged them into the bus.
While I was capturing visuals, a policeman held my hand. I showed him my ID card. But 2–3 policemen pushed me into the van.

Inside the van, we told the police that we were journalists, but they did not respond. As the vehicle moved forward, we saw some mediapersons from Kerala standing on the footpath. We shouted to them from the van that we were detained. Then they began calling senior police officers and alerting them.

They stopped the van at Connaught Place. They released us only after other mediapersons began arguing with them.

Because of the intervention of other mediapersons, our detention was limited to around 10–15 minutes. Of the total seven persons taken into custody in the van, only one was a protester.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests vedanta sara khan

“She kept telling them she was from the press” — Sara Khan and Vedanta Agarwal

Vedanta and video journalist Sara Khan were reporting from near Connaught place, right in front of Rajeev Chowk metro station, on October 11, around 12.30 pm.

Police constables came and dragged them away in a bid to detain them. They were initially separated and detained in a bus which already had over a dozen protesters. There were more than five buses parked in a row. Around 150 people who were taking part in that march were detained in those buses.

Sara was dragged by 8–10 police personnel, mostly women constables. Initially, a male police officer pushed her a few times and then women constables dragged and shoved her into the bus. She kept telling them she was from the press but they did not care. She was roughed up and assaulted in the process and was detained in the bus for 5-10 minutes.
Then DCP Sachin Sharma who recognised Vedanta asked the police to let him and Sara go. Later another DCP came and apologised to Sara for having used force against her and claimed that they did not know they were from the press.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests shyam meera singh

“Why can’t I raise slogans against Modi?” — Shyam Meera Singh

On October 11 evening, I was picked up near Connaught Place in front of Block B, around 8 pm. I was let go after about an hour.

There was a man pretending to be Muslim, wearing a skullcap but making anti-Hindu statements and trying to assault people. He was among a group of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal-related people.

I was surprised to see a seemingly elderly Muslim man assaulting people while he seemed to be accompanied by BJP supporters. Then I learned that he was actually Hindu and started reporting this.

The right-wing group then started raising slogans against me and tried to stop me from reporting. I tried to get away and sought help from the police, but they detained me instead. There was a constable named Dharmendra Kumar, I asked him for protection.
The goons then instigated the constable to detain me.

There is a pattern of police detaining people identified by the BJP-RSS goons.

When I was being taken into the van, I raised slogans of Inquilab Zindabad, Bhagat Singh Zindabad, Amit Shah Murdabad. The same official hit me thrice with a lathi, on my back and thigh.

When I asked why he was hitting me, he said because I was using abusive language by saying ‘Narendra Modi murdabad (Down with Modi)’.

I said, “How is that abusive? He has created chaos in Delhi, getting women protesters and journalists harassed. Why can’t I raise slogans against Modi?”

Eventually, my lawyer came and told the police about the Supreme Court order saying journalists cannot be stopped from doing their work. They initially said, ‘Koi order nahi hain’ (there is no such order) but my lawyer explained clearly that journalists and lawyers can’t be detained. Then they let me go.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests ayush tiwari

“This is my press card, I am a journalist” — Ayush Tiwari

On October 10, I was taking videos of SFI/CPI(M) members protesting at HKS Surjeet Bhavan, the CPI(M) office in Mandi House. I was right between the cops and the protesters.
I was just shooting a normal video. In the middle of the video, the cops started pulling me away. One of them said, ‘Isko bhi hatao’ [Take him away too].

At all times, I was wearing my press card around my neck. I shouted saying, ‘This is my press card, I am a journalist, national media’ – whatever I thought could help. The cop there – his face is also inside the video – wouldn’t listen.

They tried to drag me and I resisted. So there is a small injury on my waist. My shirt buttons from the middle to the bottom were completely ripped off. I was thrown inside the bus. We were driven around for an hour and a half.

This was Paharganj, the bus was crawling, it was a hot day. After a point, I think the bus just overheated. It was billowing fumes, and we were alerted to it by some people outside. Lots of protesters (inside the bus) panicked.

They started shouting, ‘Aag lag jayegi, humei kuch ho jayega, mar jayenge, jaane deejiye.’ [The bus will catch fire, we could die, let us go.]

The cops were also confused for a bit and didn’t know what to do, but then they relented. They opened the door right outside Paharganj police station and all of us walked out.

One of the policemen told me, ‘Come inside the police station.’ I said, ‘I am not coming. You drag me inside, I am not coming by myself.’
He then let me go.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests vivek gupta

“The lens was broken, and the battery and memory card were gone”- Vivek Gupta

I was covering the protests near Jantar Mantar on the afternoon of Saturday, October 10, when I saw the police dragging a woman away. It was around 3.45 pm. I started shooting it.

Suddenly, a couple of police officers arrived and asked who I was. I told them I’m a journalist and showed them my ID. Still, they took my camera away. I kept requesting them for about half-an-hour to return it. When they gave it back, the lens was broken, and the battery and memory card were gone.

Then they took me to Zafarabad police station, which is over 50 km away from Jantar Mantar. Lots of people were already detained there. They took my camera away again, saying that since I was being detained I could not be allowed to keep a camera on me. I was there for about two hours. Around 7.30 pm, the police let all of the detainees go.
I bought the camera last year in September. It will take between Rs 50,000–60,000 to buy a new lens.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests Shoaib Daniyal

“Why have you set up a check post here today?” — Shoaib Daniyal

I was waiting outside my home in South Delhi for a taxi around 1 pm. I was supposed to go to Jantar Mantar, which was more than 20 km away from there. The police had blocked the road and set up a checkpost right outside my house. There was a policeman standing there so I went up to him and started chatting with him casually about what was happening.
I asked him, “Why have you set up a check post here today?” He became very suspicious. He searched my bag and clicked a photo of my Aadhaar card. He even noted down my address. Eventually, he said that he was going to detain me.

He called another policeman and together the two of them detained me. They called for a bus and took me inside it.

They said that they would take me to a nearby police station, but they never did. They stopped the bus in the middle of the road a short distance from my home. They kept me there for more than an hour.

They tried to force me to delete the videos on my phone I had shot about the detention. When I declined to do so, they called a couple of more policemen, who also tried to coerce me to delete the videos.
I refused.

The name of the police officer who detained me was Bhagwan Sahay.

I was eventually released around 2.30 pm.

The reason that they eventually gave for the detention was that this was a “bad time”. “You have to understand that there is disorder in the city today,” they told me.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests Farsa

“We lost an entire working day at the police station” — Farza TM and Roshni Rajan

Due to the barricading, we had difficulty reaching Kerala House to cover the protest on October 10. The police denied us permission to proceed, even after we showed our press ID cards.

After reaching HKS Surjeet Bhavan [CPI(M) office] to cover the march by Left leaders, we began filming the protest. While I was recording the visuals, a woman police officer grabbed my hand. She let go only after I informed her that I was from the press.

A few minutes later, the police forcibly dragged Roshni (Reporter TV Assistant News Editor Roshni Rajan) and me into a police van. Despite repeatedly informing them that we were mediapersons and showing our press ID cards, they pushed us into the vehicle.

Even after we repeatedly asked where we were being taken, the police refused to provide any information. We were first taken to Burari Police Station and then transferred to another vehicle and taken to Sarai Rohilla Police Station. During the journey, the police questioned us about whether we had attended the protests against CAA-NRC or previous protests organised by CJP.

At the station, the police collected our addresses, contact numbers, and other personal details and made us sign it. We were made to wait until around 5.45 pm. We lost an entire working day at the police station. Sarai Rohilla Police Station was very far from where we had been picked up.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests Rajwinder Lakhwinder

“We don’t know where the camera is” — Lakhwinder Singh and fellow journalist

We were detained on October 10 near Connaught Place around 11 am while reporting from there.

I was filming around four men in civilian clothes who had formed a chain. I had asked them who they were, why they were supporting the police. They were raising slogans such as ‘Delhi police lath maaro, yeh Pakistani hain (Delhi police beat them with lathis, they are Pakistanis – in reference to protesters)’.

The police were detaining protesters. We were filming what we saw. We asked the police why the men in plain clothes were with them, and who they were. Why were they instigating them to beat people with lathis, and would the police listen to them?

There was an IPS officer named Anil Shukla, chief of the Delhi Police Special Cell. He seized Lakhwinder Singh’s camera and handed it to a constable. Both of us were then detained. We don’t know where the camera is, the police aren’t giving us a proper response. The camera cost around Rs 1 lakh.

They first took us to Civil Lines police station for about an hour, then to the Kashmere Gate police station. They let us go around 7.30 pm.

They took our address, IDs, Aadhaar cards, and phone numbers.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests

“He could do whatever he wanted” — Neeraj Jha and the Molitics team

I was manhandled by a policeman while I was covering the protest on October 10, and when I objected and told him that he could not behave in such a manner with journalists, his reaction stunned me. The policeman told me that he could do whatever he wanted.

The Instagram page of Molitics has been taken down, and we have not been told why. All we get to hear is that it has been taken down for ‘legal reasons’. We had 5,67,000 followers and gained 11,000 followers in just a few hours as we were covering the protests extensively. One of our reels, in which we showed how right-wing goons were trying to disrupt the protest, went viral and garnered three million views. This reel was deleted first, and later the entire account was taken down in India.

One of our reporters Aman was detained on October 10 and 11.

On October 11, at the Ramakrishna Ashram Metro Station, what I witnessed was that the moment the police saw media personnel with their identity cards, they were grabbed and taken into custody.

There was a female content creator who was arguing with the police as her cameraperson was detained and taken away. Other media personnel kept telling the cops not to detain the cameraperson. The police were in no mood to listen. After putting the cameraperson in the bus, the police came back in search of the female content creator and detained her also.

On the other side, where my colleague Harish was reporting, Pragya Mishra, a popular YouTuber, was also covering the protests. Delhi Police personnel abused a journalist, and when Pragya Mishra questioned them, she and her cameraperson were forcibly detained on the spot.

When I moved around, I saw that only journalists were being detained in a bus. Around six or seven journalists had been taken into custody. The police were so desperate to detain journalists that they used an entire bus to detain them and take them away.

One interesting thing we observed was that a group of right-wing goons carrying sticks were trying to bully those who questioned the government. They would identify the journalists and inform the police, and the police would take action. Shyam Meera Singh was heckled by right-wing goons and was later detained.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests Ashish Singh

“I’m a HT reporter and I was also wearing my ID card” — Ashish Singh

Hindustan reporter Ashish Singh described how he was detained to Hindustan Times and said, “I was recording the detentions on my camera when I felt police pushing me. They also hurt me with some sort of pointed thing, maybe like a knuckle. I turned and told them not once but many times that I’m a HT reporter and I was also wearing my ID card, which I showed them. But they didn’t listen to me.”

He was soon pushed onto the bus with a photojournalist. “I was far from protesters and not even obstructing police in their duty, but they still misbehaved with me.”

Ashish was on the bus for around 20–30 minutes when it reached the Mandir Marg area, where he jumped out of the bus with the other journalist. “I was scared that the police would snatch our phones and delete all the media.”

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests Anureet Watta

“They said only journalists with PIB ID cards were allowed”- Anureet Watta 

Another journalist and I were heading towards the protest at Jantar Mantar around 10.30 am on October 10 recording the surroundings. The police asked us to stop. This was near Samrat Hotel, where the barricades started. But we were outside the area where prohibitory orders applied. This was 8 km away from Jantar Mantar.

The police asked us to show our ID cards and we did. But they said that anybody could have press ID cards and that they needed to be verified. They said only journalists who had Press Information Bureau (PIB) ID cards were allowed. They took us to Chanakyapuri police station.

There they asked us for our ID cards, Aadhaar card, home address, and said they will contact our employers.

We were there for four hours. We repeatedly asked them whether we had been detained, but they wouldn’t say anything. Finally after about three hours they told us we were detained.

While we were there, they brought in four young men, I think two of them were college students. The young men told the police that they were just walking around and that they were not protesting. The police asked them for ID cards and Aadhaar cards.

The police didn’t take our phones, but they went through the phones of the young men. They must have seen something on their phones because after that they began asking all kinds of questions. ‘Are you a terrorist? Why are you not answering?’ and said, ‘You have been brainwashed.’

The police asked the young men what caste they were, why they cared about protests when their parents worked hard, how many sisters they had, and about their sisters’ marital status… They told the young men to focus on working, and not bother with the protests.

Finally, around 3 pm, they let us go and we left to cover the protests.

“I will now be moving court” — Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Compared to many others who were detained on Saturday, October 10 my experience with the Delhi Police was rather benign. I was being interviewed by Anushakti of Cobalt Media when an inspector ordered his team of cops to take me inside a police vehicle.

(The video of the incident shows 3 policemen pulling him up by his hands and saying ‘uncleji chalo, byte mat do.’ The interviewer kept asking, ‘What is the need to detain him, he is over 70 years old and is a senior journalist.’ There are at least 20 police personnel seen surrounding him.)

They allowed me to take my mobile phone, which was with my son, and kept me in the vehicle for barely 20 minutes. I heard the policeman say something about there being a “misunderstanding.” I was driven around and dropped off at a point half a kilometre from where I had been picked up near Jantar Mantar. That’s it.

I will now be moving court with a petition saying what Delhi police did was unlawful and they have no right to pick up journalists who were on the ground doing their job.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests

“You have to release all of us, all Newslaundry journalists” — Ashwine Kumar Singh

Around 11.30 am on October 10, our colleague Anmol Pritam was detained by the Delhi Police. He was going towards the New Delhi Railway Station. There was a police barricade and everyone was being detained. When he called us, we were at a place 5 minutes away.

When my colleague Astha and I reached there, we saw a police bus with about 30 persons inside, including many journalists, most of whom were YouTube journalists. Anmol and camera person Anshu Anand were among them.

I told the police, ‘Anmol is our colleague, we are from the media, and we are here to report.’

They replied, ‘You are also part of them, isko bhi pakadlo’ [grab him also].

I showed them my card, saying, ‘This is my card, I am from Newslaundry’

I used to work with NDTV until two months ago and I still have my PIB card which is valid till December. I had a photo of the card on my personal phone. When I took out my phone to show them the card, one IPS officer was standing there. They snatched my phone, and asked, ‘Phone kyu chala raha hei’. [Why are you using your phone?]

There was an IPS officer, whose name I could not identify, and another three-star person whose name was Dhan Singh Malik.

I repeatedly told the IPS officer, ‘Please let me speak, please see my card. I’m a PIB holder, I have my press ID card.’ But no one listened.

Astha told them that she is with me, so she was also bundled into the bus. They manhandled both of us.

This happened between 11.30 am and 12 noon.

They took the bus to Chhatrasal Stadium, which was around 40 minutes away. There, one policeman came inside the bus and counted the detainees.
From there, the bus took us to Adarsh Nagar police station. The whole journey took around 1.5 hours.

Finally after the intervention of a DCP – who is like a PRO – I knew, the police said they will let us go.

I said, ‘I will not go alone. You have to release all of us, all Newslaundry journalists. I had gone all the way there because they got detained.’

After five minutes, the SHO came from his office and he said, ‘Who is from the media?
Anmol pointed to around 15 people who were there.

The cop said he will not let go of all of them. Then he specifically asked for Newslaundry. He told me, ‘you identify your five people and we will let you go’.

The SHO then called the five of us to his room. He offered us water and tea, but we declined. He tried to say that our detention was unintentional, that these things happen in a crowd.

Astha and Anmol intervened to say that this was deliberately done by the police with the knowledge that we were from the media, but he refuted it again and told us that nothing would happen to us.

We were in the SHO’s chamber for around 5 minutes before a police officer came and returned our phones.

After 5-10 minutes, they wrote down our names and addresses, our office address and name and numbers, and then released us.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests saumya singh

“Isko bhi daalo” — Amaan, Monika and Saurabh on questioning detentions

On October 11, around 4.30-5 pm, I was near the LIC building, trying to cover the barricaded area where there were a lot of police personnel. A woman police officer grabbed my bag and pulled me towards her, held my hand, and asked where I was going, though I was wearing my press ID. A male police officer intervened and asked her to let me go since I was from the media.

On October 10, right in front of us, some of us journalists saw a boy who seemed like a minor. He was surrounded by six cops and was being detained in a bus. All of us went after the bus and asked why they were detaining a young boy.

Amaan from Molitics was pushed back aggressively, near the LIC building. We then walked towards Indira Chowk. I was reporting that the police weren’t wearing visible name tags and were carrying tear gas explosives.

Right after that, we saw that they started detaining other journalists. When Amaan tried to question that, they said, ‘Isko bhi daalo’ [take him also] and pushed him into the bus. When Monika and Saurabh, journalists from The Unsalted, questioned this, they were also detained for a while.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests

“I wasn’t detained, I was nearly detained”

On October 10, I went near AIIMS to upload my videos. Someone told me Delhi Haat INA Metro Station had a group of people who were being detained. This was 3–4 minutes from where I was standing, so I immediately rushed there.

A few hours ago, I had gotten tired because of the heat. At the time, I took off my badge and kept it in my pants pocket. I was very tired, so it didn’t occur to me to wear the badge immediately (after I reached Dilli Haat INA) and I thought, let me start recording.
I was standing away from the crowd. This woman officer – I think she was from the CISF, she was wearing a scarf like a mask around her face – she came to me and asked, ‘Do you want to go inside the van?’

I asked, ‘Why?’

She grabbed my arms and dug her nails into my skin and started pulling me towards the bus. I kept screaming, “Don’t detain me, I am a journalist.”

She left me the moment she saw that more protesters were being brought to the bus. The skin where she grabbed me was slightly torn and peeled off in that 30–40 seconds scuffle.

I went to my car, kept all my belongings in it, had some water, and stepped out again after a bit.

A few more officers saw that I was recording. The same woman officer approached me again, and said, ‘Do you want to go in? (Chalna hai kya?)

I asked her why she came back to me and why she was targeting me. I told her again that I am a journalist.

A Delhi police officer standing there asked me where my badge was. (It was in the car at this time.) I asked him where his badge was, to which he immediately pointed to his badge. I told him that he may be wearing it, but others weren’t.

I think it triggered him and he instructed the police officers to put me inside the bus. I was dragged inside the bus, and I kept trying with all my strength to resist. I was at the steps of the bus, and I kept screaming, I am a journalist, and the driver of my car recorded the whole thing.

Again, the woman officer dug her nails into my arms.

I found a way to get out and told them, ‘I have the card, let me just get it from the car.’
I got the ID card, but I didn’t step out to show it to them again, because I knew they would detain me. So I stayed inside my car and left from there.
I wasn’t detained, I was nearly detained.

On October 10, I saw a content creator being detained from RK Ashram. She had a muscle tear.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests vibhu grover

“They kicked me on the hip”- Vibhu Grover 

On October 11, around 1 pm, while I was reporting, I told the police that they were defying SC orders by detaining protesters.

As soon as I started recording, one of the police officers recognised me from October 10 and said, ‘Yeh toh wahi banda hai, isko dhar lo’ (This is the same guy from the other day, detain him).

Four RAF officers charged at me and pushed me to the ground. I fell, and tried to protect my camera. A few other police officers asked them to let me go, but during those few seconds, they kicked me on the hip.

Then the same day, around 3.30–4 pm, I was reporting right outside Sansad Marg where there was heavy police deployment and a lot of people were getting detained. There was one police officer, Rohit Deshwal.

On October 10, I had seen Rohit Deshwal roughing up journalists a lot. He was hitting them. One of my colleagues from Molitics, Amaan, was harassed by him.

On October 11, he harassed me. They were detaining people, I was recording it and tried to follow the detainees. Some 5–6 policemen stopped me, and tried to push me and my camera aside. I asked them that when the Supreme Court has just issued an order that they cannot detain protesters, how were they doing this?

And then, Rohit Deshwal came and started pushing me on the main road of Connaught Place, verbally abusing me and asking me why I was disrupting traffic. I said I was standing on the side of the road and wasn’t disrupting traffic. He checked my press ID, started threatening me, “Tereko toh hum acche se batayenge (We will teach you a good lesson)”.

Usually we carry our press ID prominently so the police don’t stop us from restricted areas. But for the first time, we had to hide it. On October 10, at Bangla Sahib, some of my colleagues were detained while reporting. After that, for the first time in my life, I hid my camera and press ID in my bag.

One of my cameras was also damaged on October 10.

delhi police assaults on journalists covering anti-sir protests

“Anyone could get an ID card made in Khan Market”- Sarthak Jaiswal 

I, along with Anureet Watta, a journalist with The Queerbeat, were going to cover the protest by around 10 am on October 10. While attempting to cross a barricade, we were stopped by a police officer who questioned us and then directed us to a senior police officer.

When we presented our press ID cards, the senior officer said that those were not PIB cards. We reminded her that, according to the police advisory, journalists could carry either their organisation-issued ID cards or PIB cards. However, she was dismissive of our explanation, stating that she had never heard of our media organisation. She further remarked that anyone could get an ID card made in Khan Market and questioned how she could verify that we were journalists. She then directed us to the Chanakyapuri police station, stating that it was for verification.

At the police station, we were questioned about our personal details, including our contact numbers and native places, all of which were unrelated to our media organisations. We declined to provide unnecessary personal information and reiterated that our identities could be verified through our ID cards.

We were then made to wait at the police station for over 3.5 hours. The police offered us food and water. There were also other individuals detained, some who had come for the protest, others just to see it. We saw the police accessing their phones, checking their photo galleries and other information on their devices.

After some time, independent lawyers and lawyers from our organisation arrived at the police station. Following negotiations, we were released. However, before releasing us, the police recorded our personal details, including our contact numbers and Aadhaar card information.

Source attribution: The News Minute (original report)

The Right to Vote Is Not a Favour: Kolkata Convention Raises Alarm Over Electoral Exclusion

Soumik Chatterjee
-
0
The Right to Vote Is Not a Favour: Kolkata Convention Raises Alarm Over Electoral Exclusion

Kolkata: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the detention of Muslim migrants and marginalised people came under scrutiny at a civil rights convention in Kolkata on Sunday, with speakers warning that the potential exclusion of eligible voters and restrictions on peaceful dissent could undermine the foundations of parliamentary democracy.

Organised by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), the West Bengal state convention, titled “Lawyers and Rights: Activists for Justice”, brought together legal professionals, human rights activists, academics and representatives of different communities at the Science City Convention Centre.

The event also marked the formal launch of APCR’s activities in West Bengal. The SIR exercise has drawn criticism from judicial experts, human rights activists and community leaders, who fear that the exclusion of eligible voters from electoral rolls could undermine multiparty democracy in India. Critics have characterised such potential disenfranchisement as a threat to democracy, arguing that the right to vote is fundamental to representative government and that electoral-roll revision must not deprive eligible citizens of political participation.

The convention placed electoral rights within a broader discussion on constitutional safeguards, freedom of expression and the rule of law. Speakers also expressed concern over the detention of lawyers and rights activists during protests in Delhi on October 10, saying the incident raised questions about the protection of peaceful assembly and dissent.

Supreme Court senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the detention of lawyers on their way to participate in a protest raised serious concerns about police action and the right to peaceful assembly.

“Detaining lawyers who were on their way to participate in a protest weakens the rule of law and raises questions about the legality and proportionality of police action,” Bhushan said. He emphasised that peaceful protest must be protected and that the police must operate within the limits prescribed by law.

Democracy, Dissent and Minority Rights

Retired Bombay High Court judge Abhay Mahadev Thipsay, in his concluding remarks, underscored the fundamental principles of democracy, saying, “It is not the consent of the majority; democracy prevails when the rights of the minority are ensured.” He emphasised the importance of an independent judiciary and the impartial application of the law in protecting citizens’ rights.

Apoorvanand, a professor at Delhi University and a political commentator, argued that safeguarding civil liberties could not be left to lawyers and activists alone. A democratic society, he said, must protect citizens’ freedom to speak, express dissent and participate in public life. This required a collective commitment to equality, constitutional values and the rights of every citizen.

Human rights activist Nadeem Khan urged participants not to surrender to despair in the face of injustice. Quoting the expression, “Na-ummeedi kufr hai aur is desh mein na-ummeedi maut hai” — despair is a denial of faith, and in this country now, despair is death — he called for perseverance, solidarity and sustained collective action across all sections of society to safeguard the secular republic.

Other prominent participants included social leader Malik Mohtasim Khan, election analyst and human rights activist Mukhtar Khan, columnist Barnali Banerjee, and former Jadavpur University vice-chancellor Bhaskar Gupta.

The programme was moderated by researcher and social activist Fawaz Shaheen and APCR West Bengal secretary Umar Awais.

APCR Launches Helpline and Voter Name-Restoration Initiative

As part of its launch in the state, APCR announced a helpline, 8100010233, to assist people facing alleged violations of their constitutional, legal and civil rights. According to the organisation, the service will provide assistance with legal aid, human rights complaints, voting rights and related enquiries.

The organisation also publicised its name-restoration initiative, which encourages people to submit applications to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission of India seeking the restoration of their names to electoral rolls. The initiative’s website is https://namerestoration.apcrbengal.org/.

The convention sought to bring lawyers, activists, academics and community representatives onto a common platform to address access to justice and civil liberties. Its focus on electoral participation reflected a wider concern that the legitimacy of democracy depends not merely on elections being held, but also on citizens being able to exercise their voting rights without fear of exclusion or intimidation.

The Netaji We Don’t Talk About: Secularism, Socialism and the Fight for India

Staff Reporter
-
0
The Netaji We Don’t Talk About: Secularism, Socialism and the Fight for India

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, INA and India’s Freedom Movement, by Vidya Bhushan Rawat, offers a comprehensive and honest examination of one of South Asia’s most dynamic icons—a leader who has either been ignored by “mainstream” historians or appropriated by the right wing. Historians and political scientists have often left room for others to appropriate the legacy of those regarded as dissenters from Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. While Netaji and his contemporaries had clear ideological differences over India’s path to independence, his commitment to secularism and India’s diversity remained firm until the end. He took pride in India’s multicultural and multi-religious heritage, as reflected in his speeches and the structure of the Indian National Army (INA) under his leadership.

While numerous books on Netaji focus on generating controversy around his final moments—claiming either that he escaped to the Soviet Union or that he perished in a plane crash—Rawat deliberately focuses on Netaji’s ideological formation, his pivotal role in organising the Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj), and how later Indian leaders, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru, addressed his legacy after independence.

The author traces Netaji’s ideological development from his early life, as documented in his autobiography, through his leadership of the Indian National Congress. Rawat highlights Netaji’s commitment to secularism, socialism, and inclusive Indian nationalism, dedicating key chapters to his relationships with Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel.

Netaji is often accused of allying with Hitler’s fascist regime without sufficient consideration of the broader international circumstances. His daring escape from house arrest and journey to Peshawar, followed by his attempts to reach the Soviet Union, reveal a complex picture. He initially intended to reach Moscow, where several Indian revolutionaries were stationed, but his contacts failed to coordinate the logistics. Stranded in Kabul—a hub for international spies from Britain, Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, and the United States—he faced a high risk of exposure and arrest. For nearly two months, he posed as a deaf and mute Pathan seeking medical treatment. Under these perilous circumstances, the Italian Embassy ultimately provided him with a passport to travel to Germany. Like many anti-colonial leaders, Netaji believed that defeating British imperialism required assistance from rival world powers. Although Germany showed limited interest in his cause, it facilitated his onward journey to Japan.

The book details his perilous submarine journey from Germany to Japan, where Indian activists had already organised themselves under Rash Behari Bose. While many biographers focus exclusively on Subhas Chandra Bose, Rawat offers a detailed analysis of the origins of the Azad Hind Fauj. He brings lesser-known historical facts to light without resorting to sensationalism.

Ultimately, the book focuses on Netaji’s ideological vision for the future. As head of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, Netaji established an inclusive governance structure represented by people from different regions and religious communities. Unlike those driven by regional chauvinism, Netaji remained free from caste prejudice and religious narrow-mindedness. The mottos, composition of its leadership, and national anthem of Azad Hind reflected his commitment to India’s pluralism.

The book does not claim to uncover entirely new historical facts but instead connects existing ones in a logical manner. Its greatest strength lies in its ability to address sensitive topics without stirring unnecessary controversy. In an age increasingly shaped by online algorithms, the book relies on research and offers an objective appraisal of historical events. Modern political factions have attempted to use Netaji’s legacy to attack Nehru. However, archival records suggest that Netaji and Nehru, despite their political differences, shared mutual respect and progressive ideological commitments within the Congress Party.

Rawat highlights several of Netaji’s speeches from his tenure as Congress President and details his bitter departure from the post. Rather than judging who was right or wrong, the author presents the facts in their historical context.

The book is structured into four main parts:

  1. Netaji’s ideological formation and his tenure with the Congress Party.
  2. His difficult escape from India to Kabul and his journey to Germany.
  3. His work in Japan and Singapore, where he mobilised the Indian diaspora across Southeast Asia.
  4. The aftermath of Japan’s surrender in the Second World War and the path to Indian independence.

Beyond his patriotism and personal sacrifice, Netaji’s core ideological convictions stand out. Rawat emphasises how Netaji’s vision of a diverse India was put into practice within the structure of the INA, helping to reignite the liberation movement across Southeast Asia.

The book also reconstructs Netaji’s final days through accounts from his close associates, capturing the atmosphere following Japan’s surrender. Although the INA fought bravely, global geopolitical shifts and Japan’s defeat left the army without adequate ground support.

Netaji’s dream of an independent India was realised on August 15, 1947, when India gained independence and Jawaharlal Nehru became its first Prime Minister. In the post-independence era, the status of INA soldiers and the question of Netaji’s fate became central public concerns. While official commissions reached their own conclusions, Rawat avoids conspiracy theories and instead examines how successive governments handled the INA’s legacy. Although Nehru and Netaji had clear political differences, attributing every post-war complication to Nehru would be historically inaccurate.

The book contains 20 chapters covering Netaji’s life, his departure from India, the historic INA trials, and his lasting legacy:

  1. Introduction
  2. Growing up in Conviction and Ideological Commitment to the Nation
  3. Subhas, Mahatma, and the Right-Wing
  4. Jawahar and Subhas: Dynamic Visionaries
  5. Democracy, Socialism, and Social Justice
  6. Netaji and the Muslim Question
  7. The Great Victory at the Removal of Holwell’s Monument
  8. A Letter Written with Deep Conviction and Political Understanding
  9. The Great Escape and Role of Mian Akbar Shah
  10. Dreaming Moscow but Ended up in Berlin
  11. Strengthening the Anti-Colonial Movement to Liberate India
  12. An Adventure of Life and a Comrade with the Mission
  13. A Forgotten Mutiny by Muslim Rajputs of the British Indian Army in Singapore
  14. Giani Pritam Singh: A Forgotten Hero and the First Martyr of the INA Movement
  15. Azad Hind Fauj: From Rash Behari Bose to Subhas Chandra Bose
  16. The Provisional Government of Free India
  17. Understanding Azad Hind Fauj under Netaji and its Ideological Perspective
  18. A Journey Towards Eternity
  19. The Trial that United India
  20. Understanding the Plight of INA Commoners in Post-Independent India

The book’s greatest strength lies in its exploration of Netaji’s guiding principles—socialism, secularism, democracy, and language policy. The account of his escape and journey to Germany is particularly compelling. Netaji remains a major figure in global anti-colonial history, driven by national interests rather than personal ambition.

The author also deserves credit for highlighting overlooked figures and events, such as the Singapore Mutiny involving Muslim Rajputs and the contributions of Giani Pritam Singh. The historical narrative concludes by examining the Red Fort trials, which united public sentiment across India, and the subsequent treatment of INA soldiers by the post-independence government.

Rawat offers a balanced assessment of Netaji and the INA, emphasising a legacy rooted in the vision of a united, pluralistic India. Readers seeking conspiracy theories will not find them here; instead, they will find an account that prioritises historical research, context, and a measured interpretation of events.

Taken From Home, Heard From Bangladesh: Bengal Man’s Family Seeks Answers

Shahnawaz Akhtar
-
0
Taken From Home, Heard From Bangladesh: Bengal Man’s Family Seeks Answers

Kolkata: The phone call came on September 25.

On the other end was Abdul Rahim, a 37-year-old paddy trader from Uttar Dinajpur whom his family had not heard from for months.

The voice was familiar. But the place from where he was calling was not.

Rahim was calling from Bangladesh.

It was the first time his son, Abu Kalam, had heard from his father since Rahim was allegedly taken into custody in West Bengal in June. A second call followed in October, again from Bangladesh.

“We did not know where my father was. The police did not tell us anything. Then he called us from Bangladesh,” Kalam told eNewsroom.

Kalam, a mason, has since had to shoulder the responsibility of running the family after his father’s detention and alleged transfer to Bangladesh.

According to Kalam, his father told the family that he was moving from place to place in Bangladesh without shelter.

“He is living like a beggar in Bangladesh. Living here and there, and sometimes he has been badly treated,” Kalam said.

Rahim was unable to tell the family exactly where he was.

“We will ask him about it next time, when he calls,” Kalam added.

For Rahim’s wife, four children and relatives in Uttar Dinajpur, the calls have brought some relief in knowing that he is alive. But they have also raised a far more troubling question:

How did a man allegedly taken into custody in West Bengal end up calling his family from across the border in Bangladesh?

And perhaps even more importantly: Who took him there?

SIR protests bengal residents sent to bangladesh Abdul Rahim Uttar Dinajpur land records

When a Voter List Dispute Becomes a Family Crisis

For the family, the story began not with Bangladesh, but with a name disappearing from a voter list.

Kalam says his father’s disappearance came against the backdrop of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

“Like millions of others, my father’s name was also deleted during the SIR. We had applied in the tribunal,” he told eNewsroom.

eNewsroom has also accessed land records showing property in the names of Abdul Rahim and his father, Lal Mohammad. The land was registered on November 28, 1986. The family says Rahim has lived in the area for decades and holds several identity documents, including an Aadhaar card, voter identity card, PAN card and ration card.

The question of whether Rahim is an Indian citizen or a foreign national, however, remains legally distinct from what transpired after he was allegedly taken into custody.

According to a complaint submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a team of police, Border Security Force (BSF) personnel and civic police personnel arrived at Rahim’s home in Kuilara Anantapur village under Bhatol Gram Panchayat on the night of June 2, allegedly looking for him.

Rahim was not at home.

Instead, according to the complaint, the personnel took his elder son, Abu Kalam.

The following morning, relatives and local representatives visited the Bhatol Police Outpost seeking Kalam’s release and were reportedly asked to produce Rahim.

Rahim then arrived at the outpost carrying his identity documents.

According to the complaint, police retained his Aadhaar card, voter identity card, PAN card, ration card and other records without issuing a seizure list or receipt.

Rahim was then allegedly detained.

What happened next is what the family has spent months trying to uncover.

The Story Surfaced Months After Rahim Disappeared

Rahim’s case came to the attention of rights organisation Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) only recently.

“We came to know about it a couple of days back when it was reported in a local newspaper. Later, our team conducted fact-finding and wrote to the NHRC,” MASUM secretary Kirity Roy told eNewsroom.

Roy said the family had received calls from Bangladesh.

“The family has received three calls from three different numbers in Bangladesh so far,” he said.

MASUM subsequently approached the NHRC seeking an inquiry into Rahim’s alleged detention and disappearance and the circumstances in which he may have reached Bangladesh.

The complaint asks the authorities to clarify whether an FIR was registered against Rahim, whether an arrest memo was prepared and whether he was produced before a magistrate as required by law.

It also seeks details of any order or legal authority under which Rahim may have been removed from India.

The complaint further calls for the preservation of police and BSF records, including General Diary entries, custody records, CCTV footage, vehicle and wireless records, and border-crossing or handover documents.

At the heart of the complaint is a straightforward question: If Rahim was detained in West Bengal, under what legal framework was he transferred across an international border?

The allegations have not been independently established, and the authorities have not publicly explained the circumstances surrounding Rahim’s alleged transfer. Attempts to contact local authorities for comment were unsuccessful prior to publication.

Jalil Akhtar Case Adds to Questions in Uttar Dinajpur

Rahim’s case follows other instances in West Bengal’s border districts involving residents detained on allegations that they are Bangladeshi nationals.

In another recent case in Uttar Dinajpur, 66-year-old Jalil Akhtar was detained on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national and remained in custody for nearly three months before being granted bail.

Akhtar’s case also involved questions over documents produced to establish his identity and Indian connection.

While the legal circumstances of the two cases are not identical, both raise questions about the process followed when the nationality of a resident is challenged.

From Delhi’s Streets to a Village in Uttar Dinajpur

While protests against the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) have spread across India, civil society organisations such as Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), political parties including the CPI(ML), and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi have taken to the streets in Delhi, intensifying the public debate over the electoral roll revision.

But in Uttar Dinajpur, the issue has taken on a far more personal meaning for one family.

For Abu Kalam, the ordeal is not merely about a deleted entry on an electoral roll.

His father disappeared too.

And after his father’s detention and alleged transfer to Bangladesh, the burden of keeping the family going fell on him.

The family says it was not told where Rahim had been taken or what had happened to him. Months later, his voice came from Bangladesh.

The next time the phone rings, Kalam says, they will ask his father the question that has haunted the family for months:

“Where are you?”

For now, that question remains unanswered.

So does another:

How did a man allegedly taken into custody in West Bengal end up on the other side of an international border?

Democracy or Deleted? Rahul Gandhi Takes the Voter-List Fight to the Streets

Aakash
-
0
Democracy or Deleted? Rahul Gandhi Takes the Voter-List Fight to the Streets

New Delhi: The confrontation between the Congress-led Opposition and the Election Commission has intensified sharply since October 6, with Rahul Gandhi emerging as the central face of a campaign that has moved from Parliament to the streets and is now expanding into a nationwide political mobilisation.

On October 6, Gandhi led INDIA bloc MPs in a march from Parliament towards the Election Commission headquarters, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The protest turned into a prolonged standoff after police prevented the Opposition from reaching the Commission. Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and several other leaders were subsequently detained. The following day, Gandhi again led MPs in a march towards Jantar Mantar and was detained for a second consecutive day.

The immediate political trigger is the controversy surrounding the SIR and allegations that large numbers of names have been deleted from electoral rolls. The Election Commission maintains that the exercise aims to identify and remove duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries. At the same time, the Commission has ordered a special drive across 20 states and Union Territories to enrol eligible voters who may have been left out. The Supreme Court has also sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission to petitions challenging aspects of the exercise and has asked for relevant records.

That judicial scrutiny has given the Opposition additional political ammunition, although it does not amount to a judicial finding that the Election Commission committed “vote theft”. The Supreme Court had earlier upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR, while subsequent proceedings concern separate allegations surrounding the Commission’s decision-making and implementation of the electoral-roll revision. The distinction is important because Congress’s political allegations remain unproven.

From Electoral Rolls to a Wider Political Campaign

For Gandhi, however, the protests have created a platform that extends beyond a single electoral controversy. His recently launched Satyagraha platform seeks to bring together movements involving students, farmers, women, tribal communities and other groups. Congress has claimed that the platform recorded nearly 30,000 protests within its first two days. The party has also announced further district- and block-level mobilisation, including rallies and padyatras from October 10 to 20 under its “Vote Bachao, Desh Bachao” campaign.

The political impact is already visible in the Opposition’s renewed street mobilisation. Gandhi has managed to keep the SIR issue in the national spotlight and, at least temporarily, brought several INDIA bloc parties together over a common institutional grievance. His repeated detention has also provided powerful political imagery for Congress, allowing the party to frame the confrontation as one between elected representatives and state institutions.

The BJP, however, is attempting to turn the same confrontation against Gandhi. Union ministers and BJP leaders have accused Congress of “drama”, arguing that the party is blaming the Election Commission for electoral defeats instead of rebuilding its political organisation and winning public support. BJP leaders have also questioned whether the Opposition had formally sought an appointment with the Commission before marching to its office. The Election Commission has said that no political party had sought an appointment through the prescribed procedure until the afternoon of October 6.

The Battle Over the Political Narrative

The competing narratives mean the protests have not yet produced a clear political winner. Congress has succeeded in keeping electoral rolls, institutional credibility and the conduct of the Chief Election Commissioner at the centre of public debate. The BJP, meanwhile, retains the advantage of incumbency and can point to the absence so far of any judicial finding establishing Congress’s broader “vote theft” allegation.

What happens next may determine the protests’ longer-term significance. If Congress can convert the Delhi confrontation into sustained grassroots mobilisation and document cases of eligible voters being excluded, Gandhi’s campaign could acquire greater political force. If it remains primarily a cycle of marches, detentions and political accusations without demonstrable evidence of systematic manipulation, the BJP’s argument that Congress is using allegations against institutions to explain its electoral setbacks may gain traction.

For now, Gandhi has achieved one important objective: the fight over voter rolls has moved decisively from a technical election-administration dispute to a major political battle over the credibility of India’s electoral system.

123...277Page 1 of 277

Follow us

Company

We are an independent, non-profit news website based out of Kolkata. We believe in an India that is liberal, secular and democratic and our aim is to help preserve these essential values that make India great! Our endeavour is to bring you stories that need to be told but may not necessarily make it to the headlines elsewhere.

Special Stories

AISA President Neha Moves Delhi High Court Against Peace Bond Notice, Alleges Police Intimidation

Freshly Brewed 0
AISA president Neha Bora has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a peace bond notice issued by Delhi Police under the BNSS. The student organisation alleges police intimidation and a crackdown on peaceful protests demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and the rollback of SIR

Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s Aggression: Is There More to His Tribal Protest Than Meets the Eye?

Opinion 0
Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s protest against the demolition of tribal homes in Madhya Pradesh has exposed tensions with Chief Minister Mohan Yadav. Disputes over farmers’ demands and the Ladli Behna scheme have added to speculation about BJP leadership dynamics.

Congress Doubles Down on ‘Regime Change’ Calls as BJP Targets SIR Protests

Freshly Brewed 0
The Congress has defended calls for regime change through elections as its confrontation with the BJP intensifies over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. With P. Chidambaram and Pawan Khera challenging the BJP’s criticism, separate Supreme Court proceedings have brought electoral transparency, voter deletions and the limits of political protest into sharper focus.

Popular News

Four Indian Photojournalists Win Pulitzer Prize For Covid-19 Photography

Live Frame 0
Amid the controversy about the exact figures of Covid-19...

Magical world of Harry Potter recreated at Jadavpur University

Bengal 0
Kolkata: The two-day Harry Potter extravaganza - Alohomora kicked...

Watch Madhya Pradesh MLAs entering Assembly on day one

Live Frame 0
Bhopal: On January 8, when the MLAs entered the...

© 2021-2026 enewsroom India . All Rights Reserved.