SHUBHA PRADDEEP K

[Ratna Singh @whattalawyer]

Judge serving the master. Went for break/meeting 4 times during entire hearing. Order without any application of law.

Welcome to new India, where Sarkar can put 30 police personnel confining you & then say we won coz armless people couldn’t come to the protest site.

Irony is that people with criminal history are roaming around in Delhi & police personnel are busy detaining peaceful protesters.

[Ashish Joshi @bismil_prasad]

Shocking !

[Live Law @LiveLawIndia]

#BREAKING Supreme Court Bar Association urges Chief Justice of India to intervene in the detention of lawyers by Delhi police and Central forces.

SCBA condemns the use of excessive force against, and the detention of senior and young advocates, particularly women advocates, who were peacefully protesting in the Supreme Court area.

[Hyderabad Mail @Hyderabad_Mail]

Telangana CJP activists deported under armed police escort

Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has strongly condemned the ongoing and unconstitutional detention and forced transit of its Telangana youth leaders,Stanley Korani, Rangasai Reddy, Rajesh Korapaka, and Venkatesh Goud.

They were intercepted and made to deboard the train while travelling to Delhi to participate in democratic protest.

As of Friday evening, the four volunteers remained under continuous police custody inside a returning train, guarded by four armed police escorts, and were being forcibly deported back to Telangana. The detained activists are expected to reach Warangal by Saturday morning.

#cjp_पार्टी #cjp #Telangananews

[NSUI @nsui]

CJP के प्रोटेस्ट में शामिल होने दिल्ली के जंतर-मंतर जा रहे 10 साथियों को भोपाल के बरकतउल्ला विश्वविद्यालय में पुलिस ने ट्रेन से उतारकर डिटेन कर लिया।

साथियों की रिहाई की मांग को लेकर NSUI मध्य प्रदेश के कार्यकर्ता मैदान में उतरे हैं, लेकिन पुलिस उन्हें भी बलपूर्वक हटाने का प्रयास कर रही है।

सरकार इस कदर डर गई है, घबरा गई है कि छात्रों को दिल्ली पहुँचने से पहले ही रोकने का प्रयास किया जा रहा है।

लेकिन याद रखिए, आवाज़ दबाने से आंदोलन नहीं रुकते! NSUI मध्य प्रदेश अपने साथियों के साथ मजबूती से खड़ी है और उनकी रिहाई के लिए संघर्ष कर रही है।

[SHUBHA PRADDEEP K @shubha4world]

https://t.co/Fi1vAgiMC1

[Ashutosh Ranka @AshutoshRanka]

Atleast 10000 people have been detained across the country across @Cockroachisback, various student orgs, Kisaan and Dalit Sangathans, political parties.

THIS IS EMERGENCY.

[SHUBHA PRADDEEP K @shubha4world]

Dictator Dar Gaya!
Dictator will go down!

https://t.co/kSpEgICvhw

[Rahul Gandhi @RahulGandhi]

Welcome to India, Elon.

Wait till you discover the other guy.

[Ashish Joshi @bismil_prasad]

These 42 “former Judges” have issued letter defending the Election Commission and lecturing the country about “denigration” of institutions.

I did some research.

Look at the names that keep appearing:

(a) Justice Hemant Gupta (ex-Supreme Court) – the same judge who upheld the Karnataka hijab ban, attended a VHP legal cell event after retirement, and has a record of remarks that raised eyebrows even while on the Bench.

(b) Justice SN Dhingra** (ex-Delhi High Court) – long known for selective activism; quick to file PILs and issue statements when it suits one political side, and equally quick to dismiss legitimate questions about electoral rolls as “media stunts.” I wrote about him the morning .

(c) Justice BC Patel(former CJ of Delhi & J&K High Courts)

(d) Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee (former CJ of Karnataka High Court) . The same judge who faced open revolt from the Karnataka Bar over his functioning and controversial remarks on Tipu Sultan.

(e) Justice Permod Kohli (former CJ of Sikkim High Court) . He is a regular in letters that defend the establishment and attack political criticism of institutions.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗦𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴.

Now that hard questions are being asked about the SIR process, the same set has rushed to cry “attack on institutions.”

𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 “𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.”

Selective silence followed by selective moral lectures is not institutional defence , it is political alignment wearing a judicial robe.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.

[SFI @SFI_CEC]

A group of policemen carrying lathis arrived at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi, where the SFI Central Executive Committee office is located, searching for SFI activists. The police also tried to collect details of SFI activists coming to Delhi to participate in the protest.

SFI will not back down in the face of such intimidation tactics by the BJP-RSS using the police.

SFI will participate in large numbers in the 10th October protest against Vote Chori.

Delhi Police, are you trying to scare us or silence us? Do you want to see how many of us will come?

Amit Shah ji, we will be in thousands. 😎

Let's wait and watch.
Don't panic.

#gyaneshitsdonebro #gyaneshkumarmustresign

[David Hill @iamdavidhill]

free and open source reverse engineered adobe products

https://t.co/hKAGzTdea0

[Srujana Yadav @srujana12]

అసలు కనీస బాధ్యత ఉందా @TelanganaCMO @Bhatti_Mallu మీకు?

విద్య హక్కు!! తెలంగాణ ప్రజలు ఏమన్నా అడుక్కుంటున్నారా? విరాళాల ద్వారా, ఏదో చారిటీ ద్వారా స్కూల్స్ బాగు చేస్తే ఇంకా మీరెందుకు?

రిసైన్ జేషి NGO పెట్టుకోండి.

ఇంకా ఎన్నేళ్లు ? పాతోళ్లు నాశనం చేసి పోయినారు. మీరేమో ఇట్ల.

[The Wire @thewire_in]

Several protesters, including AISA national president Neha Bora, were detained from Ashoka Road where the protest march was leading towards Jantar Mantar. Bora was taken in an unmarked car, which did not have any police logo.

@jahnavi_sen reports

[Prashant Bhushan @pbhushan1]

“The master of the roster, the Chief Justice of India, has struck again – this time, to go beyond his recognised powers as such master and act in a manner which reflects an obstruction of Justice.
CJI Surya Kant purportedly passed an administrative order on September 29, constituting a special bench of Justices Manoj Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan to hear Contempt Petition 37/2026 in CA 13106/2024, on September 30”: Dushyant Dave
https://t.co/R2Z4cPteTB

[R. K. Singh @RajKSinghIndia]

The Indian Express has come out with another revelation of the machinations for deletion of names of genuine voters during the current SIR exercise.
The Indian Express investigation reveals that persons have been set up by a political party – evidence points to the BJP – in constituencies whose job is to file objections to the enlistment of voters who have voted against that party. One person files 100–200 applications in Form 7 per day, objecting to the enrolment of voters who have voted against them or may vote against them in future - on various false grounds – mostly that they do not live at the address they have given in their application for enrollment, or that they are dead. Each Form 7 is to be signed by the objector - So, he signs 100 forms in his own name or under different fictitious names. He gives a declaration that what he is alleging is true even if it is false. He sends the objections to the Electoral Registration Officer in bulk though the objector is supposed to file each application personally. The voter whose inclusion has been challenged does not even know that the inclusion of his name has been challenged. A notice is issued to him by the ERO which he does not receive because the ERO does not take the trouble to actually communicate the notice to the voter. The voter does not appear, and his name gets left out of the Roll. All social workers who want democracy to prevail need to do two things:
1. The voters need to be informed about what is happening. Let every social worker do so. Let every political party do so. They must check that notices are issued and served by the EROs in cases where objections have been filed.
2. It will turn out that a large number of declarations in Form 7 filed by objectors are false. This is an offence under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act and Sections 171, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234, 236 and 237 of the BNS. Where an Electoral Registration Officer deletes a name without enquiries, or accepts false declaration without verification, he is liable for prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act and Sections 49, 233 and 237 of the BNS. Criminal cases need to be lodged against the objectors and EROs by the voters who have been affected; and the social and political workers need to help them in this. Once criminal cases start getting lodged by the voters this “Vote Chori” will stop.

[Mahua Moitra @MahuaMoitra]

What’s the urgency - this isn’t Arnab Goswami’s bail petition after all…

[Joy @Joydas]

Gyanesh Kumar needs to be tried for Treason. Just him resigning is not enough. And there is ample proof against him. This is against the Constitution what he is doing with BJP and this has been done all over India in large scale

[R. K. Singh @RajKSinghIndia]

An open letter to all my countrymen.

Do you want India to remain a democracy? Then you must understand what Gyanesh Kumar, the CEC, and his bosses are doing in the so-called SIR.
They are violating the law.
- As per Section 21 of the law, a special revision is to be undertaken only in special cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing in each case; and that also only in any constituency or part of a constituency. An order for intensive revision for the whole country was illegal. An exception allowed for special cases cannot become the rule. The Supreme Court order upholding the general SIR was wrong.
Another question is - who took the decision for SIR in the whole country? Was it the full commission; or only Gyanesh Kumar.
- Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides that where the revision of an electoral roll is taken up, the electoral roll in force at the time of the issue of the notification of revision shall continue in effect till the completion of the revision. The revised electoral rolls become complete only after all the appeals filed against inclusion or deletion are disposed off. Where the appeals were still pending, the original Electoral roll which was valid on the date of notification was to be used. Contrary to this the new roll with deletions was used during the elections even though appeals against deletions were still pending. This was illegal.

- Section 22 of the RP Act provides that the Electoral Registration Officer, and not anyone else, can remove a voter's name from the roll and that also only on the grounds listed in Section 22(a), (b), and (c); and only after a specific enquiry, after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and only after appeals against his order are disposed off. Gyanesh Kumar removed the names of all the voters who had been listed by the ERO's after 2003, without any basis, without any enquiry, and without any show cause to the registered voters. This was blatantly illegal.
The persons whose names were removed summarily had to apply as fresh voters in Form 6 and give evidence that they were eligible to be registered. This is a clear violation of the Supreme Court judgement in Lal Babu Hussain and Others v. Electoral Registration Officer and Others, [(1995) 3 SCC 100], which held that the enquiry authority or the objector and not the voter - must bring forth material evidence to back any claim that an enrolled voter be disqualified. And in such cases the voter must be asked to show cause why his name should not be removed on the basis of the grounds adduced by the enquiry officer. All this did not happen.

The established jurisprudence is that the onus to prove that there are sufficient grounds for subjecting any person to a disability or punishment is on the
person or institution which is seeking to inflict the punishment. Here, Gyanesh Kumar has inverted the burden of proof. This is also against the law.

Up to now, the efforts of the Government and the Election Commission have always been to enroll all eligible voters. It was a mission to deepen democracy and empower all citizens. This is the first time in history of the country that the mission is to disenfranchise people.

Gyanesh Kumar added a new appendix to Form 6. He was not authorised to do so, as Form 6 is mandated by statutory rules. And he added this himself – against the views of the two election commissioners. The decisions of the commission are to be taken either unanimously – or by a majority. The majority was against the addition of the new appendix to the form. So the addition of the new appendix was against the decisions of the Commission itself. So why was it added? On whose orders? This was illegal. This appendix asks the applicant to state the serial number in the 2003 voter list on which their parents' names were listed. Where can an ordinary person – a young man of 18; access the 2003 roll in 2026? This stopped the registration of all young voters. BJP knows that young voters will not vote for it.

Objections to inclusion of voters names in form 7 were filed in bulk. Who filed them? How were the forms accepted and acted upon when the persons who signed it did not appear?

Names of 16 lac voters found valid by the ERO were not registered in Bengal because, it seems, the EC filed appeals against them. Why? On which grounds? Who authorised the Commission to file appeals? Two Election Commissioners say they did not do so. So the Commission did not authorise anyone to file appeals. Who did it? Gyanesh Kumar? These people were prevented from voting in the election.

So the Election Commission and some people from a political party were acting in cahoots to get bogus Form 7 objections filed in bulk and delete names?

How were elections allowed to be held when the appeals of lakhs of voters were pending? The ECI and the Supreme Court have to answer. The appeals which have been decided show that 90% of the voters who were left out were valid.

A ridiculous thing was brought up called "logical discrepancy". Gyanesh Kumar does not have any idea of how the poor live in India. Their children are not born in hospitals. They do not have birth certificates. They do not have calendars in their homes. When the BLO approached them to enroll them in the voter list they gave their estimated year of birth. Similarly, when their fathers' names were enrolled in the electoral roll, they gave their estimated year of birth. The dumb people in the Election Commission, under Gyanesh Kumar, said that any difference of less than 15 years between father and children would be a logical discrepancy justifying excluding their names. The “Logical Discrepancy” names were excluded without enquiry, contrary to sec 21 of the act.

The largest number of exclusions have been the poor and the underprivileged, those without a voice. They were and are mostly away from their homes, earning their daily bread. Lakhs are working in faraway places/states. They could not and cannot afford to go back to their homes for a month to get their names registered. They will go hungry if they do not earn. They cannot fill the complicated forms. They do not have birth certificates and the papers. Why should they sacrifice their daily wages for a vote?

The illegal immigrants are not affected. The first thing they do on entering India is to get their documentation made—Aadhaar card, ration card, etc. The earlier immigrants are their support systems. It is the poor Indian citizens who have been disenfranchised. The dumb people in the Election Commission and their bosses did not understand this. Or they wanted it this way.

Gyanesh Kumar has made a digital electoral roll and empowered it to refuse addition of names because of “Logical discrepancy”. In the name of "Logical discrepancy", the names of millions of voters have not been included. This is against the law. The only authority designated by law to add or delete names and publish the electoral rolls is the Electoral Registration Officer. Contrary to this, the electoral roll was centralised and the revision happened centrally. This was illegal.

Two Election Commissioners pointed out that the only people authorized to add or delete names – the ERO, the DEO and the CEO were not being allowed to access the voter list. In Goa, 97 electors were found by the ERO to be valid and fit for inclusion in the roll. They have not been able to add their names to the roll as yet.

The centralisation of the voter list amendment is dangerous. It can be used to cut voters from booths which vote against NDA. Is this what happened?

Deleting voters names before verification is a heinous offence, and Gyanesh Kumar is guilty thereof.

13 crores names have been deleted by SIR so far. This is 13% of the voters, and SIR is not over. The difference between NDA and INDIA in the 2024 elections was only 3%. So the deletion have had and will have a material impact on the elections.

The press note issued after the Commission meeting on 26th September confirms the illegalities mentioned above.

Did Gyanesh Kumar commit all these illegalities himself or was he directed to do so by his bosses?

The Opposition says that they will impeach Gyanesh Kumar. That is an exercise in futility. They just do not have the numbers. If they really want a remedy, they should file criminal cases against Gyanesh Kumar.

The next step to be taken is that all opposition parties should unite and say that they will not participate in any election till the CEC and Election Commissioners' resign and the selection of their successors is as per the previous selection system, with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a sitting Supreme Court judge. Elections held in states while the appeals of lakhs of voters were pending must be set aside and fresh elections held. And the poll must be held by ballot not by EVMs because no electronic system has yet been invented which cannot be hacked. That is why none of the economically and digitally advanced countries use EVMs.

If we want to preserve our democracy the whole country will need to be made aware and united.

The reputation of the Supreme Court has been besmirched by the judgement on SIR. It is at par in infamy with the judgement upholding the emergency. Hon’ble Judges may please note.

The procrastination on the challenge to the law on selection of Election Commissioners is also sending a bad message about the Supreme Court – as it is an open and shut case that the Election Commissioners should not be selected by the party in power; but by a neutral selection committee to ensure their neutrality.
Let us unite to save our democracy.
RK Singh
(IAS Retd. Ex Union Home Secretary)

@abhijeet_dipke @Cockroachisback @RahulGandhi @kharge @ArvindKejriwal @MamataOfficial @yadavakhilesh @mkstalin @yadavtejashwi @Pawankhera

[Aparna @chhuti_is]

1/ On May 8, 2026, a Murshidabad tribunal reviewed an appeal to strip a voter's rights in Farakka. The judge noted the voter had already been cleared and the appellant filing to remove him was the Additional CEO himself.