SIR protests, Delhi rape cases, LPU unrest: Top national developments decoded

In this debate, former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat, Congress national spokesperson Bhavya Narasimhamurthy, and BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari discuss allegations surrounding the Election Commission of India and its leadership under CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Pradeep Bhandari defended the poll body, asserting that constitutional decisions under Article 324 require unanimity and dismissing opposition claims as source-based fake news. In contrast, Bhavya questioned why NDA chief ministers are issuing statements on behalf of a constitutional body instead of the Chief Election Commissioner addressing the public directly. Emphasising institutional integrity, O.P. Rawat stated, 'Election Commission must come out, answer every point, every accusation,' noting that winning or losing elections does not impact an institution's objectivity. Recalling the EVM challenge organised during his tenure, Rawat maintained that all three commissioners share collective responsibility and must engage openly with citizens to allay concerns and restore confidence.

In an interview, Supreme Court Senior Advocate Vikas Singh questioned the functioning and impartiality of the Election Commission of India. He asserted that the commission was designed as a multi-member body where decisions must be taken unanimously or by majority, expressing concern over reports that the Chief Election Commissioner has acted unilaterally. Singh criticised the commission's Special Intensive Revision exercise, stating, "Election Commission does not have any authority to decide on citizenship of the people of this country," noting that such powers belong strictly to the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act. Highlighting unprecedented doubts over the poll body's neutrality, he argued that the Supreme Court should intervene to remove the Chief Election Commissioner and mandate appointments through an independent collegium including the Chief Justice of India to restore public trust.

The political standoff between the BJP and Congress over the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar intensified, with the Congress and Indian Youth Congress staging nationwide demonstrations demanding his resignation or prosecution over alleged electoral disenfranchisement through the Special Intensive Revision process. Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi visited Delhi's Bella Estate and alleged that hundreds of voter names had been deleted from electoral rolls. BJP leaders, including Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, hit back, accusing the opposition of targeting constitutional institutions to deflect from election defeats. An India Today panel examined the allegations, the Form 6 declaration process and the statutory provisions governing electoral rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Meanwhile, violence broke out in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, during a road-widening demolition drive that affected a portion of the Shahi Masjid. The incident came ahead of the 2028 Simhastha Maha Kumbh.

On the Judges Panel, former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta and former High Court Chief Justice Sanjiv Banerjee deliberate on the Supreme Court's refusal to expedite hearings regarding Bengal SIR appeals ahead of upcoming by-elections. Addressing concerns over more than 37 lakh pending appeals and disenfranchisement, the panel examined whether judicial review is imperative to maintain transparent electoral rolls. Justice Sanjiv Banerjee emphasised that under the Constitution, every citizen is entitled to vote unless expressly disqualified, questioning the burden placed upon voters to verify their credentials. Justice Deepak Gupta noted that democratic safeguards require courts to step in rather than permit valid citizens to be excluded from voting, urging the judiciary to be far more proactive. Critiquing systemic anomalies and the executive's role in appointments to the Election Commission, the former judges warned that administrative overreach undermines public trust in democratic institutions.