Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, questioning how many illegal immigrants have actually been identified through the exercise.

Speaking to ANI on Sunday, Quraishi sarcastically said the Election Commission had “eliminated” around 14–15 crore people through the exercise, while questioning the absence of publicly disclosed figures on illegal immigrants identified during the revision. His remarks were directed at the scale of voter exclusions and should not be interpreted as an official finding that 14–15 crore people have been removed from India's population. 

Quraishi questions SIR objective

Quraishi said the ECI should disclose how many illegal immigrants had been detected, particularly because identifying ineligible voters has been cited as one of the reasons for conducting the revision.

He questioned why the Commission had not publicly released such figures and said doing so would allow the public to assess the effectiveness of the exercise.

The former CEC also used the figure of 14–15 crore, equivalent to roughly 15 per cent of India's population, to criticise the extent of voter exclusions. His statement was framed as a sarcastic attack on the electoral-roll exercise rather than a claim that the country's population had actually declined by that amount. 

Former CEC calls voter deletions a concern

Quraishi has previously criticised the SIR process, arguing that the deletion of large numbers of voters could affect the democratic process.

He said voting is a constitutional right and referred to Article 326 of the Constitution, which provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies based on adult suffrage, subject to constitutional and legal provisions.

According to Quraishi, the process of removing names from electoral rolls should therefore be handled with particular care so that eligible citizens are not left out.

What is the Election Commission’s stated purpose?

The ECI has said that SIR is intended to make electoral rolls more accurate and up to date by identifying issues such as duplicate registrations, deceased voters, migrated voters and names of foreign nationals who may have been included in voter lists.

The Commission has also maintained that the exercise is intended to ensure that no eligible elector is left out while removing ineligible or duplicate entries. 

The nationwide SIR exercise was announced in October 2025 by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and has subsequently been implemented in several states and Union territories.

Maharashtra voter list fuels controversy

The debate has intensified following developments in Maharashtra, where the draft electoral roll released after the SIR enumeration phase showed a substantial reduction compared with the earlier voter list.

According to figures cited in current reports, Maharashtra had 9,78,54,049 electors, while 7,71,65,562 had submitted their enumeration forms as of August 17.

The difference has become a major political issue, with opposition leaders questioning whether eligible voters could be excluded during the revision process.

Congress leader Pawan Khera has separately accused the BJP of benefiting from the alleged removal of voters in Maharashtra. These are political allegations and do not establish that the excluded names were unlawfully removed.

Opposition and ECI face-off over SIR

SIR has emerged as a contentious issue between the Election Commission, opposition parties and political groups in states preparing for elections.

Opposition leaders have raised concerns about transparency, documentation requirements and the possibility of eligible voters being left out. The ECI, meanwhile, has maintained that electoral-roll revision is necessary to ensure that voter lists remain accurate and free of ineligible entries. 

Why Quraishi’s remarks matter

Quraishi's intervention adds to the debate because he previously headed the Election Commission and is speaking from the perspective of a former constitutional election official.

His central question is not simply how many names have been excluded, but whether the ECI can demonstrate how many of those exclusions relate to the stated objective of identifying ineligible voters, including foreign nationals.

The controversy is therefore likely to remain focused on two competing priorities: maintaining clean and accurate electoral rolls while ensuring that every eligible Indian citizen retains the ability to vote.

Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP P Chidambaram on Tuesday highlighted India's 106th rank among 179 countries on the Electoral Democracy Index, citing the latest assessment by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute.Chidambaram said the score was India's lowest since 1975. In a post on X, he wrote that India ranked 106th on the index and that V-Dem's democracy score for the country was at its lowest level since 1975.The V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 gives India an Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) score of 0.38 for 2025, placing it 106th. The report also places India at 105th on its Liberal Democracy Index, with a score of 0.26.

What does V-Dem's Electoral Democracy Index measure?

The Electoral Democracy Index is one of V-Dem's core measures of democracy. According to the institute, it looks beyond the existence of elections and considers whether elections are free, fair and recurring, whether elected officials exercise political power, and whether citizens have universal suffrage.It also considers the political environment around elections, including freedoms of expression, media, association, political parties and candidates.V-Dem's 2026 report is based on its dataset covering 202 countries and territories and draws on assessments from thousands of scholars and country experts. The institute says its dataset contains more than 32 million data points and measures more than 600 attributes of democracy.

India classified as an 'electoral autocracy'

The report classifies India as an electoral autocracy. It says the country has been undergoing what it describes as slow but systematic autocratisation since 2009 and identifies concerns involving freedom of expression, media independence, civil society and the opposition.V-Dem also identifies India as one of four autocratising countries in South and Central Asia, alongside Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan. Sri Lanka is identified as the region's only democratising country in the report.These are V-Dem's assessments, rather than an official classification by the Indian government or an international electoral authority.

India's position across V-Dem's democracy indices

The 2026 report provides scores for several dimensions of democracy. India's rankings are:

• Electoral Democracy Index: 106th, score 0.38
• Liberal Democracy Index: 105th, score 0.26
• Liberal Component Index: 99th, score 0.58
• Egalitarian Component Index: 138th, score 0.41
• Participatory Component Index: 83rd, score 0.54
• Deliberative Component Index: 100th, score 0.57

The report marks India's scores on both the Electoral Democracy Index and Liberal Democracy Index as having declined substantially and significantly over the past decade.

Political debate over India's democracy

Chidambaram's post comes amid a wider political debate between the Congress and the BJP-led government over democratic institutions, elections and the functioning of India's political system.Congress leaders, including Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, have repeatedly raised allegations concerning the electoral process, including his "vote chori" claim. The government and BJP have rejected such political attacks.Chidambaram's latest intervention specifically draws attention to the V-Dem assessment, rather than presenting the index ranking as an independently established fact about the quality of India's democracy.

What the 106th rank means

The ranking should also be read in the context of how V-Dem constructs its index. The EDI is scored on a 0-to-1 scale, with higher scores representing stronger performance according to the index's methodology.V-Dem's report says electoral democracy is central to its broader understanding of democracy, while its Liberal Democracy Index additionally incorporates checks and balances, civil liberties, rule of law and constraints on executive power.The latest figures therefore provide a measure of India's standing under V-Dem's methodology. They do not constitute an official verdict on India's electoral system.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, August 31, the case involving Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Vijay Shah over his controversial remarks about Indian Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. The hearing comes amid continued questions over the Madhya Pradesh government's decision on sanction to prosecute the minister.

The case has been pending for months, with the Supreme Court repeatedly directing the state government to take a decision on the prosecution sanction sought by the Special Investigation Team (SIT). The SIT, constituted on the court's directions, completed its investigation and sought permission to prosecute Shah under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 

What is the Vijay Shah case?

The controversy dates back to May 11, 2025, when Vijay Shah made remarks about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi at a public programme in Mhow, Indore district. Qureshi had been among the military officers who briefed the media during Operation Sindoor.

The comments triggered widespread criticism and legal action. The Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and ordered registration of an FIR against the minister. Shah subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which ordered an SIT investigation into the matter. 

SIT sought prosecution sanction

After completing its investigation, the SIT sought sanction from the state government to prosecute Shah under the relevant provision of the BNS. The issue has since become a major point of contention between the state government and the Supreme Court.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to take a decision on the prosecution sanction. The court later expressed displeasure over the continued delay and directed the state to comply with its orders. 

The court had also questioned the repeated apologies offered by Shah, with the bench observing that the apology came after considerable delay. 

Government's decision remained pending

The issue took another turn in August. Reports ahead of the August 31 hearing indicated that the Madhya Pradesh Cabinet had not taken up the prosecution-sanction proposal at its August 25 meeting, despite the matter being pending before the Supreme Court. The government was expected to place its position before the court through an affidavit. 

Recent reports also said the government was considering not granting sanction to prosecute Shah, citing, among other factors, his repeated public apologies. However, the exact legal position and the government's final stand are expected to be clarified before the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court had warned the state

The Supreme Court has taken a firm view of the delay in the matter. During an earlier hearing, the court told the Madhya Pradesh government to comply with its directions and indicated that the matter could not remain pending indefinitely.

The court's scrutiny is significant because the prosecution sanction is a necessary step for the SIT's recommendation to move forward in the manner contemplated under the applicable legal provisions.

Shah apologised for the remarks

Following the controversy, Vijay Shah apologised several times for his remarks. He later described the comments as a mistake and said they were made in a moment of patriotic excitement, while maintaining that he had not intended to insult Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the armed forces or any section of society. 

The Supreme Court, however, has previously questioned the timing and adequacy of his apologies during proceedings.

What happens at today's hearing?

The August 31 hearing is expected to focus on the Madhya Pradesh government's position on the prosecution sanction and compliance with the Supreme Court's earlier directions.

The court may examine the government's affidavit, the status of the SIT investigation and the reasons behind any decision taken by the state. The hearing could therefore determine the next legal course in the case against Vijay Shah.

The matter has also acquired wider political significance in Madhya Pradesh, with the opposition questioning the government's handling of the prosecution-sanction issue. 

NDA explores 2029 election alignment

The NDA is reportedly exploring the possibility of holding Assembly elections in 22 NDA-ruled states and Union Territories alongside the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, potentially bringing forward the first phase of simultaneous polls from the 2034 timeline currently envisaged under the proposed legislation.

The plan, if pursued, could involve dissolving several state Assemblies before the completion of their existing terms. The move would represent a significant change from the election cycle outlined in the One Nation One Election Bills currently being examined by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

What the current Bills propose

The Joint Committee of Parliament was constituted in December 2024 to examine the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

Under the framework proposed in the Bills, the terms of Assemblies elected after the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following a general election would be adjusted so that their elections could eventually be synchronised.

As the Bills currently stand, the earliest full cycle of simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections would be in 2034.

However, the reported NDA proposal would seek to achieve an earlier alignment by using the constitutional mechanism for dissolving state Assemblies.

22 states could be brought into cycle

Of the 22 NDA-ruled states and UTs reportedly being considered, 11 are scheduled to face Assembly elections during the two years preceding the 2029 Lok Sabha election.

Four NDA-ruled states — Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Odisha — already hold Assembly elections alongside Lok Sabha polls.

If the NDA retains its governments in the other states, their Assemblies could potentially be dissolved before their scheduled terms end, allowing elections to be held alongside the 2029 general election.

The proposal would require some states to accept significantly shortened Assembly terms.

Terms could be cut by years

Under the reported plan, Goa, Gujarat, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand could see their Assembly terms shortened by around three years.

Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Rajasthan and Tripura could face reductions of around four years because their elections are currently scheduled for 2027 or 2028.

Delhi has also indicated that it could consider adjusting its Assembly tenure if necessary to align elections nationally.

Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta has expressed a willingness to consider such an adjustment in the national interest.

Opposition raises constitutional concerns

The proposal is likely to intensify the political debate around One Nation One Election, particularly because several Opposition-ruled states have election schedules that do not coincide with the 2029 Lok Sabha polls.

Punjab is due for Assembly elections in 2027, while Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Mizoram and Telangana are scheduled for elections in 2028.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh reiterated the party's opposition to simultaneous elections, describing the proposal as unconstitutional, anti-democratic and detrimental to political accountability.

The Congress and other Opposition parties had also opposed the introduction of the One Nation One Election Bills in Parliament in 2024.

Committee says decision lies with states

Joint Parliamentary Committee chairman P P Chaudhary has indicated that deciding whether elections should be brought forward to 2029 is outside the committee's mandate.

He said the matter would be for NDA Chief Ministers to decide.

The committee has meanwhile continued consultations with state governments, legislators, constitutional experts, academics, legal professionals and other stakeholders. It is expected to submit its report during the Winter Session of Parliament.

Why 2029 matters

Synchronising elections in 2029 would represent a major acceleration of the One Nation One Election proposal. Instead of waiting until the 2034 cycle contemplated by the current Bills, the NDA would seek to create an electoral alignment within the next Lok Sabha term.

However, such a move would require political coordination across states and could trigger major constitutional and political questions over shortened Assembly terms, the autonomy of state governments and the federal structure.

For now, the 2029 proposal remains under discussion. Whether the NDA-ruled states agree to dissolve their Assemblies early — and whether the broader legislative framework receives Parliament's approval — will determine whether simultaneous elections can move from a proposal to an actual electoral timetable.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has issued notices to 20 rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs, seeking their responses within seven days to disqualification petitions filed against them under the anti-defection law. The development came as the Supreme Court on Tuesday took up a petition filed by TMC general secretary and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee, who has sought an expedited decision on the disqualification proceedings. 

The 20 MPs had broken away from the TMC and aligned themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). The TMC has challenged their status, arguing that they were elected to the Lok Sabha on the party's ticket and that their subsequent move attracts provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Speaker's notices now give the MPs seven days to respond to the disqualification petitions. 

Notices Follow Supreme Court Hearing

The timing of the Speaker's action is significant. During Tuesday's Supreme Court proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, informed a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that notices had already been issued to the 20 MPs in connection with the disqualification petitions.

The Supreme Court itself also issued notices to the rebel MPs on Abhishek Banerjee's petition seeking a time-bound decision. The Court did not issue notice to Speaker Om Birla after the Solicitor General said he would represent the Speaker's office. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the issue was not merely whether notices had been issued but whether the proceedings could be concluded within a reasonable time.

20 MPs Facing Disqualification Pleas

The MPs named in the proceedings include prominent TMC figures such as Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, Rachana Banerjee, Yusuf Pathan, Sayani Ghosh, June Maliah and Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar.

The full list includes Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, Prasun Banerjee, Rachana Banerjee, Jagadish Chandra Barma Basunia, Partha Bhowmick, Arup Chakraborty, Adhikari Deepak Dev, Sayani Ghosh, Bapi Haldar, Md Abu Taher Khan, Kalipada Saren Kherwal, Asit Kumar Mal, June Maliah, Mitali Bag, Khalilur Rahaman, Mala Roy, Sharmila Sarkar and Yusuf Pathan. 

TMC's Anti-Defection Case

The dispute centres on the Tenth Schedule, commonly known as the anti-defection law. TMC has argued that the MPs were elected under its symbol and that their decision to leave the party and align with another political formation amounts to voluntarily giving up their party membership.

According to reports, the 20 MPs later aligned themselves with the NCPI and sought recognition as a separate group in the Lok Sabha. The Speaker provided them separate seating arrangements during the Monsoon Session, although the Speaker's office has not recognised them as a separate parliamentary party. 

The disqualification petitions were filed separately by Abhishek Banerjee on June 18, 2026, under Rule 6 of the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985. 

What Happens After Seven Days?

The immediate next step is for the 20 MPs to submit their responses to the Speaker's notices. Their replies will form part of the proceedings concerning the disqualification petitions.

The Speaker will then have to consider the allegations, the MPs' responses and the relevant provisions of the Tenth Schedule before taking any decision. The notices themselves do not mean that the MPs have been disqualified.

The Supreme Court proceedings have added another layer to the dispute. The apex court is examining Abhishek Banerjee's plea seeking an expedited decision, while the Speaker's office is handling the underlying disqualification proceedings. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 28. 

Bigger Political and Constitutional Issue

The case has wider implications for the functioning of the anti-defection framework in Parliament. The Tenth Schedule was introduced to discourage elected representatives from changing political allegiance in ways that could undermine the mandate received from voters.

At the same time, questions concerning the Speaker's role in deciding disqualification petitions have repeatedly reached the courts. In the present case, the Supreme Court's focus on the time taken to conclude proceedings adds urgency to the issue.

For now, the 20 rebel TMC MPs have seven days to respond to the notices issued by the Lok Sabha Speaker. Their replies and the subsequent proceedings will determine the next stage of a political and constitutional dispute that has now come under the scrutiny of both Parliament and the Supreme Court. 

The Congress leader said simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly polls could not be held in 2029 even if the Bill clears Parliament, while the Opposition prepares a wider campaign against the proposal.

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP P Chidambaram has stepped up his opposition to the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill, calling it a “constitutional monstrosity” and saying Congress and other Opposition parties will launch a nationwide campaign against the proposed electoral reform. 

Chidambaram made the remarks on Tuesday while responding to a reported statement by the chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the ONOE legislation that simultaneous elections could be possible in 2029. The former Union minister said that interpretation did not align with the text of the proposed legislation.

In a post on X, Chidambaram said he had appeared before the JPC and argued that the Bill violated what he described as the basic features of the Constitution, particularly parliamentary democracy and the federal structure. 

Chidambaram's 2029 Argument

According to Chidambaram, even if Parliament passes the Bill, simultaneous elections cannot take place in 2029 because the proposed “appointed date” would have to fall after a general election. Since the next Lok Sabha election is due in 2029, he argued that the simultaneous-election framework could not be implemented that year. 

He also said this outcome would be beneficial from the Opposition's perspective and indicated that Congress and other Opposition parties would campaign across the country against the legislation.

The remarks add to the political resistance surrounding the Centre's proposal to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.

Opposition Raises Federalism Concerns

Chidambaram's principal objection centres on the constitutional and federal implications of synchronising elections. During his appearance before the parliamentary panel, he opposed the proposal and described the legislation as unconstitutional, flawed and illogical, according to reports from the committee proceedings. 

The Opposition has previously argued that simultaneous elections could affect the autonomy of state-level political mandates and alter the relationship between the Union and state governments.

The government's position is different. Supporters of ONOE argue that holding elections together could reduce repeated election expenditure, limit the disruption caused by frequent polls and allow governments to focus more consistently on governance. The government has also clarified that simultaneous elections would not necessarily mean voting everywhere on a single day, with polling potentially taking place in phases. 

JPC Continues Examination

The JPC is continuing its examination of the constitutional amendment and related legislation. The committee has been hearing views from political representatives, legal experts and public-policy institutions on the proposed framework.

Recent consultations have also focused on how elections could be deferred under the proposed system and what safeguards would be required if an Assembly or Lok Sabha were unable to complete its full term. 

The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to establish a framework for synchronising elections to the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies. A related Union Territories law is also part of the legislative package required to facilitate the proposed system.

Political Battle Likely to Intensify

Chidambaram's announcement of a nationwide Opposition campaign signals that the ONOE proposal is likely to remain a major political issue as Parliament considers the legislation.

For the government, the proposal is being presented as a structural electoral reform aimed at reducing the frequency and cost of elections. For the Opposition, the central concern is whether synchronising electoral cycles could weaken India's parliamentary and federal structure.

The next stage will depend on the JPC's recommendations and the subsequent parliamentary process. Any final implementation would require the proposed constitutional changes and the legislative measures associated with the new electoral framework to clear the required parliamentary hurdles.

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP P Chidambaram on Monday criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying the exercise was creating a new category of “non-voting citizens”. His remarks came after former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri publicly spoke about difficulties he faced while dealing with the SIR process in Punjab. 

Chidambaram referred to Suri's experience in a social media post and questioned how ordinary citizens would be able to navigate the verification process if a former ambassador encountered difficulties in establishing his citizenship-related credentials. Suri, who previously served as India's ambassador to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates and as High Commissioner to Australia, had raised concerns about the process and described having faced “trouble” during the ongoing electoral-roll revision. Chidambaram used the episode to question the implications of the exercise for eligible voters who may find it difficult to provide the required documentation or establish their electoral records. 

Chidambaram's criticism

The Congress leader's latest comments are part of his broader criticism of the ECI's handling of SIR. In his latest remarks, he argued that the process could leave eligible citizens without the ability to vote if their names are not retained in the electoral rolls. Another report on his comments said Chidambaram warned that nearly 10 crore eligible Indians, or around 10 per cent of the electorate, could potentially lose their voting rights if concerns surrounding the revision were not addressed. 

The controversy centres on the purpose and implementation of the SIR exercise. The Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revision is intended to ensure that voter lists remain accurate by identifying eligible voters and removing names of deceased, shifted, duplicate or otherwise ineligible persons. The process has nevertheless drawn criticism from opposition parties and other groups over documentation requirements and the possibility of eligible voters being left out.

Ex-Envoy's experience

Suri's reported experience has added a new dimension to the political debate because of his former diplomatic position. Chidambaram questioned whether ordinary citizens, particularly those who may not have access to older records or documents, could face greater difficulties during the verification exercise. His argument is that the experience of a former senior government representative should prompt the poll panel to examine whether the process is sufficiently accessible to all eligible voters. 

The ECI's position on electoral-roll revision remains central to the dispute. The Commission has the constitutional responsibility to prepare and revise electoral rolls, while political parties have continued to debate the manner in which the SIR is being conducted. The issue has previously triggered sharp exchanges between the poll body and opposition leaders, including over allegations concerning voter deletions and additions. 

For now, Chidambaram's remarks have renewed the political focus on SIR and the question of how eligible citizens can ensure that their names remain on electoral rolls. Any large-scale exclusion of eligible voters would have direct implications for electoral participation, making the verification process and the safeguards available to voters key points of scrutiny as the exercise progresses.

BJP national president Nitin Nabin on Saturday chaired the first meeting of the party’s newly appointed national office-bearers at the BJP headquarters in New Delhi, setting the stage for the organisation’s preparations for upcoming electoral contests. The meeting brought together the new national team announced earlier this week and focused on poll strategy, grassroots mobilisation and strengthening the party’s outreach to voters. Before the discussions began, all six stanzas of the national song Vande Mataram were recited at the party headquarters. 

The meeting comes shortly after the BJP announced a 65-member national office-bearers team under Nabin. The new organisational setup combines experienced leaders with several new faces and includes the return of leaders such as Smriti Irani and Ram Madhav to key national roles. Piyush Goyal has also been retained as the party’s national treasurer. The BJP’s reshuffle is being viewed as an organisational exercise aimed at preparing the party for the assembly elections scheduled in several states next year, while also strengthening its wider organisational network ahead of the 2029 Lok Sabha elections. 

Focus on Poll Preparations

Party sources said the inaugural meeting would focus on preparations for forthcoming state assembly elections, grassroots mobilisation and communicating government initiatives to people. The BJP’s new national team is expected to work on strengthening coordination between the central organisation and state units, while expanding outreach among different sections of the electorate. The party is also preparing for a series of political and organisational programmes in the months ahead. 

The timing of the meeting is significant as the BJP begins work under a newly structured national organisation led by Nabin. The party announced his new team earlier this week, with the composition reflecting an effort to combine organisational experience with younger leadership. The new office-bearers will have responsibilities extending across states and different organisational wings, with the leadership expected to translate the party’s national priorities into grassroots campaigns. 

Vande Mataram Recitation

The meeting began with the complete recitation of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram, adding a symbolic element to Nabin’s first interaction with his newly appointed national office-bearers. Visuals from the BJP headquarters showed the national team gathered ahead of the meeting, with the recitation taking place before organisational discussions commenced. 

The first meeting marks the beginning of the new team’s formal organisational work. With several assembly elections approaching, the BJP leadership is expected to use the coming months to sharpen its election strategy, strengthen booth-level and grassroots networks and improve communication of government initiatives. The party’s organisational preparations will also be closely watched in states such as Uttar Pradesh, where the 2027 assembly election is expected to be a major political contest. 

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi reached Parliament Street Police Station in New Delhi on Friday and staged a sit-in while seeking an update on allegations of pellet-gun use during a July 20 protest march towards Parliament.

Rahul Gandhi was accompanied by a student who was allegedly injured during the police action. He is also expected to submit a complaint seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into the incident.

The development comes amid a wider dispute between the Opposition and the government over the police response to the protest, with the Delhi Police maintaining that force was used only after demonstrators allegedly broke barricades and attacked police personnel.

Rahul Seeks Police Action

Rahul Gandhi had previously raised the alleged use of pellet guns during Parliament's Monsoon Session and sought an explanation from Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

On Friday, he went directly to Parliament Street Police Station along with an alleged victim of the incident. His visit is aimed at pressing the police to formally investigate the allegations and establish how the student sustained injuries.

The Congress leader has maintained that students participating in the protest were subjected to excessive police action.

July 20 March Led to Clashes

The controversy relates to the July 20 Parliament march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which had been protesting over the NEET paper leak and alleged irregularities in examinations.

The agitation began at Jantar Mantar on June 20. Activist Sonam Wangchuk also participated in the protest through a hunger strike.

Clashes broke out between protesters and police when demonstrators attempted to march towards Parliament on July 20. The agitation eventually ended on July 25 following the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Rahul Raised Issue in Parliament

Rahul Gandhi raised the allegations in Parliament on July 29, claiming that the Home Minister had authorised the use of bullets and pellet guns against students protesting in Delhi.

The allegation was rejected by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who described it as serious and baseless and demanded an apology from Rahul Gandhi.

During his remarks, Rahul also referred to conversations with students who had participated in the protest, including an 18-year-old student identified as Lovely. Some of his remarks triggered objections from the ruling side and were subsequently expunged from the proceedings.

Supreme Court Orders Probe

The dispute is also being examined at the judicial level. The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member high-powered committee to investigate allegations concerning police action during the July 20 Parliament march.

The committee is headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy. Its members include former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya DGP Dr L.R. Bishnoi.

The panel is expected to examine the circumstances surrounding the police action and allegations of excessive force.

Delhi Police Rejects Allegations

The Delhi Police has denied allegations of excessive force and maintained that the July 20 march was not authorised.

During a Supreme Court hearing on August 18, the police told the court that permission had not been granted for the march towards Parliament. It also alleged that several history-sheeters were among those who joined the protest.

According to the police, protesters broke through barricades and assaulted police personnel, following which the situation ceased to remain peaceful.

The police said force was used to bring the situation under control but denied that excessive force had been used against protesters.

Probe Could Establish Facts

Rahul Gandhi's visit to the police station comes as the Supreme Court-appointed panel begins examining the competing claims.

The central issue remains whether pellet guns or other forms of excessive force were used against protesters and, if so, under what circumstances.

The investigation and the Supreme Court-monitored inquiry are expected to establish the sequence of events during the July 20 confrontation and determine the circumstances in which protesters, including the student accompanying Rahul Gandhi, sustained injuries.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday criticised the Congress over its decision to continue singing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party events, accusing the opposition party of pursuing “appeasement and vote-bank politics”.

Shah said the Congress had repeated the position adopted by the party in 1937 and argued that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had now “corrected” that decision. He called on people to oppose any move against the full version of the national song and said the BJP would raise the issue publicly as well as in State Assemblies.

The remarks came a day after the Congress Working Committee reaffirmed its position to sing the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party programmes, citing the historical decision taken by Congress leaders in 1937. 

Shah Targets Congress

Shah alleged that the Congress had divided Vande Mataram into two parts in 1937 and was now following the same approach.

He described the party's position as an example of appeasement politics and said such politics would not succeed in India. BJP president Nitin Nabin also criticised the Congress, alleging that its decision was motivated by vote-bank considerations. 

The controversy has placed the national song at the centre of another political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with both parties invoking different interpretations of its history and use at public events.

Congress Cites 1937 Decision

Congress general secretary K.C. Venugopal said the party would follow the position adopted by its senior leaders in 1937, including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, Subhas Chandra Bose and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has previously explained that the issue was discussed by the Congress Working Committee in October 1937. According to Ramesh, the decision followed discussions among several prominent leaders over the portions of the song that should be used at Congress gatherings. 

The Congress has maintained that singing the first two stanzas at its events follows this historical convention rather than representing disrespect towards the national song.

Row Over Independence Day Event

The latest confrontation follows a controversy at the Congress headquarters in New Delhi during the Independence Day celebrations on August 15.

The BJP had alleged that Sonia Gandhi appeared uncomfortable during a rendition of the full version of Vande Mataram and suggested that she wanted the song stopped. Congress rejected the allegation, with Jairam Ramesh saying there had been no attempt to interrupt the song. He said Sonia Gandhi had been standing for a long period and had asked for a chair.

The episode subsequently became a political issue, with BJP leaders accusing Congress of disrespecting the national song. 

Legal Protection Expanded

The political dispute comes weeks after Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

The legislation extends statutory protection under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to Vande Mataram. It makes intentional prevention of the national song's singing or causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing it punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. 

The legislation was passed by Parliament at the end of July. 

Importantly, the legal provisions concern deliberate obstruction or disturbance of the singing. They should not automatically be read as making every instance of an individual choosing not to sing a criminal offence. 

History of Vande Mataram

Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Vande Mataram became one of the most recognisable symbols of India's freedom movement. Rabindranath Tagore famously sang it at an Indian National Congress session in 1896.

The song was later included in Chattopadhyay's novel Anandamath and came to occupy a significant place in India's nationalist movement.

The current political dispute, however, centres less on the song's historical importance and more on whether its full version should be routinely sung at political and public functions.

BJP-Congress Clash Continues

The disagreement over Vande Mataram has now developed into a broader political contest over nationalism, the Congress's historical decisions and the government's efforts to promote the complete rendition of the national song.

While the BJP has accused Congress of appeasement politics, the Congress has defended its position by referring to the decisions of leaders of the freedom movement.

With both parties preparing to take their respective positions to the public, the Vande Mataram controversy is likely to remain a prominent political issue in the coming days.

 The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has announced a fresh set of appointments to key national organisational positions, including 13 national vice presidents, eight national general secretaries and 16 national secretaries. The appointments were announced by BJP national president Nitin Nabin and will take effect immediately, according to a party press release dated August 17, 2026.

The reshuffle also includes appointments to organisational, media, social media and various front organisations, giving several states representation in the party's national structure.

13 Appointed as National Vice Presidents

The BJP has appointed 13 leaders as national vice presidents.

The list includes Vasundhara Raje Scindia from Rajasthan, Tirath Singh Rawat from Uttarakhand, Ram Madhavfrom Delhi, Baijayant Jay Panda from Odisha and D Purandeswari from Andhra Pradesh.

Other appointees are Rekha Verma from Uttar Pradesh, Varshaben Narendrabhai Doshi from Gujarat, Dr Bharati Pravin Pawar from Maharashtra, Manpreet Singh Badal from Punjab, Lal Singh Arya from Madhya Pradesh, P M Nagaraj from Karnataka, Tariq Mansoor from Uttar Pradesh and Dr Madhurkar K from West Bengal.

General Secretaries and Organisation Posts

The party has appointed B L Santosh from Delhi as national general secretary (organisation), while Shiv Prakash from Mumbai and Sondan Singh from Chandigarh have been appointed national joint general secretaries (organisation).

The list of national general secretaries includes Vinod Tawde from Maharashtra, Sunil Bansal from Delhi, Viplav Kumar Deb from Tripura, Smriti Irani from Uttar Pradesh, Dr Satish Poonia from Rajasthan, Gajendra Patel from Madhya Pradesh, Harish Dwivedi from Uttar Pradesh and Sanjay Bhatia from Haryana.

16 Leaders Named National Secretaries

The BJP has also appointed 16 national secretaries.

The list includes Kavita Patidar from Madhya Pradesh, K Surendran from Kerala, Bhola Singh from Uttar Pradesh, Dr Pradeep Verma from Jharkhand, Jagadish Ishwarbhai Patel from Gujarat and Dr Sandeep Pathak from Delhi.

Other national secretaries named in the press release are Phangnon Konyak from Nagaland, Sangeeta Yadav from Uttar Pradesh, Anil Antony from Kerala, Dr M K Akhilesh from Tamil Nadu, Manoj Tigga from West Bengal, Siddharth Shambhu from Bihar, Dr Swadesh Singh from Delhi, Mridanga Dev Barman from Assam, Rohan Gupta from Gujarat and Jai Prakash from Delhi.

Treasurer and Other Organisational Roles

Piyush Goyal from Maharashtra has been appointed national treasurer, while Rajesh Mangal from Rajasthan has been appointed national joint treasurer.

The party has also named Tarun Chugh from Punjab as national office in-charge and Mahendra Pandey from Uttarakhand as national office secretary.

For the Northeast, Dr Sambit Patra from Odisha has been appointed Northeast coordinator, while Rajiv Babbar from Delhi has been named Northeast co-coordinator.

Front Organisation Heads Announced

The BJP has also announced appointments for several frontal organisations and cells.

Dr Hemang Joshi from Gujarat has been appointed president of the Yuva Morcha, while Roop Kumari Chaudharyfrom Chhattisgarh will head the Mahila Morcha.

Amarpal Maurya from Uttar Pradesh has been appointed president of the OBC Morcha, while Bansilal Gurjar from Madhya Pradesh will head the Kisan Morcha.

The party has appointed Shivesh Kumar Ram from Bihar as SC Morcha president, Dr Mannalal Rawat from Rajasthan as ST Morcha president and Kunwar Basit Ali from Uttar Pradesh as Minority Morcha president.

Media and Social Media Teams

The organisational appointments extend to the party's media and social media teams.

Anil Baluni from Uttarakhand has been appointed media coordinator. The media co-coordinators are Ashish Uma Agarwal from Madhya Pradesh, Pradeep Bhandari from Delhi and Siddharth Yadav from Delhi.

Deepak Mehar from Chhattisgarh has been appointed social media coordinator. The social media co-coordinators are Preeti Gandhi from Maharashtra, Shivnandan Dwivedi from Delhi, Alok Bhatt from Uttarakhand and Arun Yadavfrom Haryana.

Appointments Take Immediate Effect

According to the BJP press release, the appointments have been made by party president Nitin Nabin and will come into effect immediately.

The appointments cover senior national leadership as well as organisational responsibilities across states, frontal organisations, media and social media. The list includes leaders from a wide range of regions, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha, Assam and other states.

The announcement marks a significant organisational exercise for the BJP as the party puts in place its national office-bearer and organisational teams for the next phase of its political activities.

Senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram on Sunday responded sharply to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day remarks on “ideological” or “intellectual Naxals”, saying, “I am proud to be a dimagi Naxal.”

Chidambaram’s remarks came a day after PM Modi, during his Independence Day address from the Red Fort on August 15, warned against people with Maoist ideology whom he accused of having established themselves within the system and influencing government policies.

Modi Warns Against ‘Ideological Naxals’

Addressing the nation on the occasion of India’s 80th Independence Day, PM Modi said armed Naxalism had been largely eliminated from the country’s forests but warned that ideological supporters of the movement could continue to pose a challenge.

The Prime Minister said people with Maoist thinking had, over the years, found positions within corridors of power, including as advisers on government committees, and had influenced policy decisions.

Modi urged citizens to remain vigilant and said such individuals should be identified and isolated.

PM Highlights Naxalism’s Impact

Modi also spoke about the impact of decades of Naxal and Maoist violence on communities and security personnel.

He said Naxalism had once controlled large parts of India and kept a significant population under the threat of violence. According to the Prime Minister, more than 3,500 police and security personnel were killed during the conflict.

He said the movement had damaged the lives and aspirations of lakhs of young people and caused severe losses to families across affected regions.

Chidambaram Hits Back

Responding to the Prime Minister’s comments, Chidambaram used the term “dimagi Naxal” — broadly referring to an ideological or intellectual supporter of Naxalism — in a pointed response.

His remark is likely to intensify the political debate over the government’s characterization of Maoist ideology and criticism of policies associated with the Left.

The Congress leader’s response also comes amid continuing political disagreements between the ruling BJP and the opposition over national security, internal security and the government’s approach towards Maoist-affected regions.

Modi Says Naxalism Has Declined

In his Independence Day address, Modi credited his government’s policies since 2014 with making the elimination of Naxalism a major priority.

He said areas that once witnessed frequent violence and armed activity were now seeing development, greater public confidence and government outreach.

The Prime Minister described the decline of armed Naxalism as a significant achievement and said regions once affected by violence were increasingly associated with development and the national flag.

Political Debate Continues

Chidambaram’s response has brought the issue of “ideological Naxalism” back into the centre of the political debate. While the government maintains that Maoist ideology remains a potential threat even as armed violence declines, opposition leaders have frequently questioned the broad use of such labels against critics and intellectuals.

The exchange highlights the continuing political divide over how the country should address the legacy of Naxalism, security challenges and ideological dissent.