Home Blog Page 19

FIR sought against Jamia Registrar Mahtab Alam Rizvi over ‘illegal appointment’: Complaint flags UGC eligibility violations, discrepancies in CV and professional experience

Amit Kelkar
-
0
FIR sought against Jamia Registrar Mahtab Alam Rizvi over ‘illegal appointment’: Complaint flags UGC eligibility violations, discrepancies in CV and professional experience

A criminal complaint filed before the Delhi Police has sought registration of an FIR against Jamia Millia Islamia Registrar Prof. Md. Mahtab Alam Rizvi and other persons involved in his appointment as Associate Professor, subsequent promotion as Professor and eventual appointment as Registrar of the Central University.

The complaint, accessed by OpIndia, alleges cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, falsification of records, criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position. The allegations are based on documents obtained through the Right to Information Act, official records and material said to be available in the public domain.

The complaint has been filed by Bhupendra Pal Singh Chamar, the International President of the World Dalit Council (Viswa Dalit Parishad) and an alumnus of Jamia Millia Islamia. He has asked the police to investigate not only Rizvi but also officials and members of the university’s Screening Committee, Selection Committee and Executive Council who processed or approved his appointment despite questions over his eligibility.

At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that Rizvi did not meet the mandatory eligibility requirements applicable to the post of Associate Professor under the University Grants Commission’s 2010 regulations. The complainant specifically disputes the manner in which Rizvi’s previous professional experience was treated for the purpose of satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria.

Dispute over MP-IDSA experience

One of the principal issues raised concerns Rizvi’s experience at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), formerly known as the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. According to the complaint, the experience claimed did not constitute teaching or research experience equivalent to that required for the post of Assistant Professor, which the complainant says was required under the applicable UGC regulations. 

The annexures, viewed by OpIndia, contain an RTI application seeking information from the Defence Ministry concerning Rizvi’s employment at MP-IDSA. The application asks whether the institute had a classroom-teaching component, what positions Rizvi held there, the nature of his work, whether his position was teaching or purely research, whether he was assigned classes, and what his pay scale was when he joined and when he left.

A separate RTI request sought information on Rizvi’s work experience and pay scale before he joined IDSA as a Research Assistant in Level 6 under the Seventh Central Pay Commission on June 21, 2007. It also sought details regarding his service between November 2016 and February 2017, including whether he was on deputation, the leave he took, when he applied for leave or a no-objection certificate to join Jamia, whether there was any break in his service between November 2010 and February 6, 2017, and his final pay level at the time of resignation.

The records show that the MP-IDSA RTI request was disposed of on October 9, 2025, with a reply from the institute cited as letter No. MP-IDSA/A/792/2009. The complaint relies on this documentary trail as part of its broader contention that Rizvi’s employment history requires verification.

Questions over experience in Ethiopia

The complaint also raises questions regarding experience that Rizvi claimed at the State Civil Services University in Ethiopia. The complainant questions the period of the engagement, continuity of service and, crucially, whether such experience could legally be counted towards the mandatory eligibility requirements for the Associate Professor post.

The complaint does not merely characterise these issues as differences in interpretation of service records. It alleges that discrepancies in the candidate’s qualifications and experience may have resulted in material facts being concealed or misrepresented before the competent authorities.

Alleged inconsistencies in CVs

Another significant allegation concerns different versions of Rizvi’s Curriculum Vitae hosted on Jamia Millia Islamia’s official website. The complaint says these versions contain material inconsistencies relating to qualifications, experience and service particulars. According to the complainant, these inconsistencies raise the possibility of suppression, alteration or manipulation of material facts in connection with the appointment.

The allegation is particularly significant because the recruitment process itself required applicants to provide documentary evidence supporting their qualifications and experience. The Jamia recruitment material attached to the complaint states that candidates were required to submit attested copies of degrees, diplomas and marksheets, with references to experience and published work. It further states that applications without necessary supporting documents or properly attested experience certificates were liable to be rejected. 

The same recruitment instructions stated that applicants were required to submit an Academic Performance Indicator score card backed by documentary evidence and that applications without the required API documentation would not be considered for shortlisting.

UGC rules cited in the complaint

The annexures include the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010.

For the post of Associate Professor, the regulations specify, among other requirements, a good academic record with a PhD, a Master’s degree with at least 55 per cent marks and a minimum of eight years of teaching and/or research experience in a university, college or accredited research institution/industry, excluding the period spent obtaining the research degree. The regulations also refer to contributions to the subject through publications and educational innovation.

The complaint’s central argument is therefore that the character and duration of Rizvi’s previous employment need to be examined against these specific requirements rather than simply counted as generic professional experience.

The regulations also prescribe a formal selection process. The annexures state that Selection Committees are to be constituted in accordance with the UGC framework, while the recruitment process is required to assess candidates on their merits and credentials.

Selection and subsequent career progression

Jamia’s recruitment advertisement of July 12, 2016 invited applications for several teaching posts, including an Associate Professor position at the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution. The advertisement identified one Associate Professor post at the centre.

The annexures accessed by OpIndia contain Executive Council records concerning the selection process. The March 10, 2017 minutes of the Jamia Executive Council record consideration and approval of recommendations arising from Selection Committee meetings held on February 1 and 2, 2017. It specifically records the direct recruitment of faculty members under the MMAJ-Academy of International Studies, including the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution. The table identifies Md. Mahtab Alam Rizvi as the selected candidate for one Associate Professor, Non-Plan post at the Nelson Mandela Centre.

This is important because the complaint does not allege merely that Rizvi was subsequently promoted without scrutiny. It contends that the foundation of his academic career at Jamia itself requires investigation. The complainant argues that if the initial Associate Professor appointment was obtained through suppression of material information or false declarations, the subsequent promotion to Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme and eventual appointment as Registrar would also require examination. 

The complaint specifically points to the role of officials who processed the appointment. It asks investigators to examine whether members of the Screening Committee, Selection Committee, Executive Council and other responsible officers knowingly approved the appointment despite the alleged eligibility problems. 

From Professor to Registrar

The allegations assume greater significance because Rizvi subsequently became Registrar of Jamia Millia Islamia, a statutory position with substantial administrative, financial and regulatory responsibilities. The complaint describes the Registrar’s office as a statutory public office and argues that questions surrounding the eligibility and recruitment of its occupant therefore cannot be treated merely as a private employment dispute.

A Jamia notification dated March 12, 2025 records that Prof. Md. Mahtab Alam Rizvi assumed charge as Registrar on March 12, 2025, following an appointment letter dated March 11, 2025. The notification was circulated to senior university officials as well as the Ministry of Education, UGC and other authorities.

The complainant argues that an alleged irregularity at the entry point could have consequences extending years later into a statutory office. The complaint therefore seeks an examination of the complete chain, from the original application and supporting documents to the Selection Committee’s deliberations, subsequent Career Advancement Scheme promotion and eventual appointment as Registrar.

Police investigation sought into records.

The complaint emphasises that many of the records necessary to establish or disprove the allegations are not in the complainant’s possession. These include original application forms, experience certificates, recruitment correspondence, digital records, website archives, Selection Committee proceedings, Executive Council proceedings, service books and electronic communications.

The complainant argues that these records are held by Jamia and other public authorities and therefore asks the police to secure and preserve them. The complaint specifically warns of the possibility of alteration or tampering with electronic records and official documents and seeks immediate investigation.

It invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging offences including cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, falsification of records, furnishing false information to a public authority, criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position. The complaint repeatedly qualifies these as allegations requiring investigation and says that the offences would arise if the alleged acts are established.

What the complaint seeks

The complainant has ultimately requested registration of an FIR and strict legal action against Rizvi and other persons found to have participated in the alleged wrongdoing. The complaint also asks that investigators examine the role of university officials who may have facilitated, approved or failed to properly scrutinise the appointment. 

The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether Rizvi’s professional experience should be counted differently for academic eligibility. The complaint alleges a potentially much wider failure of the recruitment and verification process, one involving candidate records, institutional scrutiny and decisions taken by university authorities.

However, the allegations contained in the complaint are not themselves a finding of criminal guilt. Whether Rizvi actually failed to meet the applicable eligibility criteria, whether any information was deliberately suppressed or falsified, whether the CV discrepancies arose from administrative reasons, and whether any university official knowingly facilitated wrongdoing are matters that would have to be established through examination of the original records and, if an investigation is ordered, through due process of law.

What the documents do establish is that the complainant has placed a substantial documentary record before the police and has sought a criminal investigation into Rizvi’s appointment history. The annexures include the relevant UGC eligibility framework, Jamia’s recruitment material, Executive Council records concerning the 2017 selection, a 2025 notification recording Rizvi’s assumption of the Registrar’s office, and RTI correspondence concerning his previous employment. The complaint now puts the focus on whether these records, when independently verified against the original files held by Jamia and other authorities, disclose merely an administrative or eligibility dispute, or the criminal misconduct alleged by the complainant.

ISIS Ricin terror plot: Gujarat NIA court rejects bail plea of accused Jihadi Dr Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin

OpIndia Staff
-
0
ISIS Ricin terror plot: Gujarat NIA court rejects bail plea of accused Jihadi Dr Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin

On 10th August, a Special NIA Court in Gujarat’s Ahmedabad rejected the regular bail plea of Dr Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin, the main accused Jihadi in the 2025 ISIS ricin terror plot case.

Appearing for Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin, advocate K.M. Dastoor argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The defence said the material on record did not establish his links with any terrorist organisation or show that he intended to harm people. It also argued that Mohiuddin did not know what was inside the bags in which weapons were found and had no knowledge of the process of preparing ricin.

Court finds prima facie material against accused

Special Judge (NIA) Hemang R. Rawal said the case involved serious charges under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18-B and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act.

The court said the investigation had produced prima facie material against the 2025 ISIS ricin terror plot accused Jihadi Mohiuddin and a chargesheet had been filed in the case.

The court noted that Mohiuddin, who is a doctor, was accused of setting up a laboratory at his Hyderabad home without the required permission. Investigators said ricin was prepared there using castor seeds and chemicals. The court observed that, given his medical background, it could not be said that he was completely unaware of the nature of ricin, a highly toxic biological toxin with the potential to cause mass deaths.

Prosecution says doctor worked with handler

Opposing the bail plea, Special Public Prosecutor M.G. Kapadiya told the court that Mohiuddin was facing a serious prosecution and had travelled towards Mehsana carrying three pistols and 30 live cartridges without a licence. The prosecution said this, along with other evidence, showed his involvement in the wider conspiracy.

The prosecution claimed that Mohiuddin had converted his Hyderabad residence into a clandestine laboratory for extracting ricin from castor beans. His mobile phone, according to the prosecution, contained conversations with a Telegram user identified as Abu Khadija, described as a wanted accused. These conversations included discussions about obtaining acetone, castor seeds and weapons for preparing ricin.

Notably, Ricin is a highly toxic protein which is derived from the castor bean plant, Ricinus communis. Ricin is not a virus or bacterium; rather, it is a lectin toxic to inhibits protein synthesis in cells. Its consumption can lead to organ failure and quick death. Extraction of ricin involves mashing castor beans, removing the oil, and then chemically processing the remaining mash to isolate the Ricin-rich pulp. Although a sophisticated work, this process requires only basic lab equipment, gloves and acetone.

“Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the applicant-accused is facing serious prosecution. The
learned Spl. P.P. has further submitted that the applicant-accused was travelling to Mehsana carrying three pistols and 30 live cartridges without any license and the said act of the applicant-accused itself speaks about his ill intention. The learned Spl. P.P. has further submitted that the applicant-accused converted his residence into a clandestine laboratory to extract Ricin from castor beans using chemicals, intending to carry out mass casualty attacks in Indian cities,” the court order reads.

The prosecution further told the court that Mohiuddin had agreed to assist Abu Khadija in activities being carried out in the name of a religious cause. He had also sought around US$4 lakh to establish business operations. As part of the wider plan, he travelled to Delhi, where he discussed plans, funding and future operational activities.

The prosecution also said Mohiuddin took an oath on Abu Khadija’s instructions, recorded it and sent the video to the handler. He then tried to expand the network by administering similar oaths to Abdul Vajid and Naved Pamidi. According to the prosecution, he also sent photographs and videos showing the preparation of toxic material to Abu Khadija.

Court lists allegations against Mohiuddin

According to the court’s summary of the chargesheet, Mohiuddin came in contact with Abu Khatija through Telegram in 2025 and agreed to assist him. He allegedly sought about US$4 lakh for business operations and travelled to Delhi in August 2025 to meet an associate and discuss plans and funding.

The court also recorded that Mohiuddin travelled to Ahmedabad in September 2025 and collected Rs 1.90 lakh, described as terror proceeds, from a pre-designated location near Chhatral in Mehsana. He later recorded an oath and shared it with his handler, while similar oaths were administered to other individuals as part of efforts to expand the network.

The chargesheet further states that Mohiuddin procured castor seeds, oil-extraction equipment and chemicals such as acetone. The court noted the prosecution’s case that these materials were used to prepare ricin at a laboratory at his Hyderabad residence. The chargesheet describes ricin as a highly toxic biological toxin listed in Schedule-I of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The court also recorded that Mohiuddin had arranged to receive additional funds and materials and planned to visit Ahmedabad in November 2025, where he received advanced weapons for a terrorist act. Based on these allegations, the court said the accusations were serious and prima facie showed his involvement in the case.

Mohiuddin was aware of the ricin terror plot; he knew that the bags contained weapons

The court rejected the defence argument that the ISIS ricin terror plot accused Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin did not know about the weapons. It pointed to the recovery of three pistols, 30 live cartridges, Indian and US currency and a bottle containing four litres of castor oil. The judge said the material in the chargesheet indicated that Mohiuddin was acting on the instructions of Abu Khadija and that the weapons were obtained for an improper purpose.

The court also said the records indicated a conspiracy involving Mohiuddin, Abu Khadija and other accused persons.

“Thus, the allegations levelled against the applicant-accused seem to be serious in nature, and prima facie reveal the involvement of applicant-accused with the offence in question,” the court stated.

The Special NIA Court further highlighted that since the accused Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin is a doctor, “it cannot be said that he was absolutely unknown to the material prepared by him in the nature of Ricin, a toxic biological toxin, which is having potential of mass killing. Further, the existence of a lab at the residence of the applicant-accused without there being any license/permission from a competent authority, prima facie speaks about the ill intention of the applicant-accused.”

The court also noted that accused ISIS ricin terror plot accused jihadi Mohiuddin had allegedly travelled to different locations including Delhi and Ahmedabad, to meet operatives and collect concealed consignments, and further recovery of three pistols, thirty live cartridges, Indian and US currency and a bottle containing four litres of castor oil from the applicant-accused prima facie “reveals that the intention on the part of the applicant-accused was not holy or for any human cause,” the court noted.

Citing the chargesheet, the Special NIA Court noted that accused Dr Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin was in contact with the wanted main accused and was acting as per his instructions, leading to the preparation of Ricin and further the procurement and holding of weapon pistols. The court, thus, rejected Defence’s claim that Mohiuddin was unaware of the bags and their contents (weapons).

“The recovery of weapon from applicant-accused prima facie 10 reveals that the said weapon was obtained for oblique purpose and therefore, the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused had no knowledge about the bags and contents thereof, deserves no acceptance at the hands of this Court,” the court said.

“Further, the video recovered from mobile phone of accused No.1 also speaks about the ill intention on the part of applicant-accused and does not reveal that the applicant-accused was moving towards the holy path and doing good to humanity,” the court added.

Considering the seriousness of the accusations and the restrictions imposed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, Special Judge Hemang R. Rawal refused to grant bail. The court rejected the application without any order as to costs.

“Considering the aforesaid and rigors of section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, this Court deems it fit not to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested with this Court in favour of the applicant-accused, and hence, the present application is hereby rejected with no order as to costs,” the court ordered.

Case background

The case emerged after the Gujarat ATS arrested three men in connection with an Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP)-linked network. Investigators said members of the group had conducted reconnaissance of crowded markets and religious or organisational sites in Ahmedabad, Delhi and Lucknow while gathering information that could be used for a possible terror attack.

Mohiuddin, a doctor from Telangana who studied medicine in China, was arrested with firearms, ammunition and castor oil. Investigators said he was trying to prepare ricin from castor seeds at his Hyderabad residence. The ATS also traced his communication with an Afghan handler linked to ISKP, while the investigation continued into funding, other members and possible links to a wider network.

Melting Arctic ice is opening a window for India, and we need to act soon

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Melting Arctic ice is opening a window for India, and we need to act soon

For the last twenty years, India’s strategic thinking has been locked on one place, the ‘Indo-Pacific.’ The Quad, and freedom of navigation patrols and the long naval watch on China near the first island chain. That focus made sense, and it was the right call.

But north of everything Delhi has been watching, a second theatre has been quietly opening up, not replacing the Indo-Pacific, just running alongside it.

The Arctic is now warming three to four times faster than the rest of the planet, according to recent assessments from the World Meteorological Organisation and America’s NOAA. A WMO report found the Arctic is set to warm more than three and a half times faster than the global average between 2025 and 2029, while NOAA’s own tracking shows Arctic annual air temperatures have been rising nearly three times faster than the global mean since 1980. And the Northern Sea Route, once the exclusive territory of Soviet icebreakers and polar explorers, is turning into real, usable infrastructure. Ice doesn’t wait for foreign ministries to give it permission before it melts.

The question is no longer whether the Arctic matters to India. It’s whether India will simply watch this new route open from the shore or step in and help build it.

A theatre made by ice, not ideology

The Arctic theatre isn’t being shaped by alliances or ideology. It’s being shaped by physics. Arctic sea routes could cut the distance between Northern Europe and Asia by as much as 40 per cent compared with the traditional path.

And this isn’t just theory. In 2024, Rosatom reported nearly 37.9 million tonnes of cargo moving along the Northern Sea Route, a record. There were also a record 92 transit voyages that pushed transit cargo past 3 million tonnes. Rosatom’s director general said in October 2025 that he expected roughly 20% more cargo the following year.

The real picture is a bit more layered than that headline suggests. When the final 2025 numbers came in, total NSR cargo had actually slipped to about 37 million tonnes, down slightly from the year before. Russian consultancy Gecon called it a second straight year of decline in overall volumes. But the transit segment, the part of the route that competes directly with Suez, carrying goods from China toward Europe, told a different story. It hit a record 103 voyages carrying about 3.2 million tonnes. One container ship, the Istanbul Bridge, even reached the English port of Felixstowe in just 20 days, against the 40-50 days a Suez or Cape route usually takes.

Arctic Circle and NSR, map by Brussels School on Geopolitics, shared by Velina Tchakarova on X

Western shipping majors have mostly stayed away. Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd have pulled back because of sanctions risk, and even China’s COSCO hasn’t sailed the route since 2022. But the specific lane that matters most to India’s calculations, the one linking Asia to Europe, is the one growing fastest.

The monsoon is written in the ice

Here’s the part of the story no other Indo-Pacific power can tell. Try asking Tokyo, Canberra, or Hanoi how the Arctic affects their monsoon. They’ll look at you blankly. Ask Delhi, and they’ll show you the data, less Arctic ice means unpredictable rains for millions of Indian farmers.

Scientists at India’s National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, working with South Korea’s polar institute, have traced how shrinking sea ice in the central Arctic and the Barents-Kara Sea is reshaping the Indian monsoon. When sea ice concentration falls in the central Arctic, rainfall drops over western and southern peninsular India but rises over north-western and central India, a redistribution, not simply less rain overall. M. Ravichandran, Secretary at the Ministry of Earth Sciences, has called climate-resilient infrastructure and deeper research into this Arctic-monsoon link a policy priority. 

Schematic of the suggested mechanism between The Arctic Sea Ice Extent (SIE) in Kara Sea and Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall (ISMR) extremes during September

A monsoon that waters more than a billion people is being rewritten, one melting season at a time, in a sea most Indians will never see. That isn’t a metaphor. It’s a data point. It means India’s Arctic stake isn’t mainly about trade or minerals. At its core, it’s also existential, in a way no ally’s is.

A claim older than China’s

When China called itself a ‘near Arctic state‘ in its first official Arctic white paper in January 2018, it presented the region as a new frontier opening up for Asian powers. India’s claim to a seat at the table is older, by almost a century.

India’s link to the Arctic goes back more than a hundred years. It was one of the original high contracting parties to the Svalbard Treaty, signed in Paris in February 1920. India signed as part of the British Empire’s overseas dominions, alongside Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. China only joined the same treaty five years later, in 1925.

That’s exactly the reason when Union Minister Jitendra Singh released India’s first Arctic policy, ‘India and the Arctic: Building a Partnership for Sustainable Development,’ in March 2022. He traced India’s Arctic engagement back a century, to that 1920 signature in Paris. It’s a fair reply to anyone who calls India a late entrant just playing catch-up to Beijing. But it shouldn’t be stretched too far. Signing a treaty in 1920 is not the same as owning an icebreaker in 2026. A serious case for India’s Arctic role has to hold both truths at once, the century-old legal claim at the table, and the very real capability gap that still exists today.

Slow and steady: How India got here

Line up the dates, and you’ll see it. India was late to the paperwork, but early to the ground game.

Himadri, India’s Arctic research station in Svalbard, opened in July 2008. Five years later, India became an Arctic Council observer, sitting at the table with China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. The formal Arctic Policy didn’t arrive until March 2022, fourteen years after Himadri. But by then, India was already deepening its presence. In December 2023, Delhi launched its first winter science expedition to Himadri, pushing the station toward year-round operations.

Himadri Station in Svalbard

But the Arctic wasn’t the only piece moving. In September 2019, Prime Minister Modi visited Vladivostok for the Eastern Economic Forum, the first Indian Prime Minister to set foot in Russia’s Far East. There, he announced a $1 billion line of credit for development projects in the Russian Arctic and launched India’s ‘Act Far East’ policy. It was a signal, India wasn’t just watching the Arctic from Svalbard. It was building a corridor to reach it. That corridor became the Chennai-Vladivostok Eastern Maritime Corridor, launched in November 2024. A direct sea link between Indian ports and Russia’s Far East, cutting transit times by up to 16 days compared to the traditional route via Suez. In December 2025, during Putin’s visit to New Delhi, India and Russia formalized the connection: the Chennai-Vladivostok corridor would link directly to the Northern Sea Route, creating a continuous maritime axis from the Indian Ocean to the Arctic.

The 20th India-Russia Annual Summit, Vladivostok 2019

The logic is simple. Vladivostok is India’s gateway to the Arctic. From there, Indian ships can access the Northern Sea Route, Russian Arctic ports like Murmansk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, and the resource-rich Far East. In July 2024, Russia’s Far East and Arctic Development Corporation signed an MoU with the Indian Chamber of International Business in Vladivostok to foster joint investment projects. In December 2025, the two countries committed to intensifying trade and investment cooperation in the Far East and the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.

In May 2025, Indian representatives joined the seventh BRICS Working Group on Ocean and Polar Science and Technology in Brasília. And in May 2026, at the Third India-Nordic Summit in Oslo, the first Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Norway in 43 years, the Nordic states welcomed deeper Indian involvement in polar research.

Call it what you want. It’s not a sudden pivot. It’s fifteen years of small, deliberate steps. Easy to miss if you’re looking at one year at a time. Hard to explain away once you see the whole line. Himadri in 2008, Vladivostok in 2019, Arctic Policy in 2022, Chennai-Vladivostok corridor in 2024, BRICS polar roadmap in 2025, and Nordic Summit in 2026. India wasn’t waiting for permission. It was building the path, one step at a time.

The Russia opening

Since 2022, the other seven Arctic Council states have frozen Russia out of formal cooperation as the region’s security architecture shifted decisively toward NATO. That left Moscow looking outside the traditional Arctic club for partners, and it found two, China and India.

In December 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was building dedicated Arctic working groups with both countries, naming India specifically as a priority partner in developing the Northern Sea Route. That wasn’t just talk. Weeks earlier, in October 2025, Russia had signalled strong interest in India’s inclusion in the Arctic Council as part of a push for deeper NSR cooperation. Then, during President Putin’s state visit to New Delhi in December 2025, India and Russia concluded a formal agreement on training Indian seafarers for polar shipping operations. The two sides also opened talks on jointly constructing four Arctic-class vessels worth roughly $750 million, sitting alongside India’s own $8 billion shipbuilding incentive package already under way.

This is the same structural gap India has already exploited in energy markets since 2022, buying discounted Russian oil while the West looked away. Except this time the asset isn’t a tanker. It’s an entire ocean.

None of this means picking Moscow over Washington or Tokyo. It means strategic autonomy doing what it’s supposed to do, keeping a door open that everyone else’s has shut. The Arctic Institute has pointedly asked why India has not worked more closely with fellow democracies in the Arctic, instead opting for closer cooperation with a regime the other seven Arctic states have largely cut off. That tension is real, and a serious case for India’s Arctic policy has to name it rather than talk around it.

Parliament enters the Ice Age

On 30 July 2026, an Indian parliamentary committee did something no Indian institution had done before. It put the Arctic and Antarctic at the centre of a foreign policy report, not a footnote to science policy. The Standing Committee on External Affairs, chaired by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, tabled ‘India’s Role and Presence in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions’ in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon Session. The committee had adopted the report nine days earlier, after hearing from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, the Environment Ministry and the Ministry of External Affairs. Tharoor called the subject ‘rather obscure’ but said the polar regions are far more important than people think.

Its central recommendation consisted of India appointing a ‘polar ambassador’ to pursue polar diplomacy more effectively and push for full member status of the Arctic Council. The committee noted that all Arctic Council states, and most non-Arctic observers including Japan, China, Singapore and South Korea, already have such a position. It went further. It recommended a quadrilateral agreement among India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, the Council’s four Asian observers, to strengthen Asia’s collective voice, and noted that development of NSR shipments between India and Russia is being actively pursued, alongside India’s Chennai-Vladivostok Eastern Maritime Corridor, operational since November 2024. It also recommended the government buy polar research vessels, citing a shortage of icebreaker ships as a real constraint on India’s polar work.

Perhaps most striking is what it asked India to become, not just a scientific observer of the Arctic, but the voice of the Global South inside its governance.

The Hard truths

A serious case for India’s Arctic role has to start by admitting what it still lacks. India doesn’t yet have a dedicated Arctic class icebreaker of its own. It leases and borrows what it needs, which is exactly why the committee’s call to buy polar research vessels matters. The December 2025 talks with Russia on jointly building four ice-class ships are a real first step toward closing that gap. But they remain talks, not ships already delivered. India also runs just one permanent Arctic station, while China has poured far more into polar infrastructure and icebreaking capacity in the thirteen years since both countries became Arctic Council observers together.

Sovcomflot, Russia’s largest shipping company, Icebreaker.

And there’s the question the Arctic Institute has already asked in public. Why has India built its Arctic strategy so heavily around Russia, instead of coordinating more closely with fellow democracies that are just as close to the Arctic, like Japan or Norway?

The honest answer is strategic autonomy, not sentiment, and partly economics, the same discounted oil logic that has shaped India’s Russia policy since 2022. India has kept open a channel that almost no other major democracy still has. That channel may prove valuable precisely because it’s scarce. But it is also a wager that India can keep close ties with Moscow, Tokyo and Washington all at once, indefinitely, without ever being forced to choose.

What Delhi should do now?

The parliamentary committee has basically handed India a clear to-do list. Five things on it stand out as the most important.

Get the ships built

A proper Arctic capable ship (Polar research vehicle) is the single most practical and fundamental demand on that list. The conversations with Russia about four icebreaker ships have to turn into signed contracts, not stay as talking points. 

Here’s the awkward reality. Russia operates the world’s biggest nuclear icebreaker fleet, and the only nuclear-powered ones anywhere, while India still has none. Back in December 2025, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov confirmed discussions on building four non-nuclear icebreaker ships in India, valued at more than ₹6,000 crore. Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, is already looking at Indian shipyards, both public and private, for the work. This isn’t simply about purchasing ships. It’s about joint construction, transferring technology, and training Indian crews for polar operations.

Connect the Arctic to the routes India already runs

Formally tie the Northern Sea Route into the International North-South Transport Corridor and the Chennai-Vladivostok Eastern Maritime Corridor. That way, the whole thing looks like a natural extension of India’s existing connectivity plans rather than a sudden new idea. 

The INSTC already links India, Iran and Russia by sea, rail and road, and it brings cargo from St Petersburg to Mumbai down to about 25 days instead of the usual 40 via Suez. The Chennai-Vladivostok corridor, which started running in November 2024, gives Indian ports a direct east-west line into Russia’s Far East. Add the Northern Sea Route, and you suddenly have a continuous path from the Indian Ocean up through Vladivostok, into the Arctic, and out toward Europe. Rosatom is actively inviting Indian involvement in NSR projects and offering priority access to icebreaker escorts and ports.

In December 2025 India and Russia signed several maritime MoUs that treat the INSTC, the Chennai-Vladivostok corridor and the Northern Sea Route as one connected network. The committee isn’t asking Delhi to invent anything fresh. It’s simply asking it to join up the lines it has already drawn.

Move from buying cargo to owning a share

 Stop limiting yourself to shipping Russian Arctic oil and start taking an equity stake in the projects, the same way ONGC Videsh has done in other places. A pure customer has no real voice while an investor does.

Since 2021 ONGC Videsh has been discussing a minority stake in Russia’s Vostok oil project, which holds an estimated 44 billion barrels of high quality crude, and in the Arctic LNG-2 project on the Gydan peninsula. Gazprom Neft first invited ONGC Videsh into its offshore Arctic work as early as 2017. Even further back, in 2012, ONGC Videsh was already looking at Russian Arctic blocks with ExxonMobil and ENI. India has put about $16 billion into Russian oil and gas overall, but most of that money sits in Siberia and the Far East rather than the Arctic itself.

The committee’s message is straightforward. India needs to shift from buyer to partner. Ownership gives you influence over pricing, production and access. Just buying the oil leaves you dependent on the seller’s terms.

Create a group that doesn’t wait for the Arctic Council’s approval 

The Arctic Council has been largely frozen since 2022, when the other seven members suspended work with Russia after the Ukraine invasion. In that situation the committee’s idea of a quadrilateral with Japan, South Korea and Singapore looks more practical in the short term than waiting for all eight Arctic states to agree on anything. All four countries are Asian observers on the Council. All four run polar research programmes. All four want Arctic access without getting stuck in the Russia-West standoff. Japan already has two icebreakers. South Korea has one. Singapore has none, but it is a major shipping hub. India also has none, yet it already operates Himadri in Svalbard, is expanding its research presence, and currently holds the BRICS chair.

Such a quadrilateral would not replace the Arctic Council. It would simply work around the blockage, concentrating on joint research, shared logistics, and coordinated positions on the Northern Sea Route, data exchange and climate monitoring. The committee is not telling India to walk away from the Council. It is telling Delhi to stop sitting around waiting for the Council to thaw.

Make full use of the BRICS chair while India still holds it  

India has the BRICS presidency through 2026, exactly when Arctic issues and Global South concerns are starting to overlap. That is a concrete, time limited tool, not some vague future chance, and it vanishes the moment the chairship ends. 

In May 2025 the BRICS Working Group on Ocean and Polar Science and Technology held its seventh meeting in Brasília and approved a five-year plan for joint polar research. Russia, Brazil, South Africa and China all have their own Arctic or Antarctic interests. Brazil runs an Antarctic station. South Africa has a Southern Ocean programme. China operates two Arctic stations and an icebreaker fleet. India’s 2026 presidency is the moment to lift polar cooperation from a working-group topic to a summit priority.

India should use the BRICS chair to present itself as the voice of the Global South in Arctic affairs. That means treating the Arctic not only as a resource zone but as a climate zone, one where melting ice in the far north already influences monsoon patterns across the Global South. It means pressing for technology sharing, joint research and fairer access to polar resources. And it means acting now, while the gavel is still in Delhi’s hands. Once the chairship ends, that lever is gone.

Representative Image via AI

Conclusion: Passenger or pilot

None of this means India has to walk away from the Indo-Pacific, or pick Moscow over its other partners. It simply asks Delhi to stop treating the Arctic as a side hobby for scientists, and start seeing it for what the ice has already decided. It is a live strategic theatre, one that carries a monsoon, a shipping lane, and a century-old claim to a seat at the table. The ice isn’t going to wait for any committee to meet again.

The route is opening. The monsoon is already shifting. And for the first time, Delhi has a clear parliamentary mandate to act, not just watch from the sidelines. India’s claim to the Arctic didn’t begin this year. It began in Paris, in February 1920. The only question left is whether, in 2026, India finally starts behaving like it.

Passenger, or one of the pilots? Customer, or partner? The ice is melting.

Dear non-Left, don’t fall for Leftists shaming Newslaundry for sexual harassment at the workplace; they would celebrate your ordeal the first chance they get

Jinit Jain
-
0
Dear non-Left, don’t fall for Leftists shaming Newslaundry for sexual harassment at the workplace; they would celebrate your ordeal the first chance they get

There is something deeply amusing about watching the Left-liberal ecosystem discover workplace ethics.

For years, the same ecosystem has positioned itself as the ultimate moral authority on journalism, feminism, institutional accountability, sexual harassment and victims’ rights. It has lectured politicians, actors, journalists and editors about believing women, respecting survivors and dismantling “toxic” workplace cultures.

And then came Newslaundry.

Suddenly, the sermon has become an uncomfortable mirror.

The controversy surrounding Newslaundry and its co-founder Abhinandan Sekhri is not merely another episode in India’s media wars. It raises a much more uncomfortable question: what happens when people who have spent years presenting themselves as custodians of journalistic ethics are forced to confront allegations and testimonies about the culture inside their own newsroom?

The answer, at least for now, is that some of their ideological comrades have discovered accountability.

But here is the problem: do not mistake their outrage at Newslaundry for solidarity with you.

They are not suddenly going to become champions of victims they ordinarily dismiss. They are calling out Newslaundry because defending it has become increasingly difficult.

And there is a difference.

It took a court conviction to make Newslaundry confront its past

The immediate trigger was the Bombay High Court’s recent conviction of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case. The court overturned his earlier acquittal and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.

That inevitably brought renewed attention to Newslaundry’s relationship with Tejpal and, more importantly, to a 2014 article published by Nirupama Sekhri, sister of Abhinandan Sekhri.

The article, “Letter To Ms Tehelka-Assault-Victim”, directly questioned the woman who accused Tejpal and used deeply condescending language to describe her. It said Nirupama Sekhri did not consider her a victim, except of what she called “bubblegum feminism”, while portraying Tejpal as a victim of public fury.

This was not some anonymous social-media post. It was published by Newslaundry.

The publication later removed the article, saying its values had evolved and the piece no longer reflected its standards.

That is an admission of sorts.

But the question remains: why did it take more than a decade, the #MeToo movement, changing attitudes towards sexual assault and eventually a court conviction to arrive at that conclusion?

More importantly, what else was happening inside the organisation while Newslaundry presented itself as a fearless crusader against institutional wrongdoing?

That is where the story becomes considerably more uncomfortable.

Former employees have raised serious allegations

Former Newslaundry employees have come forward with their own accounts.

Sumedha Mittal publicly raised questions about how complaints of sexual harassment within the newsroom were handled. Priyanka Ishwari alleged that a senior journalist screamed at women editors and threatened one of them during work calls.

Then came Sayantan Ghosh, who said he joined Newslaundry as a trainee journalist in 2016 and described his experience as an “extremely toxic” workplace. He alleged that Abhinandan Sekhri used deeply hurtful and abusive language towards employees.

Ghosh specifically rejected the argument that such behaviour was simply “normal” in journalism. He said he had worked at other newsrooms, including The New Indian Express and The Telegraph, where he recalled being treated respectfully.

He also described an incident after writing a story concerning Section 66A in which, according to his account, the abuse became so severe that he fled Delhi and returned to Kolkata.

Whether every allegation is ultimately established is a matter for evidence and due process.

But one principle should be obvious:

A newsroom that routinely investigates allegations against others cannot demand a different evidentiary standard when allegations concern itself.

These allegations should be investigated, not dismissed because they are politically inconvenient.

And then came the Left’s great awakening

As criticism of Newslaundry intensified, several prominent voices from the same ideological ecosystem began criticising it.

Barkha Dutt warned against journalistic “god complexes”.

Anusha Ravi Sood described abusive language as a longstanding newsroom problem and expressed sympathy for Ghosh.

Rohini Singh described his experience as terrible and scarring.

There is nothing wrong with any of this.

If someone is abused or harassed at work, they deserve sympathy. If a newsroom has a toxic culture, it deserves scrutiny. If a senior journalist allegedly abuses subordinates, that behaviour should be condemned.

The problem is not that these people are criticising Newslaundry.

The problem is that their moral consistency has historically been selective.

The Left-liberal ecosystem does not have a monopoly on feminism, compassion or victimhood. It does not get to decide which victims deserve solidarity.

The skeletons are now tumbling out of the ivory towers

Just as the Newslaundry controversy exposed the gap between the Left-liberal media establishment’s public sermons and its internal realities, another account emerged from another prominent media organisation.

On Monday, August 10, former ThePrint employee Angana Chakrabarti took to X to describe what she alleged was a deeply toxic workplace culture at the organisation under Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta.

Her account must be treated as an allegation and judged on its merits. But the timing is difficult to ignore.

Chakrabarti described ThePrint as “so very, very toxic” and alleged that the newsroom was constantly anxious about what Gupta thought. She claimed employees were discouraged from interacting beyond work, that editors bent themselves to accommodate his preferences and that mentorship and collegiality were lacking.

She further alleged that she was pushed out after being sent to the Northeast under what she described as impossible conditions, and that someone was later hired to monitor “productivity”.

She described a culture in which work was extracted from employees while they were made to feel like “parasites” for asking for anything in return. She also alleged that former colleagues faced threats of salary cuts and that ex-employees were denied letters of recommendation.

Again, these are allegations. They require verification, investigation and a response from the organisation.

But there is a larger story.

When allegations from former employees emerge from multiple institutions that have spent years positioning themselves as moral arbiters of journalism, perhaps the industry should stop treating workplace toxicity as something that only happens in somebody else’s newsroom.

Where was this moral clarity when the victim was ideologically inconvenient?

Think about the broader pattern.

When the victim is politically useful to the Left, she becomes a symbol of resistance.

When the accused is ideologically hostile, every allegation becomes an opportunity for moral grandstanding.

But when the victim belongs to the political camp they dislike, the language changes.

Suddenly, credibility becomes negotiable. Context becomes important. Motives are questioned. We are told that things are “complicated”.

Sandeshkhali was instructive. Women publicly alleged sexual harassment and intimidation by local Trinamool Congress strongmen. There were subsequently competing allegations about political manipulation, including claims that women were pressured to file or withdraw complaints.

The principled position should have been simple: investigate every allegation, protect every complainant, punish every guilty person and do not weaponise victims for political purposes.

Instead, much of the discourse became about which political side the victims belonged to.

That is not feminism.

That is tribalism.

The same contradiction was visible in the treatment of Smriti Irani, who was subjected to vicious political and personal attacks, including misogynistic commentary. During the 2024 election campaign, Kangana Ranaut was also targeted by an objectionable, sexualised social-media post.

The principle should have been straightforward:

Don’t sexualise women because you disagree with them.

Not: Don’t sexualise women unless they are BJP supporters.

The former is feminism. The latter is political convenience.

Arnab Goswami and the selective outrage problem

The 2020 Kunal Kamra–Arnab Goswami episode offers another illustration of selective outrage.

To be clear, this was not a workplace-harassment case. Kamra and Goswami were not colleagues.

But it demonstrated how public humiliation of a journalist could be celebrated when the target was politically disliked.

Kamra confronted and heckled Goswami on an IndiGo flight from Mumbai to Lucknow, filmed the encounter and uploaded it online. IndiGo suspended him from flying for six months, while other airlines also imposed restrictions.

One can debate whether those bans were proportionate. One can debate the aviation regulations. But the basic principle should remain intact:

You do not get to decide that harassment, intimidation or public humiliation is unacceptable only when the target is someone you like.

Arnab’s journalism can be criticised. His editorial choices can be attacked. His political positions can be dismantled.

But cornering someone on an aircraft, where they cannot simply walk away, and turning the encounter into entertainment should not become heroic simply because the target is politically disliked.

That is the hypocrisy.

The outrage against Newslaundry is not necessarily a moral awakening

This is the most important distinction.

There is a temptation among people on the Right and Centre-Right to celebrate when Left-wing journalists turn against one of their own.

Yes, there is something satisfying about watching people who have spent years lecturing everyone else about workplace morality being forced to confront allegations concerning their ideological fellow travellers.

But do not confuse satisfaction with solidarity.

Their outrage against Newslaundry today does not guarantee that the next woman alleging harassment by someone ideologically aligned with the Left will receive the same sympathy.

It does not mean the next BJP worker describing intimidation will become a feminist icon.

And it certainly does not mean ideological double standards have disappeared.

The answer, therefore, is not to oppose criticism of Newslaundry.

It is to demand consistency.

If Newslaundry deserves scrutiny, scrutinise Newslaundry. If former employees have raised concerns, examine them. If complaints were mishandled, hold those responsible accountable. If allegations are false, the accused deserve due process.

The same standard must apply to ThePrint.

If Angana Chakrabarti’s allegations are true, they deserve to be taken seriously. If they are disputed, ThePrint and Shekhar Gupta deserve the opportunity to respond.

The principle cannot be: believe former employees when they accuse people we dislike and dismiss them when they accuse people we like.

That is not justice.

That is factionalism.

The real problem is moral exceptionalism

The deeper disease in Indian journalism is not merely ideological bias. It is moral exceptionalism.

Newsrooms love investigating everyone except themselves.

Journalists demand accountability from politicians while resisting scrutiny of their own institutions. Editors lecture corporations about workplace culture while dismissing complaints from junior employees. Commentators write about sexism while laughing at misogynistic jokes against women they dislike.

Newslaundry’s predicament is therefore bigger than Newslaundry. ThePrint allegations make it bigger still.

The question is whether journalists believe in universal standards or merely standards that can be deployed against their enemies.

If sexual harassment is wrong, it is wrong when the accused is a BJP leader, Congress leader, TMC leader, celebrity, professor, journalist or newsroom founder.

If workplace abuse is unacceptable, it is unacceptable whether the boss is a Modi supporter or Modi critic.

If victim-blaming is reprehensible, it remains reprehensible when the victim votes for the BJP.

And if due process matters, it must matter even when the accused is politically convenient.

Your editorial line is not your character certificate

There is a particularly delicious irony here.

The media ecosystem that lectures Indian society about patriarchy, power structures, toxic masculinity and institutional accountability has spent years portraying itself as the enlightened alternative.

Fine.

Then hold it to that standard.

If a conventional newspaper has a toxic boss, expose it. If a television newsroom abuses junior employees, expose it. If a digital publication does the same, expose it.

But do not give the “progressive” newsroom a presumption of moral superiority simply because its journalists write about feminism or criticise the government.

An organisation does not become feminist because it publishes feminist articles.

A newsroom does not become progressive because its journalists criticise the government.

And a media house does not become ethical because it investigates the ethics of other media houses.

Your editorial line is not your character certificate. Your conduct towards your employees is.

Do not outsource your morality to the Left

So yes, call out Newslaundry.

Call out the 2014 article. Call out victim-blaming. Call out allegations of workplace harassment. Ask difficult questions of Abhinandan Sekhri and Newslaundry.

And now ask ThePrint the same questions. Take Angana Chakrabarti’s allegations seriously enough to demand answers, while recognising that allegations must still be established through evidence and due process.

But do not outsource your moral compass to people whose outrage may follow ideological convenience.

You do not need Barkha Dutt to tell you workplace abuse is wrong.

You do not need Rohini Singh to tell you employees deserve dignity.

You do not need Newslaundry to teach you feminism.

And you certainly do not need the Left to validate the suffering of someone who happens to be politically inconvenient to them.

Stand with victims because they are victims.

Demand accountability because accountability is necessary.

Defend due process because due process is universal.

Condemn misogyny because misogyny is wrong.

Not because the victim belongs to your camp. Not because the accused belongs to the other camp. And not because the controversy gives you another weapon against your political opponents.

That is the difference between principle and propaganda.

Newslaundry is now being forced to confront what happens when an institution that spent years examining everybody else’s moral failures is itself placed under the microscope. ThePrint is facing questions of its own.

The answer should not be another round of ideological warfare.

It should be accountability.

Because the real test of morality is not whether you can condemn your enemy.

The real test is whether you can condemn your own.

The real test is whether you can stand with a victim when she is politically inconvenient. Whether you can condemn misogyny when the target is Smriti Irani or Kangana Ranaut. Whether you can listen to a former Newslaundry employee even when you agree with Newslaundry’s politics. Whether you can listen to a former ThePrint employee even when you admire Shekhar Gupta.

And whether your principles survive the moment your political tribe becomes the accused.

If they don’t, they were never principles.

They were merely weapons.

Yes, Newslaundry should answer. Yes, former employees should be heard. Yes, allegations should be investigated.

But no, you do not need to applaud the Left for finally discovering workplace harassment.

The lesson is not to trust the Left more. It is to trust principles more than tribes.

Do not believe someone because they are Left-wing. Do not disbelieve someone because they are Right-wing. Do not defend an accused person because they are ideologically aligned with you. Do not condemn someone merely because they oppose you.

Never let a political label determine whether harassment is harassment, whether misogyny is misogyny or whether a victim deserves to be heard.

The Left has spent years demanding that the rest of society confront its hypocrisy.

Fair enough. Now the mirror is facing them.

Let them answer.

And if their outrage at Newslaundry is genuine, it should survive beyond this news cycle, beyond ideological convenience and beyond the next politically useful target.

Otherwise, it is not accountability.

It is merely sabki dhulai se pehle apni bhi dhulai, followed by the same old hypocrisy once the headlines move on.

AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal casts aspersions on the integrity of Supreme Court Collegium: The dissection of the veiled attack on recent judicial appointments

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal casts aspersions on the integrity of Supreme Court Collegium: The dissection of the veiled attack on recent judicial appointments

Arvind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of Delhi and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo, has launched a direct attack on the integrity of the Indian judiciary. On 9th August, Arvind Kejriwal claimed that judges are in a “tearing hurry” to go to the Supreme Court and insinuated that the Collegium is inducting judges with demonstrated loyalty towards “emperor” Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Quoting a news report about the Supreme Court Collegium recommending Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Kejriwal claimed that the appointment of Justice Mishra by “bypassing seniority” makes him “vulnerable to quid pro quo”.

Casting aspersions on the integrity of, apparently, not just Justice Mishra but the entire judiciary, Kejriwal claimed that judges are being elevated to the Supreme Court based on “loyalty to the emperor”. The AAP leader’s remarks framed as ‘questions’ suggested that the Supreme Court Collegium is compromised and filling the apex court with judges ideologically aligned with the Modi government.

“It seems there is a tearing hurry to go to SC. Should judges be allowed SC elevation out of turn, bypassing seniority? That makes him vulnerable to quid pro quo. What is examined before a judge is elevated to SC? Loyalty to the emperor? Should people not know? What face will they show the young gen?” Kejriwal wrote.

Arvind Kejriwal further asserted that opaque elevation of judges should not be allowed, especially in the case of judges who “go out of the way to please the executive”.

“No out of turn, opaque elevation shud be permitted. Esp in such cases who throw law to the wind and go out of their way to please the executive. We should be careful of weaponisation of courts. Integrity of courts is most important for democracy to survive,” Kejriwal added.

Arvind Kejriwal’s statement is not only outrageous but is also replete with factual inaccuracies and hypocrisy.

Has Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra been elevated to the Supreme Court as Arvind Kejriwal insinuated?

The Aam Aadmi Party leader’s claim that Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra has been hurriedly elevated to the Supreme Court by bypassing seniority is baseless. The Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation is for permanent Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, not the elevation to the Supreme Court.

The CJI Surya Kant-headed Supreme Court Collegium made the recommendation to appoint Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the permanent Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 6th August. Justice Mishra was already serving as the Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Mishra has not been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Justice Mishra’s parent court was Allahabad, and he was appointed Additional Judge in February 2014 and made permanent in February 2016. Mishra was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and joined on 21st July 2025. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra became the senior-most puisne there (a junior judge or associate justice who sits on a court alongside, but lower in seniority than, a chief justice). Seniority here is based on the date of initial appointment.

After the previous Chief Justice Sheel Nagu was elevated to the Supreme Court, Justice Mishra took over as the Acting Chief Justice in early June 2026 under Article 223.

The Supreme Court Collegium’s permanent Chief Justice recommendation for Justice Mishra followed around two months later. What Arvind Kejriwal dubbed as some sort of alarming ‘weaponisation of judiciary ’ was, in reality, a standard practice for confirming an Acting Chief Justice and there is no question of bypassing seniority within High Court in this case.

Contrary to the allegation Arvind Kejriwal levelled that the Supreme Court is somehow acting at the behest of the ‘emperor’, is also factually incorrect. Firstly, the Supreme Court Collegium is an independent body of senior Supreme Court judges; it has nothing to do with the Executive or the ruling dispensation.

Secondly, Arvind Kejriwal offered not even a shred of evidence indicating that the Supreme Court recommendation for appointing Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was “out of turn” in the context of all-India High Court seniority conventions.

From the Nithari Killings case to handling matters pertaining to illegal mining, infrastructure, service law, environment, etc, Justice Mishra’s career exhibits no apparent record of any pro-BJP bias or explicit allegiance to the Modi government or vendetta against the AAP government in Punjab.

Neither has Arvind Kejriwal cited any, nor are there any publicly reported judgements by Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra involving Kejriwal, AAP or the alleged scams linked to his erstwhile government in Delhi. Thus, Kejriwal’s “throwing law to the wind” or quid pro quo with the executive allegations hold no factual ground and are nothing but a sensationalisation of a routine High Court appointment, for political gains.

Meanwhile, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das, who previously wrote a hit job against former CJI DY Chandrachud, amplified Arvind Kejriwal’s alarmist propaganda.

Much like Arvind Kejriwal, Saurav Das also did not elaborate on how the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation for permanent appointment of the Acting CJ of the Punjab and Haryana Court amounted to the weaponisation of the judiciary to meet political ends.

“Scathing comment by an Opposition leader on the state of affairs in the judiciary. Indeed, we should be very alarmed by the manner in which courts are being weaponised to achieve political ends. Our courts should be protected and remain institutions of very high integrity. The Young Gen will ensure this happens. Accountability shall be fixed,” he wrote.

Arvind Kejriwal’s attack was directed at Justice Sheel Nagu? If so, the AAP leader’s allegations are rooted in disdain, not logic

Interestingly, some AAP supporters have claimed that Kejriwal’s post was about Justice Sheel Nagu, who has been recently elevated to the Supreme Court. This interpretation, however, defies timeline, if we go by the post’s content and the quoted material. However, if we go by the Opposition’s record of vilifying judges who ruled against them in specific matters, then it makes sense that Kejriwal’s attack was about Justice Sheel Nagu’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

Arvind Kejriwal directly quoted a Bar and Bench X post, which had a link to its report about the Supreme Court recommendation of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. If Kejriwal was talking about Justice Sheel Nagu, why would he quote news material about Justice Mishra, and write, “That makes him vulnerable to quid pro quo”, unless Kejriwal was hiding behind ambiguity.

The Supreme Court Collegium meeting was held on 6th August 2026, and the apex court’s statement makes no mention of Justice Sheel Nagu, nor does the Bar and Bench report quoted by Arvind Kejriwal.

Notably, Justice Sheel Nagu served as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court from July 2024; the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation to the Supreme Court in May 2026. His appointment was notified by the Central government on 1st June 2026, and he assumed office as a Supreme Court judge on 2nd June.

Justice Nagu’s elevation created the vacancy for a permanent CJ to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, leading to Justice Ashwani Kumar becoming the Acting Chief Justice. Naturally, the Acting CJ was recommended to take over as the permanent CJ.

Regarding Justice Sheel Nagu’s elevation to the Supreme Court, Kejriwal’s “out of turn”, “bypassing seniority”, claims, even if directed at Nagu, are simply a political attack on the judiciary as well as the Central government.

While seniority is not completely disregarded, it is not the sole criterion the Supreme Court Collegium relies on while recommending judges for elevation to the apex court. Under the Collegium system, the Supreme Court judges weigh a blend of merit, overall track record, performance, and representative balance of different high courts rather than following a mechanical application of all-India seniority.

The Supreme Court Collegium is not bound to select judges in an unbroken sequence of chronological seniority. Apparently, Justice Sheel Nagu’s extensive tenure and disposal rate in the Madhya Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana High Courts were viewed as impressive in terms of administrative capability and judicial output, and the Collegium might deem him fit to handle the top court’s workload.

Justice Nagu is reported to have written over 499 judgements during his tenure as a Judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Nagu was also a part of the three-judge committee constituted by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to probe corruption accused Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma.

If seniority alone were a major deciding factor for promotions within the judiciary, the Indian Constitution would not have explicitly permitted the direct elevation of distinguished High Court advocates to the Supreme Court under Article 124(3). The Constitution directs the induction of diverse legal perspectives, bar experience, and specialised expertise even from active practice into the apex court.

However, Arvind Kejriwal appears to be hiding behind seniority, if his post was directed against Justice Sheel Nagu.

Because if departure from seniority criteria when picking Supreme Court judges was Kejriwal’s chagrin, he would have criticised advocate V. Mohana’s elevation to the Supreme Court. Alongside Justice Sheel Nagu, advocate V. Mohana was directly elevated as a Supreme Court judge on 2nd June 2026.

Apparently, Sheel Nagu has been a part of various matters linked to the Aam Aadmi Party. In November 2025, when a row erupted over Panjab University senate elections, the protestors had made it about state versus Centre, ‘RSS Murdabad’ slogans were raised, and AAP was among the key political parties to back the agitation.

At that time, the Punjab and Haryana Court bench led by Justice Sheel Nagu punctured the fear-mongering narrative, and the anti-BJP political parties and non-political elements were peddling regarding the election. The court had ordered the resumption of academic activities and stated that the elections must be held expeditiously, dismissing the need for politically-motivated chaos that was being exploited by AAP and various unions to target the Central government.

In April 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the petition filed by former AAP Rajya Sabha MP Rajinder Gupta, who was among the seven AAP MPs who resigned from AAP and joined the BJP.

Following his ‘defection’ to the BJP, the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) under the AAP government in Punjab had raided the premises of Trident Group’s Dhaula unit. Trident Group’s Chairman Emeritus is Rajinder Gupta. Following the raids, Trident had filed a petition in the High Court alleging political vendetta by the AAP government over his switch to the BJP. Another petition was filed regarding the sudden withdrawal of Gupta’s Punjab Police security cover.

In these matters, the Division Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry directed PPCB not to take coercive action against Gupta without giving 30 days to rectify deficiencies. It was found that the PPCB failed to demonstrate any environmental threat or presence of any poisonous effluents. Similarly, in the security cover-related plea, the Nagu-led bench directed the state government to ensure the safety of Gupta and his family.

Another matter wherein AAP encountered Justice Sheel Nagu in court was linked to another AAP MP, Sandeep Pathak, who jumped into the BJP. He too had filed a plea seeking interim protection from coercive action. In this case, the Punjab government first said that it had no information regarding the FIRs, and later assured no coercive action would be taken against Pathak without the court’s permission.

Interestingly, now CJP co-convenor Saurav Das who earlier legal investigative reporting had peddled conspiracy theories in connection with these cases and cast aspersions on the integrity of Justice Sheel Nagu. No wonder, many on social media are joking that perhaps Kejriwal’s X post in question was drafted by Saurav Das.

However, despite its purported belief that Justice Sheel Nagu has his loyalty devoted to the ’emperor’, AAP or Arvind Kejriwal have not openly demanded a probe against him nor presented substantial evidence of bias, beyond conspiracy theories. Thus, the “throwing law to the wind” or quid pro quo with the executive allegations, if directed against Nagu, lack serious factual basis.

Clearly, the supposed attack on Justice Sheel Nagu by AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal is not about judicial integrity but his own disdain for judges who weigh a case’s merit rather than offer blind compliance to AAP.

From saying ‘Supreme Court Collegium functioning smoothly’ to casting aspersions on its integrity: The hypocrisy of AAP and Arvind Kejriwal

It is amusing that Arvind Kejriwal is now casting aspersions on the integrity of the Supreme Court Collegium and claiming that it is acting at the behest of ‘emperor’ Modi to induct his loyalists. Kejriwal and his party AAP had welcomed the Supreme Court verdict that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in 2015.

The NJAC Act was brought by the Modi government in 2014 to replace the collegium with a commission comprising the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons selected by a panel including the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the CJI.

This framework was enacted with bipartisan legislative support and presidential assent. It was aimed at integrating judicial, executive, and civic perspectives into the appointment process, reflecting a pluralistic approach to constitutional governance. The NJAC Act was a landmark step towards ending the much-controversial and debated monopoly of the Supreme Court Collegium in judicial appointments.

However, the Supreme Court invalidated it in a 4:1 verdict, upholding the collegium on grounds that its primacy was essential to judicial independence, a component of the Constitution’s basic structure.

At that time, the AAP had welcomed the Supreme Court verdict, calling it a positive decision to protect independence of the judiciary. The Aam Aadmi Party had described the verdict as a major blow to the Modi government.

“The AAP is of the firm view that independence of the judiciary and a transparent system for the appointment of judges are of equal importance as both of them are interlinked…But Collegium should ensure greater transparency,” the AAP said in a statement in October 2015.

In December 2022, AAP had opposed a Private Member Bill introduced by MP Shri Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya on judicial appointments.  The National Judicial Commission Bill, 2022, was equated by the AAP to the NJAC Act struck down already by the apex court.

Back then, then AAP Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha had said that the “Collegium system was functioning smoothly”.

“…Collegium system functioning smoothly, scope for improvement but not for any political interference…I think we are attempting to do a constitutional impossibility. The current collegium system of appointment of judges is functioning smoothly. There could be a scope of improvement, which could be explored after discussions and dialogue with the judiciary.”

Bottomline: The AAP and Arvind Kejriwal are politicising judicial appointments apparently due to their own personal grudges. One can debate whether it was a case of factual inaccuracy in targeting Justice Mishra or a veiled attack on Justice Sheel Nagu; Kejriwal’s attack on the Collegium system was direct and appeared to be aimed at sowing distrust in public against the judiciary by insinuating the Supreme Court Collegium is not independent but being controlled by ‘emperor’ Modi.

From supporting the Supreme Court Collegium to now casting aspersions on its integrity, AAP and Arvind Kejriwal have weaved alarmist narratives around the judiciary to lend credence to their conspiracy theory that the Modi government is somehow taking over the judiciary, although the biggest irony remains that the same Modi government could not get the NJAC Act cleared by the Supreme Court.

Arfa Khanum questions Rahul Gandhi for criticising ‘his own government’ over Jharkhand student protests: How it exposes the Left’s moral bankruptcy

Jinit Jain
-
0
Arfa Khanum questions Rahul Gandhi for criticising ‘his own government’ over Jharkhand student protests: How it exposes the Left’s moral bankruptcy

There is something deeply revealing about The Wire ‘journalist’ Arfa Khanum Sherwani’s disappointment with Rahul Gandhi. On Monday, August 10, the journalist took to X to question why the Congress leader had spoken out against the Jharkhand government over the use of force against protesting students.

“What’s the problem with Rahul Gandhi? Apni hi Sarkar ke khilaaf bol rahe hain,” Sherwani wrote, before bringing up the Centre’s response to the July 20 protests in Delhi. She argued that PM Modi had remained silent for over 50 days before allegedly asking Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign and complained that neither Modi, his Home Minister nor the Delhi police commissioner had apologised to students over the July 20 crackdown.

For the unversed, July 20 witnessed a violent confrontation in Delhi, with Delhi Police personnel bearing the brunt of the unrest. So-called student protesters resorted to stone-pelting during their march towards Parliament, injuring several police personnel and breaching barricades, leading to widespread chaos and mayhem. Yet, Ms Sherwani compares it with peaceful protests in Jharkhand because the false equivalence offers her a convenient way to deflect from the uncomfortable reality that the two situations were fundamentally different: one involved violence and stone-pelting against police personnel, while the other involved students protesting against issues concerning examinations and recruitment.

By placing them in the same bracket, she appears less interested in whether the use of force was justified and more interested in who is politically responsible for it.

On the face of it, demanding accountability from governments for excessive use of force against students sounds perfectly reasonable. The problem is what Sherwani’s argument reveals when applied to the Jharkhand episode.

Rahul Gandhi had condemned the use of force against students protesting over irregularities in recruitment examinations in Jharkhand. The protests in Ranchi have been going on amid allegations surrounding examinations conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. On August 10, police used water cannons, tear gas and lathicharge as thousands of students and job aspirants marched towards the state Assembly.

And here lies the awkward question for Sherwani: why should the identity of the government responsible for the alleged excesses matter?

Congress is a constituent of the ruling alliance in Jharkhand, led by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. It is a junior partner in the state government. Therefore, when students allege that they have been subjected to excessive force while raising concerns about examination irregularities, Rahul Gandhi calling out the state administration should ordinarily be welcomed as an example of political accountability.

Instead, Sherwani appears disappointed that he did so.

That is precisely where the moral argument begins to collapse.

If lathicharge, tear gas or the alleged use of pellet guns against protesters is wrong when the BJP is in power, it cannot suddenly become politically inconvenient when the government in question is backed by the Congress. The principle cannot be “violence against protesters is unacceptable unless condemning it embarrasses an ally”.

The July 20 Delhi protests and the Jharkhand protests are not identical situations. The July 20 demonstration involved stone-pelting and vandalism, and more than 100 police personnel were reported injured.

That makes the distinction between peaceful protesters and violent elements important. But it also makes consistency even more important.

If Sherwani believes the Modi government must answer for police action against protesters, then the JMM-Congress government must answer for police action against students in Ranchi. If she believes the use of force against peaceful protesters deserves condemnation, then that principle must apply irrespective of whether the government in question sits in Delhi or Ranchi.

Instead, her criticism of Rahul Gandhi risks creating the impression that political loyalty comes before the rights of protesting students.

And that is the real problem.

The Left-liberal ecosystem has spent years demanding that governments be held accountable whenever students, farmers, activists or other protesters face police action. Yet the moment accountability threatens a political ally, the language changes. Suddenly, the question becomes: Why is Rahul Gandhi attacking “his own government”?

But why should it be “his own” government at all when the victims are students demanding answers?

Students do not become less deserving of sympathy because their protest embarrasses the Congress party. Nor does a government become immune from scrutiny because its survival depends on an opposition party’s alliance.

Rahul Gandhi’s intervention may have political implications for the JMM-Congress alliance. It may even allow the BJP to attack the Jharkhand government. But if the price of avoiding that political embarrassment is silence over allegations of excessive force against students, then what exactly is the point of all the grandstanding about student rights?

A genuine commitment to civil liberties requires one simple standard: condemn excessive force wherever it occurs, irrespective of who controls the government.

Otherwise, “justice” becomes nothing more than a partisan instrument.

And Sherwani’s reaction to Rahul Gandhi has inadvertently exposed precisely that uncomfortable hypocrisy and shameless moral bankruptcy.

How to plan your monthly budget that supports loan repayment

OpIndia Staff
-
0
How to plan your monthly budget that supports loan repayment

Taking a loan is not just about getting approval; it is also about ensuring that repayments fit comfortably into your monthly finances. Whether you are managing a personal loan or any other form of credit, understanding how EMIs affect your daily expenses, savings, and future goals is essential. Many borrowers focus only on the installment amount but overlook its impact on their overall cash flow. A well-planned budget helps you balance repayments with essential spending while keeping room for emergencies and unexpected costs, allowing you to manage your borrowing more confidently.

Start with the actual net income

The first step in creating a realistic budget is understanding how much you actually receive each month. Use your net income after deductions, not your gross salary or total cost to the company. Planning with a higher figure can lead to a budget that does not match your actual cash flow.

Salaried employees can check their monthly bank credits to find their net income. Self-employed individuals should calculate their average monthly income after subtracting regular business expenses. Using the correct income figure helps create a repayment plan that is practical and sustainable.

Categorize your fixed and variable outflows

Once you know your net income, list every single expense category. Separate these costs clearly into fixed and variable buckets for better clarity.

Fixed Outflows

● Essential Obligations: These include house rent, existing loan installments, and insurance premiums.

● Regular Commitments: These include essential digital subscriptions and society maintenance fees.

Variable Outflows

● Daily Expenses: These include monthly groceries, utilities, and transport costs.

● Lifestyle Expenses: These include dining out, clothing shopping, and weekend entertainment.

Periodic Outflows

● Annual Costs: These include yearly insurance renewals and seasonal festival expenses.

● Maintenance Costs: These include vehicle servicing charges and medical checkups.

Fixed expenses have predictable amounts, and you can plan them precisely. Variable expenses require close estimation based on your typical monthly usage patterns. You must amortise periodic expenses monthly so they do not create sudden pressure.

Position the loan EMI within the budget

Your monthly installment is a fixed outflow. You must position it as a top-priority item. Pay this obligation before any variable spending happens during the month.

Set up an automated debit for a date shortly after your salary arrives. This ensures the money leaves your account before you spend it on variable categories. This practical structure protects your repayment from getting displaced by regular shopping pressures.

The remaining balance becomes your actual pool for the rest of the month. Your mental model shifts toward spending only after handling your key obligations.

Build buffers for variable and periodic expenses

Budgets often fail because variable and periodic expenses arrive at bad times. A sudden vehicle repair or medical need consumes your available cash flow.

The disciplined approach is to build separate buffers for these specific categories. Set aside a fixed monthly amount for maintenance and irregular costs. When actual costs arrive, draw them directly from this accumulated buffer. This buffer discipline allows your financial plan to function smoothly through difficult months.

Use digital tools during planning

Before taking on any new debt, verify that the instalment fits your budget. Tools such as EMI calculators can help you estimate monthly payments, compare repayment options, and understand the overall cost of borrowing. For example, before applying for a personal loan, you can use online tools to calculate personal loan EMIs based on different loan amounts, interest rates, and repayment tenures.

Leading financial institutions offer digital tools such as EMI calculators that support borrowers in evaluating repayment scenarios before making a borrowing decision. Comparing the projected payment against the money left after meeting fixed costs helps you understand whether the loan fits comfortably within your budget.

Stress-test your monthly budget

A budget that works during normal months may still fail during emergencies. Test your financial plan against realistic stress scenarios before finalizing a commitment. 

● High Utility Bills: Imagine experiencing two months of unexpectedly high variable utility bills.

● One-Time Emergencies: Calculate how a one-time large expense of ₹30,000 impacts your savings.

● Income Disruptions: Plan for a temporary 20% income reduction lasting for three months.

If you are planning a personal loan, you can calculate personal loan repayment scenarios under different conditions to understand how changes in income or expenses may affect your monthly budget. 

Track actual versus planned spending monthly

A budget that stays hidden in a spreadsheet does not help you. You must actively track your actual spending against your planned categories every month.

This tracking habit does not need to be highly complex or time-consuming. A simple monthly review identifies financial drift before it becomes a major problem. This review protects your schedule and highlights opportunities to adjust your habits.

Build room for strategic prepayments

A well-structured budget creates excellent opportunities for occasional loan prepayments. You can direct a workplace bonus or a tax refund toward your principal balance. Avoid absorbing these temporary surpluses into your regular variable entertainment spending. Each extra payment reduces your total interest burden over the remaining tenure.

Adding small extra payments whenever possible can help you reduce your loan burden faster. However, ensure that prepayments do not affect your emergency savings or essential expenses. A balanced approach allows you to lower interest costs while maintaining financial stability.

Conclusion

A monthly budget that supports repayment is not just about restricting your lifestyle. It is about structuring your cash flow to protect essential obligations while maintaining financial flexibility. Whether you are managing a personal loan or another credit commitment, making your instalment payment early in the month, building a buffer, and reviewing spending patterns can make repayment easier. Borrowers who follow these habits create a stronger financial foundation and reduce the chances of repayment stress over time. The discipline required is simple, but its long-term impact on financial stability can be significant.

Congress’ love for protesting students ends where Parliament begins: How Rahul Gandhi and the Opposition mastered the art of ‘shooting and scooting’

Jinit Jain
-
0
Congress’ love for protesting students ends where Parliament begins: How Rahul Gandhi and the Opposition mastered the art of ‘shooting and scooting’

There is perhaps no better illustration of the Congress party’s politics than its newfound concern for students.

For weeks, Opposition leaders have been making dramatic speeches about students, examination irregularities, NEET paper leaks and alleged police action against protesters. Rahul Gandhi has demanded answers. Mallikarjun Kharge has demanded answers. Congress MPs have demanded answers. They have demanded the Home Minister’s presence in Parliament, demanded his resignation and repeatedly accused the government of being indifferent to the plight of students.

The rhetoric is loud. The outrage is theatrical.

The concern, however, appears to have a rather convenient expiry date.

Because when Parliament actually gets down to doing something about examination-related malpractice, the same Opposition that claims to be fighting for students suddenly discovers the exit door. Last month, Congress leaders staged a walkout during the passage of the paper leak Bill.

This is the fundamental problem with the Congress’ politics on student issues.

It does not appear to be interested in solving the problem as much as it is interested in owning the protest

Across the country, students are protesting against examination irregularities and administrative failures. What began with demonstrations in Delhi over the NEET paper leak has expanded into protests in other states, including Jharkhand and Kerala, as students and aspirants demand transparency, accountability and fairness in examinations.

These students have every reason to be angry.

For an aspirant, an examination is not merely a date printed on a calendar. It represents months and often years of preparation. Parents spend their savings. Students sacrifice social lives, employment opportunities and precious years of their youth. A paper leak or serious examination irregularity does not merely inconvenience them. It can destroy their plans.

The issue therefore deserves serious politics.

Unfortunately, serious politics is precisely what the Congress appears incapable of offering.

Instead, it has perfected a formula that can be described in four words:

Shooting and scooting.

Make an allegation.

Create a ruckus.

Demand a resignation.

Then run away when the other side starts answering.

On Monday, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju made the government’s position abundantly clear. He said the government was ready for a comprehensive discussion on the student movement and the issues surrounding the protests. He said Home Minister Amit Shah would make a statement and respond to the debate concerning the police action against protesters.

The government, in other words, put the ball squarely in the Opposition’s court.

The Opposition had been demanding a discussion.

The government said: Fine. Let us discuss it.

One would imagine that this would be precisely what the Opposition wanted.

Apparently not.

Rijiju also warned that the Opposition should not disrupt proceedings, indulge in sloganeering and walk out after the government begins responding.

Why would he have to say that?

Because this is not a hypothetical concern. It is a pattern.

The Congress and its allies have repeatedly demonstrated that they are far more comfortable making allegations than listening to the answers to those allegations.

They want the Prime Minister to answer. They want the Home Minister to answer. They want the Education Minister to answer.

But when those ministers actually stand up to respond, suddenly Parliament becomes an unacceptable place for debate.

This is not parliamentary accountability.

Parliamentary heckling masquerading as accountability

And the Opposition’s conduct over the examination reform legislation exposes the contradiction even more brutally.

Parliament recently passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026. The legislation is aimed at strengthening the framework against examination malpractice and addressing organised unfair means that threaten the credibility of public examinations.

Now, there can certainly be legitimate criticism of the Bill.

The Opposition could have argued that the provisions are inadequate.

It could have demanded stronger safeguards.

It could have proposed amendments.

It could have questioned the government’s implementation record.

It could have voted against the legislation.

That is what a parliamentary Opposition is supposed to do.

Instead, Opposition MPs walked out.

Read that again.

The same Opposition that spends days telling the country that students are suffering because of examination malpractice walked out when Parliament was debating legislation dealing with examination malpractice.

You couldn’t write a more perfect parody of Congress politics if you tried.

Outside Parliament:

“Save the students!”

Inside Parliament when a law addressing examination malpractice is debated:

Walk out.

Outside Parliament:

“Why isn’t the government answering?”

Inside Parliament when the government is ready to answer:

Create a ruckus.

Outside Parliament:

“We want accountability!”

Inside Parliament:

Demand resignation and leave.

This is not concern for students.

This is concern for the next political headline.

And the Congress’ problem is not merely that it walks out. The deeper problem is that it has conditioned itself to view every public grievance primarily through the prism of electoral politics.

Students are useful when they can be converted into an anti-government spectacle. Their grievances become useful when they can be turned into a slogan. Their protests become useful when cameras are present.

But the moment the discussion moves towards legislation, institutional reform, examination architecture, enforcement mechanisms and actual governance, the political glamour disappears.

And so does the Congress.

This is precisely why the Congress’ outrage over the July 20 protest crackdown deserves scrutiny.

If there was excessive force against students, it must be investigated. But their conspicuous silence on the disproportionate force against peaceful students protesting in Jharkhand reveals their concern for students is limited to political convenience. The moment their government or alliance is in the state, Congress suddenly forgets raising issues of student concern and the use of “force” against students.

If police personnel acted unlawfully, they must be held accountable.

If students were mistreated, the government must answer.

There should be no ambiguity about that. But there shouldn’t be any hypocrisy about that as well.

However, there is an equally important question: Why does Congress believe that the only possible response is disruption and resignation demands?

The government has said the Home Minister is ready to make a statement.

Then let him speak.

Let the Opposition speak. Let the evidence be placed on the table. Let the allegations be answered. Let the public decide.

That is how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

But that would deprive the Opposition of something far more valuable than an answer: the outrage itself.

Because once the government answers, the political campaign has to confront facts.

And facts are inconvenient for politics built around perpetual outrage.

We have seen this movie before.

Rahul Gandhi and the Opposition have made explosive allegations in Parliament, only to become noticeably less enthusiastic when the government actually begins responding. The “vote chori” episode was another example of this politics of allegation followed by avoidance.

The Opposition wants its allegations to become headlines.

It does not always appear equally interested in allowing the government’s rebuttal to become one.

That is the essence of “shooting and scooting”.

And there is another standard that Congress needs to answer for.

If the party genuinely believes that ministers responsible for examination controversies must resign, then surely that principle cannot change depending on whether the minister belongs to the BJP or Congress.

But when controversies emerge under Congress governments, the vocabulary mysteriously changes.

Suddenly, there must be an inquiry. Suddenly, we must wait for facts. Suddenly, institutional processes must be respected. Suddenly, resignation is not the answer.

But when the same allegation is directed at the Centre, resignation becomes the first and last sentence in the Congress’ press release.

Students deserve consistency.

They deserve politicians who will demand accountability whether the government in question is run by the BJP, Congress or any of its allies.

Because a leaked paper does not ask the student whether the government responsible is saffron, green, red or blue.

A corrupt examination system does not care about the ideology of the ruling party.

An aspirant who loses a year because of an examination scandal does not get that year back because Rahul Gandhi held a press conference.

This is why reducing the student movement to another Congress-versus-BJP political battle is itself an insult to the students.

They are asking for something much more basic.

A fair examination.

A transparent process.

Competent examination agencies.

Accountability for leaks.

Punishment for those who cheat the system.

And assurance that honest students will not be punished for somebody else’s criminality or administrative incompetence.

That requires institutional reform. It requires laws. It requires enforcement. It requires governments to be held accountable.

And, yes, it requires an Opposition that does more than shout.

But that last requirement may be the most difficult one for Congress.

Because Congress has increasingly turned politics into a performance in which the volume of the accusation matters more than the seriousness of the solution.

Look at the larger pattern.

Every social group is turned into a political constituency.

Farmers.

Women.

Minorities.

Backward classes.

Dalits.

Youth.

Students.

Congress presents itself as the protector of whichever group happens to be politically useful at a particular moment.

Before the 2024 elections, Rahul Gandhi’s “Jiski Jitni Aabadi, Uska Utna Haq” slogan was presented as a political revolution for marginalised communities.

Now students are being presented as another constituency whose grievances can be weaponised against the Modi government.

But students are not pawns on a political chessboard. They are not Congress’ next votebank.

And their future cannot be reduced to a press conference outside Parliament.

If Congress really cares about students, it should stop asking them to become props in its political battles and start treating them as citizens whose problems require serious institutional solutions.

If Congress believes the government’s examination reforms are inadequate, attend the Parliament and debate with the Centre.

If it believes the government is wrong, vote against the Bill.

If it believes the Home Minister is responsible, listen to his statement and dismantle his arguments.

If it believes the police used excessive force, produce the evidence and demand accountability.

If it believes examination agencies are failing, propose a better architecture.

And if a Congress-ruled state faces an examination scandal, apply exactly the same standards there.

That would be an Opposition doing its job.

What Congress is doing instead is much easier.

Stand with protesters.

Give fiery speeches.

Demand resignations.

Slogan-shout in Parliament.

Walk out.

Hold another press conference.

Repeat.

It is activism as theatre and opposition as content creation.

The students protesting across India deserve better.

They deserve politicians who will fight for them when the cameras are switched off.

They deserve Parliamentarians who will stay inside the House when the legislation is being debated.

They deserve an Opposition that is prepared to hear answers to the questions it asks.

And most importantly, they deserve a political class that understands one simple truth:

A student’s ruined career cannot be repaired by a hashtag or selective outrage

Congress can continue using students as political ammunition. It can continue demanding resignations before investigations are complete. It can continue walking out when uncomfortable answers begin.

But sooner or later, students themselves will ask the question that Congress desperately wants to avoid:

If you were really fighting for us, why did you walk away when it was time to actually do something for us?

That is a question Rahul Gandhi and the Congress cannot answer by shouting louder.

They will have to stay in the room.

From pellet guns, lathicharge, to media intimidation, everything dubbed wrong during Delhi’s CJP protest becomes ‘normal’ during Jharkhand student protest: The Left-Liberal hypocrisy

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
From pellet guns, lathicharge, to media intimidation, everything dubbed wrong during Delhi’s CJP protest becomes ‘normal’ during Jharkhand student protest: The Left-Liberal hypocrisy

Thousands of students are taking a “Vidhan Sabha Gherao” march to the Jharkhand state assembly in Ranchi on 10th August. The students are protesting against irregularities in various recruitment exams. As the student protest intensifies in Jharkhand, the Ranchi Police has said that it will use pellet guns against student protestors in case of “emergency”.

Ranchi City SP Paras Rana told the media that a large police force has been deployed as a precautionary measure and said that the protestors will not face inconvenience. However, if anyone resorts to violence, appropriate legal action will be taken.

“There will be a large number of students. Instructions have been issued to all Ranchi Police personnel that if the protesters conduct themselves peacefully, no inconvenience will be caused to anyone. However, if anyone attempts to resort to violence, appropriate legal action will be taken against them,” he said.

In a response to the question about a viral video wherein police personnel were seen carrying pellet guns as a weapon, SP Rana said that it was not a pellet gun but a paintball gun used to throw colored balls to mark and identify troublemakers. However, the officer said that pellet guns are being carried strictly for use during emergency situations.

“If a pellet gun is being carried, it is strictly for emergency situations. Regarding the viral video—what is being mistaken for a pellet gun is actually a paintball gun; it fires soft, colored balls used to mark and identify troublemakers. It is not a pellet gun,” the officer added.

Notably, pellet guns are 12-bore pump-action shotguns that fire cartridges loaded with pellets. Pellet guns are classified as less-lethal or non-lethal crowd-control equipment. These are a part of the standard equipment of specialised riot-control units.

Interestingly, the reaction of the Left-Liberal cabal to the apathy of the Jharkhand Mukta Morcha and Congress alliance Government towards the weeks-long students’ protest stands in sharp contrast to their fury during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest in Delhi in July.

Anti-BJP cabal that villainised Delhi Police over rumours of pellet guns use against protestors during CJP protests goes silent during Jharkhand student protest

Not too long ago, when the CJP protests turned violent during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march on 20th July, the Delhi Police was forced to respond with lathicharge and other strict measures.

The Left-Liberal cabal had claimed that the Delhi Police used pellet guns against innocent protesting students, although the march was replete with supporters of anti-BJP political parties.

From Congress, Samajwadi Party and other INDI Alliance parties, to their ideological supporters, all of them vilified the Delhi Police over alleged use of pellet guns when the 20th July protest turned violent.

Back then, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das had claimed that Delhi Police had used pellet guns against “peaceful protesters”. He shared a video showing marks on a protester’s body.

The villainization of the Delhi Police continued despite them publicly denying the use of pellet guns on peaceful protesters. The Delhi Police said, “Claims of pellet guns being used against peaceful protesters by Delhi Police on Monday are completely false and misleading. Delhi Police neither possesses pellet guns nor were they used during the ongoing protest. The public is requested not to share or circulate any unverified or misleading information.”

The CJP supporters had even attempted to mob lynch Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel and circulated their videos and pictures online for identification and later targeting. The anti-BJP cabal framed the police response to CJP protestors pelting stones at police personnel as ‘state repression’ of students, their right to protest, crushing of dissent by brute force and whatnot.

However, the same cabal has gone completely silent over the Ranchi Police’s admission of readiness to use pellet guns on student protests during ‘emergency’ in the Congress-JMM alliance-ruled Jharkhand.

Apparently, pellet guns are bad only when the police use them against protestors in BJP-ruled states. Even the leftist media has no problem with the Ranchi Police carrying pellet guns for ‘emergency’ use. Their maximal response to ‘crackdown on peaceful dissent’ is reserved only for the BJP governments.

While the Delhi Police has denied pellet guns use, the official SOPs and Supreme Court observations allow their use in exceptional circumstances after other softer measures. However, when the police in non-BJP states openly boast readiness to use the same pellet guns to suppress the protests if it turns violent, the same left-liberal ecosystem largely remains silent. Even the Delhi Police had not resorted to strict measures for fun.

The CJP protest continued for over a month, and the police did not forcefully remove even a single ‘cockroach’ from Jantar Mantar; even climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on indefinite hunger strike, was shifted to a hospital only on the court’s order. It was only when the protest turned violent on 20th July that the Delhi Police and RAF acted in accordance with the SOP, and did a lathicharge against violent CJP protestors, essentially in a proportionate emergency.

However, given the political utility of the so-called ‘excesses’ by the Delhi Police during the CJP protest, the Congress-led Opposition has continued protests outside Parliament. It is not letting the House function properly until Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on the issue. It’s been more than three weeks since the CJP protests were called off, and yet the domestic and foreign Leftist media continues to frame the Delhi Police-CJP episode as ‘brutal suppression of peaceful dissent’. Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court to seek a ban or stricter SOPs on the use of pellet guns.

Everything wrong during CJP protest became right during Jharkhand student protest: The Liberal hypocrisy

Collectively, the same left-liberal cabal that has stayed quiet on Jharkhand student protests is still devoted to portraying the Delhi Police’s response to CJP’s violent protests as emblematic of fear-driven authoritarian overreach by the BJP-led Central government.

Now, when the JMM-Congress-led administration in Jharkhand has unleashed lathis and water cannons and even expressed readiness to use pellet guns against students protesting against corruption in JPSC and JSSC, all the opposition parties and their media lackeys have turned a blind eye.

This is not only about the use of pellet guns; the liberal cabal has maintained a hypocritical silence over the Jharkhand student protests. Even their limited commentary is performative, just as CJP’s support to Jharkhand student protestors was. Clearly, the anti-BJP ecosystem delivers moral lectures on democracy, dissent, and constitutional rights, etc, only when the BJP leads the ruling dispensation.

Jharkhand Police have put up barbed wire, have lathi-charged students in Ranchi, police personnel are carrying pellet guns, and even intimidated journalists, including Aman Chopra and OpIndia’s Keshav Malan, that too when the students are peacefully protesting while the liberals were accusing the Central government of police action against the CJP mob that indulged in stone pelting.

On 9th August, an OpIndia reporter was removed by Jharkhand Police after questioning CM Hemant Soren about JPSC reforms. The police also stopped him from going near the stage where CM Soren was seated during an event just a few kilometres away from the protest site.

Journalist Aman Chopra has been booked for covering student protests in Jharkhand. He was detained and questioned by the police. Chopra has said that he has been restricted from covering the ongoing protest in Ranchi.

Apparently, democracy and press freedom come under threat, rather collapse in real or in rhetoric, only when the ruling dispensation is helmed by the BJP. In contrast to the police action against journalists in Ranchi, Delhi Police did not book any media person in connection with the CJP protests despite there being a section of leftist reporters on the ground peddling sheer disinformation.

In fact, neutral reporters were labelled ‘Godi media’ and heckled by CJP protestors, and the same degeneracy was celebrated online by leftists. As per the liberal logic, when non-BJP governments use pellet guns, book and intimidate journalists, peaceful students are lathi-charged, and the sitting chief minister dodges accountability, it is all for the ‘greater good’ of maintaining law and order

The human cost of India’s paper leak crisis

Raju Das
-
0
The human cost of India’s paper leak crisis

Paper leaks have become a recurring national crisis that strikes at the heart of Indian meritocracy, even as protests over the cancelled NEET-UG 2026 examination begin to fade. While medical aspirants have moved on to counselling after the re-test, agitation continues in Jharkhand over recruitment exams and in Punjab over cheating scandals, showing that compromised public tests have become a stubborn affliction.

The human cost falls hardest on middle-class and lower-middle-class families. For them, education is often the single largest investment of a lifetime. Parents sell jewellery, take loans and spend ₹1–3.5 lakh a year on coaching in places such as Kota and Sikar, treating competitive exams as the only reliable path to social mobility. A leak shreds that unwritten contract. Years of dawn-to-dusk study and family sacrifice are rendered worthless when better-connected candidates buy the questions. Affluent families can fall back on foreign education or private-college quotas; ordinary families cannot. Delays, re-tests and extra years of coaching push many into deeper debt, and despair has in some cases led to suicide.

The problem is long-standing. From the cancelled AIPMT of 2015 through SSC, CBSE and state recruitment scandals, organised networks of middlemen, coaching intermediaries and solver gangs have exploited every weak link. Convictions of senior organisers remain rare.

NEET-UG is uniquely vulnerable. More than two million candidates compete for about 1.1 lakh medical seats, many of them low-fee government places that can change a family’s fortunes for a generation. The pen-and-paper model remains a logistical nightmare. Papers travel from setting and translation through printing, packing, long-distance transport and storage in vaults or school strong rooms. NTA’s thin permanent staff and heavy outsourcing fragment accountability. Encrypted apps then spread a leaked paper nationwide in minutes.

The government has responded with the Public Examinations Act 2024, a 2026 amendment that raised penalties and imposed fast-track timelines, the Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations for encrypted just-in-time printing and secure centres, and a new Nilekani task force. Lasting reform requires shortening the physical chain of custody, insulating paper-setters from coaching networks, regulating the coaching industry, and expanding affordable medical seats so that a single exam is no longer a life-changing lottery worth the crime. Until then, every leak will continue to cancel not just an examination but years of honest sacrifice.

You can read the full article on Chapter 1 Magazine.

1...181920...7,651Page 19 of 7,651