Mumbai: An investigation first published by The Caravan on 30 January 2019, subsequently brought back into public discussion through its republication by CineBuster Magazine, raises questions about historical complaints concerning property transactions, alleged financial irregularities and judicial appointments. With Justice Surya Kant now serving as Chief Justice of India, attention has returned to what was alleged, what was examined and what remains publicly ascertainable.

A HISTORICAL REPORT WITH RENEWED PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

The appointment of a Chief Justice of India carries constitutional significance far beyond the individual assuming office. The position represents the highest level of judicial leadership and places particular importance on impartiality, institutional integrity and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Justice Surya Kant assumed office as Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025. His judicial career, however, had already attracted controversy several years earlier, when allegations concerning property transactions and certain judicial orders were reported by The Caravan in January 2019.

The original report, written by Atul Dev, examined complaints reportedly submitted to the Supreme Court concerning Justice Kant’s conduct while serving as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It also discussed objections attributed to former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Goel concerning Justice Kant’s elevation to the position of Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The republication of that investigation by CineBuster Magazine brings the historical record back into public discussion. The central issue is not whether allegations appearing in a magazine should automatically be accepted as true. Rather, it is whether the complaints were examined through appropriate institutional procedures and what conclusions, if any, were reached.

These distinctions are essential. Allegations are not proof, and no individual should be declared guilty merely because accusations have been published. Nevertheless, serious questions about the integrity of public institutions deserve scrutiny based on evidence, due process and the available record.

Affidavit by Satish Kumar Jain

FROM HARYANA’S LEGAL PROFESSION TO THE HIGHER JUDICIARY

Justice Surya Kant began practising law in Hisar, Haryana, in 1984 before moving to Chandigarh to practise before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He became Advocate General of Haryana in 2000 and was appointed a permanent judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in January 2004.

In October 2018, he assumed office as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. He was elevated to the Supreme Court of India in May 2019 and subsequently became Chief Justice of India in November 2025.

The significance of the controversy lies in the fact that the complaints described in the 2019 report predated these elevations. The report questioned whether the concerns raised at the time had received sufficient scrutiny before Justice Kant was recommended for higher judicial responsibilities.

The circumstances of his elevation were also debated within the judiciary, according to correspondence and accounts reproduced in the original investigation.

THE 2012 COMPLAINT: PROPERTY DEALINGS AND ALLEGED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

One of the principal allegations examined in the 2019 investigation originated in August 2012. Satish Kumar Jain, a Chandigarh-based businessman working in construction and real estate, reportedly wrote to then Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia.

Jain alleged that he had undertaken renovation work and facilitated property transactions connected with Justice Kant, and raised concerns about unpaid dues, alleged cash payments and the declared consideration for several properties. His complaint referred to a sum of approximately ₹7.63 crore in alleged tax and transaction irregularities.

According to the report, the Supreme Court Registry responded on 11 September 2012 that the complaint required verifiable supporting material and an affidavit. Jain reportedly submitted a sworn affidavit six days later.

The affidavit and supporting documents, as described in the investigation, formed the basis of several specific allegations.

RENOVATION WORK AND THE CLAIM OF UNPAID DUES

Jain reportedly stated that he had been asked to undertake renovation work at three properties: the official residence in Chandigarh’s Sector 10, a two-bedroom property in Sector 16, and a farmhouse extending over approximately 15 acres in Panchkula, Haryana.

The reported cost of the work was around ₹19 lakh. Jain alleged that he had initially received no payment. In his subsequent affidavit, he reportedly acknowledged receiving ₹6 lakh after submitting his complaint to the Supreme Court.

The dispute over payment was separate from, but formed part of the background to, the more serious allegations Jain subsequently raised concerning property transactions.

According to his account, the transactions involved discrepancies between the amounts allegedly paid and the amounts recorded in the relevant sale deeds. He claimed that portions of the consideration had been paid in cash and were not reflected in the registered documents.

These claims were allegations made by Jain. Their evidentiary significance depends on the underlying records, the complete transaction history and any findings reached by the competent authorities.

THE KUMARHATTI FARMHOUSE TRANSACTION

One transaction identified in the report concerned a farmhouse on Nahan Road in Kumarhatti, Himachal Pradesh.

Jain alleged that the property was worth approximately ₹2.32 crore when it was sold in March 2010. According to his account, the sale deed recorded consideration of only ₹13 lakh, while the remaining approximately ₹2.20 crore was allegedly paid in cash.

Jain further claimed that the cash component was received on Justice Kant’s behalf because, according to the complainant, the judge was the actual owner of the property.

If established by reliable evidence, a discrepancy of this nature would raise questions about the accuracy of the registered consideration and compliance with applicable tax and property laws. The allegation itself, however, cannot substitute for a formal finding about ownership, payment or liability.

THE PANCHKULA PLOT: TWO DIFFERENT FIGURES

The investigation also described a residential plot measuring approximately 441 square metres in Panchkula.

Jain reportedly claimed that the property was sold in April 2011 for ₹3.10 crore, although the registered sale deed reflected consideration of ₹1.50 crore. He alleged that the difference was paid outside the registered transaction in cash.

The allegation formed part of the broader claim that certain properties were transacted at declared values substantially below the amounts allegedly exchanged.

The relevant questions include whether the complete payment trail can be established, what the transaction documents recorded and whether any competent authority independently verified the alleged discrepancy.

THE GREATER KAILASH PROPERTY IN NEW DELHI

Another transaction concerned a residential property measuring approximately 285 square yards in Greater Kailash-I, an upscale locality in New Delhi.

According to Jain’s account, Justice Kant purchased the property in September 2010 from Diya Kumari, a member of the former Jaipur royal family who later entered politics with the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Jain alleged that the actual purchase consideration was ₹3.50 crore, whereas the sale deed recorded ₹1 .50 crore. He claimed that the remaining ₹2 crore was paid in cash by the judge’s wife at the seller’s residence in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, and stated that he had accompanied her there.

The report also discussed the prevailing circle rate for Greater Kailash in September 2010. It cited a rate of approximately ₹1.25 lakh per square metre, which, according to the investigation’s calculation, placed the property’s indicative value at around ₹3 crore.

The significance of the comparison was that the registered consideration described in the complaint was substantially lower than the estimate derived from the stated circle rate.

Circle rates, however, are valuation benchmarks and do not, by themselves, establish the actual consideration paid in a particular transaction or prove an offence. Any conclusion would require examination of the relevant deeds, payment records, valuation evidence and applicable law.

THE CHANDIGARH PROPERTY AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS

A further allegation related to a residential property measuring approximately 190 square yards in Chandigarh’s Sector 18.

Jain reportedly asserted that the property had been purchased for ₹3.08 crore, although he alleged that the declared consideration was considerably lower. His complaint described the difference as an alleged cash transaction.

The Caravan investigation also noted an important documentary complication: the material attached to the complaint included two sale deeds dated March and April 2011 . One recorded a consideration of ₹3.08 crore, while the other reflected ₹1.45 crore.

This discrepancy makes it particularly important not to treat the allegation as a settled conclusion without examining the complete documentary record. The relationship between the two deeds, their legal effect and the actual consideration would need to be established before drawing firm conclusions.

The report further compared the transaction with the circle rate it cited for the locality, approximately ₹3.49 lakh per square yard, and estimated that the property would have had a substantially higher benchmark value.

Taken together, the transactions described by Jain raised questions about declared consideration, alleged cash payments and possible tax or stamp-duty implications.

Whether any of those allegations were ultimately substantiated is a separate question that must be answered through verified findings rather than inference alone.

THE 2017 COMPLAINT CONCERNING BAIL ORDERS

The 2019 investigation also described a second set of allegations, distinct from the property dispute.

According to the report, a prisoner named Surjit Singh, held in a high-security prison in Patiala, Punjab, submitted a complaint in 2017 concerning eight bail orders passed by Justice Kant between October 2015 and February 2017.

The complaint reportedly alleged that bribes had been accepted in connection with bail in cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. It also accused the judge’s brother, nephew and two lawyers of acting as intermediaries.

These were serious accusations. The report did not establish that the alleged payments had been proved in a criminal proceeding. The claims must therefore be understood as allegations contained in the complaint, not as findings of guilt.

Nevertheless, the nature of the accusations made the question of institutional examination especially important. Where allegations concern possible interference with judicial decision-making, any assessment must be based on the relevant orders, case records, evidence of alleged payments and the responses of those concerned.

The 2019 report stated that the complaints had not resulted in the kind of independent examination sought by Justice A.K. Goel. The precise status and eventual outcome of each complaint should be verified from authoritative records before any present-day conclusion is published.

JUSTICE A.K. GOEL’S OBJECTIONS AND THE CALL FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION

A central element of the controversy was the correspondence attributed to Justice A.K. Goel, then a Supreme Court judge.

AK Goel’s March 2017 letter refers to Corruption

As described in the report, Justice Goel had considered complaints concerning property acquisitions and alleged irregularities in bail orders. He reportedly expressed the view that independent property valuations and further verification were necessary.

On 10 January 2018, the collegium recommended Justice Kant for appointment as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, notwithstanding the fact that Justice A.K. Mittal was senior to him in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The collegium’s recorded reasoning, as reproduced in the investigation, was that it considered Justice Kant more suitable after taking relevant factors into account.

Two days later, on 12 January 2018, Justice Goel reportedly wrote to then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra expressing disagreement with the recommendation. He referred to his earlier opinion concerning complaints against Justice Kant and stated that, in his assessment, the appointment should not proceed until a thorough inquiry had been conducted.

His earlier observations, according to the report, included the need for independent valuation of certain properties and closer examination of eight bail orders referred to in the complaint.

The correspondence therefore raised two distinct issues: whether the complaints had been adequately examined, and whether the concerns expressed by a senior judicial colleague had been fully considered before the appointment recommendation was made.

Justice Goel’s objections were significant as part of the historical record, but they did not themselves constitute a judicial determination that the allegations were true.

SENIORITY, THE COLLEGIUM AND THE 2018 APPOINTMENT

The controversy also involved the question of judicial seniority.

Justice A.K. Mittal, who was senior to Justice Kant in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was not selected for the Himachal Pradesh High Court chief justiceship. The Caravan report described differing views within the collegium and referred to consultations involving judges who had served in Chandigarh.

The report also discussed the possible influence of changing collegium membership and the views of individual judges on the eventual recommendation.

These accounts were attributed to former and sitting members of the higher judiciary. They should be read as reported accounts of the appointment process rather than as independently established proof of improper influence.

The wider institutional question remains important: how should the collegium balance seniority, professional merit, suitability and complaints against a candidate? Judicial appointments necessarily require evaluative judgment, but the existence of credible complaints raises the question of what verification is appropriate before a recommendation is finalised.

On 3 October 2018, Justice Kant was appointed Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The investigation questioned why the appointment proceeded despite the concerns it described and whether the underlying issues had been resolved during the intervening period.

THE PUBLIC DEBATE IN 2019

The controversy did not end with the original report.

In January 2019, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan reportedly wrote to then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi seeking an inquiry into the allegations and arguing that the complaints should be credibly examined before Justice Kant’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

There was also a public response from the Bar Council of India, whose chairman characterised the allegations as baseless. That response is part of the historical debate and should be considered alongside the original allegations and the correspondence attributed to Justice Goel.

The existence of competing public positions illustrates why responsible reporting must distinguish between an accusation, a denial, a request for inquiry and an official finding. None of those categories should be substituted for another.

FROM HIGH COURT CHIEF JUSTICE TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

Justice Kant was elevated to the Supreme Court in May 2019 and assumed office as Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025. The Supreme Court’s official website identifies him as the serving CJI and records his retirement date as 9 February 2027.

His present constitutional position gives renewed public importance to questions about the institutional handling of the historical complaints. It does not, by itself, establish that the allegations were true, nor does it demonstrate that any appointment was legally invalid.

The critical issue is whether the record can establish what happened after the complaints were submitted: whether they were investigated, whether the relevant material was independently verified, whether the concerns were resolved, and whether any official conclusions were recorded.

If the competent institutions examined the complaints and reached conclusions, those outcomes should be accurately reported to the extent they can lawfully be disclosed. If the record is incomplete or unavailable, the limitations should be stated rather than replaced with speculation.

QUESTIONS THAT MERIT AUTHORITATIVE ANSWERS

The historical material raises several questions that can be addressed only through reliable documentation and responses from the appropriate institutions:

1. Status of the complaints: What was the final disposition of the complaints attributed to Satish Kumar Jain and Surjit Singh?
2. Independent verification: Were the relevant property records, valuations, payment details and bail orders independently examined?
3. Justice Goel’s correspondence: What action, if any, followed from the concerns and recommendations reportedly communicated by Justice Goel?
4. Appointment procedure: What material was considered by the collegium when it recommended Justice Kant for the Himachal Pradesh High Court chief justiceship in January 2018?
5. Subsequent developments: Were there later inquiries, official findings, formal responses or other developments that materially changed the position described in the 2019 report?
6. Public accountability: What information can lawfully be disclosed to explain how the complaints were handled while preserving the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all concerned?

These questions are not findings against Justice Kant. They are questions about the historical record and the institutional procedures that govern complaints concerning members of the higher judiciary.

A MATTER OF PUBLIC TRUST, NOT PREJUDGMENT

The authority of the judiciary rests on the Constitution, the rule of law and the confidence of citizens that justice is administered impartially. That confidence is protected not by suppressing difficult questions, but by ensuring that credible complaints are handled through fair and appropriate procedures.

At the same time, allegations must never become a substitute for evidence. A judge cannot responsibly be declared guilty on the basis of a complainant’s affidavit, a media investigation or disagreement within the collegium alone. The complete documentary record, subsequent developments and any formal findings must be taken into account.

The republication of the 2019 investigation therefore presents an opportunity to revisit a matter of public interest with accuracy and restraint. It calls for clarity about the treatment of the historical complaints, the reasoning behind the appointments described in the report and the extent to which the concerns were resolved.

The issue is ultimately larger than any one appointment. It concerns the standards of transparency, fairness and accountability expected of the institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional rights.

The public deserves verified answers, not assumptions. Judicial independence must be protected, and accountability must be pursued through evidence, due process and the same standards of fairness that the judiciary is expected to uphold.

Editorial clarification: This article recounts allegations and historical developments reported in 2019. It does not assert that Justice Surya Kant committed corruption, tax evasion or any other offence. Any subsequent inquiry, official response or judicial finding must be verified and incorporated before publication.

Sources for editorial verification

The Caravan — Atul Dev’s original investigation, published 30 January 2019: Read the original report.

Supreme Court of India — Official Chief Justice and judges listing.

The Wire — January 2019 report on the request for an inquiry.

Bar & Bench — Coverage of the 2019 public debate and response from the Bar Council of India

The post JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER SCRUTINY: REVISITING THE HISTORICAL ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CJI SURYA KANT first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

Mumbai: When citizens begin questioning the integrity of elections and the freedom to protest, the government must answer with transparency, evidence and accountability—not silence or intimidation.

India calls itself the world’s largest democracy. But democracy is not measured merely by the number of voters, the frequency of elections or the size of a parliamentary majority. It is measured by whether every eligible citizen can vote freely, whether every vote is counted fairly, whether dissent is protected, and whether those exercising state power remain accountable to the Constitution.

The growing controversy over alleged irregularities in electoral rolls, demands for greater transparency from the Election Commission of India, and reports of protesters being detained have brought these fundamental questions into sharp focus.

The title “The Illegal Prime Minister” is a political challenge to Narendra Modi’s democratic legitimacy—not, by itself, a judicial finding that his appointment as Prime Minister is unlawful. The central question is whether the institutions underpinning India’s electoral democracy are operating with the transparency, independence and accountability that the Constitution demands.

1. Vote Theft: Are Voters Being Denied Their Democratic Voice?

Allegations of voter deletions, discrepancies in electoral rolls and irregularities in voter verification have fuelled public concern. Opposition leaders and activists have demanded explanations, while the Election Commission has defended electoral-roll revisions as necessary to remove duplicate and ineligible entries.

The controversy raises a question that should concern every Indian, regardless of political affiliation: can every eligible voter independently verify that their name remains on the electoral roll and that their democratic right is protected?

In October 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice on a petition concerning alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and sought records relating to the Election Commission’s decision-making. These proceedings make transparency and independent scrutiny especially important. The allegations must be examined on the evidence, and affected voters must have an accessible process to challenge wrongful deletions.

An election can command public confidence only when the process is demonstrably fair, verifiable and open to lawful scrutiny.

2. Peaceful Protest and the Question of Illegal Detention

The right to question those in power is a cornerstone of democracy. Citizens must be able to assemble peacefully, express disagreement and demand answers without fear of arbitrary detention.

Recent protests over electoral-roll controversies have been accompanied by reports of mass detentions, restrictions on movement and disruptions to public services. Human rights organisations have criticised the handling of protesters, while authorities have cited public-order and security concerns.

The Supreme Court’s interventions concerning the Delhi protests have underscored the need to prevent illegal detention and protect lawful peaceful assembly, subject to legitimate public-order requirements.

The distinction is vital: maintaining public order is a lawful responsibility, but peaceful dissent cannot automatically be treated as a threat to the state. Where arrests or detentions occur, the authorities must demonstrate their legal basis and comply with constitutional safeguards.

A democracy must never confuse criticism of the government with hostility towards the country.

3. Is the Election Commission Independent Enough?

The Election Commission of India occupies a position of extraordinary public trust. Its credibility must rest not only on its constitutional status but also on demonstrable impartiality, transparent procedures and consistent enforcement of electoral rules.

When allegations arise concerning voter deletions or electoral irregularities, the appropriate response is to publish relevant records, explain the methodology, investigate credible complaints and provide effective remedies to affected voters. The Commission must be able to withstand scrutiny without political favour or fear.

Equally, allegations against it must be assessed on evidence rather than accepted merely because they are made by political opponents.

Electoral integrity cannot depend solely on the assurances of the institution responsible for administering elections. It must also be capable of independent verification.

4. Freedom of Speech, Journalism and Civil Dissent

A healthy democracy permits uncomfortable questions. Journalists must be able to investigate public-interest matters, citizens must be able to criticise public officials, and opposition parties must be able to challenge government policy.

Restrictions on speech, internet access, public gatherings and media activity require careful scrutiny. Any restriction must have a lawful basis, pursue a legitimate objective and be proportionate to the circumstances.

The government may disagree with its critics. It may rebut their claims and challenge falsehoods. What it must not do is allow the democratic space for peaceful disagreement to shrink beyond what the law permits.

5. Accountability Over Electoral Promises and Governance

Democratic legitimacy is sustained between elections as well as during them. Questions concerning employment, economic opportunity, inflation, public services, corruption allegations and the treatment of vulnerable communities deserve serious public examination.

These issues should not be reduced to slogans or partisan accusations. They should be evaluated against verifiable data, policy outcomes, official records and the government’s own commitments.

A government with a parliamentary majority is entitled to govern within the law. That majority does not exempt it from scrutiny, nor does electoral victory give any administration unlimited authority.

6. Constitutional Institutions Must Remain Above Political Interests

Parliament, the Election Commission, the judiciary, investigative agencies and the police all have distinct constitutional or statutory responsibilities. Public confidence weakens whenever credible questions arise about whether these institutions are acting independently and consistently with the law.

The answer is not to presume every allegation true. It is to ensure that complaints are investigated fairly, evidence is preserved, proceedings are transparent where legally appropriate, and those responsible for misconduct are held accountable.

The Constitution protects both the authority of the elected government and the rights of citizens. Neither can be allowed to erase the other.

7. The Opposition and the Responsibility to Prove Their Claims

The opposition has a legitimate role in scrutinising elections and challenging government conduct. But serious allegations—including claims of “vote theft”—must be supported by verifiable evidence.

Voter-level discrepancies, documented deletion errors, official records, court findings and independently audited data are more persuasive than viral posts or unverified claims circulated on social media.

The same standard must apply to the government. Dismissing concerns as political propaganda without addressing credible evidence is no substitute for a transparent response.

Democratic accountability requires evidence, consistency and equal standards for everyone.

8. Why the Title “The Illegal Prime Minister”?

The title is deliberately provocative. It asks whether democratic legitimacy can be sustained when serious questions about electoral transparency, institutional independence and civil liberties remain unresolved.

However, an important legal distinction must be maintained: Narendra Modi’s status as Prime Minister cannot accurately be described as legally invalid merely because allegations of electoral wrongdoing or voter-roll irregularities have been raised. Such a conclusion would require an appropriate legal basis and relevant judicial findings.

The stronger democratic argument is that no elected leader should be beyond scrutiny. The legitimacy of government is reinforced—not weakened—when allegations are investigated impartially, evidence is disclosed and institutions are seen to operate independently.
The title is therefore a demand for accountability, not a substitute for proof.

9. What Must Happen Now?
The following measures would help restore and strengthen public confidence:

– Electoral transparency: Publish clear, auditable information about voter additions, deletions and corrections, subject to lawful privacy safeguards.

– Effective voter remedies: Ensure that eligible citizens can promptly challenge wrongful deletion and verify their registration.

– Independent scrutiny: Investigate credible allegations of electoral malpractice through impartial and legally authorised mechanisms.

– Protection of peaceful protesters: Ensure that detentions have a lawful basis, procedural safeguards are respected and peaceful assembly is facilitated within reasonable legal limits.

– Accountability for misconduct: Investigate substantiated allegations of excessive force, unlawful restrictions or abuse of public office.

– Freedom of the press: Protect lawful reporting and ensure that restrictions on journalists are justified by law.

– Public answers: Require the relevant authorities to address documented concerns with evidence rather than rhetoric.

Conclusion: The Republic Belongs to Its Citizens

India’s democracy belongs neither to one political party nor to one individual. It belongs to the people whose votes confer political authority and whose constitutional rights place limits on that authority.

The allegations surrounding electoral rolls and the reported detention of protesters demand transparent answers, careful investigation and respect for constitutional freedoms. They should neither be dismissed without examination nor declared proven without evidence.

Narendra Modi and his government, like every elected government, must be judged by their adherence to constitutional principles, the integrity of the electoral process and their willingness to answer legitimate public questions.

The real test of leadership is not whether criticism can be silenced. It is whether a government can face scrutiny and still command public confidence.

No vote should be unlawfully denied. No peaceful citizen should be arbitrarily detained. No public institution should be beyond accountability. And no elected leader should be above the Constitution.

That is the democratic question behind the headline: “The Illegal Prime Minister.” Ultimately, the answer must come from evidence, constitutional principles and the lawful institutions of the Republic—not from a slogan alone.

10. Who Were the Men Seen Assaulting Protesters—and Why Were They Allowed to Act?

One of the most disturbing questions emerging from the recent Delhi protests concerns video footage showing men assaulting demonstrators, including a young woman. The protest organisers alleged that the men were associated with the BJP and RSS and questioned why the police appeared not to intervene to protect the protesters.

A report by Scroll, citing The Indian Express, said that four men seen in a viral video assaulting demonstrators were arrested. Their alleged political affiliations and the circumstances surrounding the incident must be established through a proper investigation.

But the larger question remains: when students and women take to the streets to exercise their democratic rights, who is responsible for protecting them from physical violence?

Were the individuals involved identified? Was the police response timely? Were the available videos examined? Were all those responsible, regardless of political affiliation, investigated under the law?

No political affiliation should provide immunity from investigation. If private individuals assault peaceful protesters, the authorities have a duty to protect victims, identify the perpetrators and pursue appropriate legal action.

The public deserves answers based on evidence, not political denials or counter-allegations.

11 . Missing Police Nameplates: Who Is Accountable for the Use of Force?

Another controversy concerns video footage showing Delhi Police personnel performing crowd-control duties without visibly identifiable nameplates.

Why were some officers’ nameplates missing? Were they removed deliberately, damaged during confrontations or detached accidentally? How can citizens identify the officers involved when they believe excessive or unlawful force has been used against them?

These questions are especially important when allegations of assault, intimidation or arbitrary detention arise.

In its reporting on the matter, The Indian Express described the Delhi Police’s explanation before the Supreme Court. The police stated that nameplates had been damaged or detached when personnel were allegedly manhandled during clashes. The police also disputed allegations of excessive force and described the violence they said officers had faced.

Those explanations must be considered alongside available footage, witness accounts, medical records and other evidence.

The objective should not be to presume every officer guilty. It should be to ensure that every officer exercising coercive state power remains identifiable and accountable in accordance with applicable rules.

If police personnel are empowered to detain citizens and use force, what effective mechanism allows an injured citizen to identify the officer responsible and seek redress? That question deserves a clear, documented answer.

12. The Silencing of the Public Voice: What Happened to Journalists and Protesters?

A democracy cannot function properly if citizens are unable to communicate, journalists cannot report freely and peaceful demonstrations are met with restrictions that are not adequately justified.

Recent reports from Delhi have raised concerns about journalists being detained while covering protests over electoral-roll revisions. The Indian Express reported that three of its journalists were briefly detained despite identifying themselves as members of the press.

The Associated Press also reported allegations by journalists and press-freedom groups that reporters covering the demonstrations had been detained or assaulted. Delhi Police, meanwhile, argued that some individuals had posed as journalists or interfered with police duties.

These competing accounts make an independent examination of the evidence essential. Were journalists detained solely because they were reporting events? Were press credentials checked? Were recordings deleted or access to protest sites restricted?
Were the restrictions lawful and proportionate?

The public also needs clarity about reports of communications restrictions and disruptions surrounding the demonstrations.

If the expression “Voice of the Nation being put on hold” refers to a particular news outlet, programme, website or social-media account, the exact incident and the authority responsible should be identified before publication. If it refers more broadly to the silencing of public dissent, the issue should be examined through documented instances of restrictions on journalists, protesters and communications.

Freedom of the press is not a privilege granted by those in power. It is an essential safeguard that enables citizens to scrutinise those who govern them.

13. Thousands Detained: Was Public Order Maintained at the Cost of Civil Liberties?

Coverage by The Indian Express of the October 2026 demonstrations described extensive police action against protesters demanding accountability over alleged electoral-roll irregularities. Its reporting referred to large-scale detentions, barricades and restrictions surrounding the demonstrations.

The scale of a police operation does not, by itself, establish that every detention was unlawful. Nor does the invocation of public order automatically justify every restriction imposed.

The proper questions are whether each detention had a lawful basis, whether the applicable safeguards were followed, whether detainees were informed of their rights and whether peaceful demonstrators were distinguished from individuals suspected of committing offences.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the protests and the police response makes the production of reliable records particularly important.

Citizens deserve to know how many people were detained, how many were released, whether formal arrests were made, what legal provisions were invoked and whether complaints of mistreatment are being investigated.

Public order and civil liberty are not mutually exclusive. The rule of law requires the authorities to protect both.

14. The Fundamental Question: Can Electoral Integrity Be Independently Verified?

At the heart of these protests lies a dispute about electoral-roll revisions and allegations of irregularities. These allegations must be examined through verifiable voter records, transparent procedures and effective remedies for eligible citizens whose names may have been wrongly deleted.

The Election Commission and other relevant authorities should address specific, documented complaints with evidence. Political parties and protest organisers should likewise make their supporting material available for independent examination.

The integrity of an election should not depend on which party benefits from the outcome. It depends on whether eligible voters are treated fairly and whether the process commands public confidence.

Where errors are established, they must be corrected. Where allegations are not supported by evidence, that too should be stated clearly.
Democracy requires scrutiny that is rigorous, impartial and open to correction.

15. A Republic Must Answer Its Citizens

The allegations raised during these protests concern more than one party or one demonstration. They concern the relationship between the citizen and the state.

Who protects a student who is assaulted while protesting? Who investigates a complaint against a police officer? Who ensures that journalists can report without unlawful interference? Who provides a remedy to a voter whose name has been wrongly removed? And who independently verifies the conduct of institutions entrusted with safeguarding democracy?

These questions should be answered through transparent investigations, court-supervised processes where appropriate, credible public records and accountability under the law.

The headline “The Illegal Prime Minister” is intended to challenge the political establishment over these concerns. But the article’s lasting force must come from documented events and defensible arguments—not from treating contested allegations as established facts.

A democratic government must be prepared to answer difficult questions. Its institutions must be prepared to investigate uncomfortable allegations. And its citizens must remain free to demand accountability peacefully and lawfully.

The right to vote must be protected. The right to protest must be respected. The press must be free to report. And public power must remain accountable to the Constitution.

The post IS NARENDRA MODI: “THE ILLEGAL PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA”? first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

By Ronnie Rodrigues

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has not approved any modified version of Form 6 used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, while hearing a petition seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials, categorically stated that the Court had not approved the modified Form 6.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,”  the CJI observed.

The observation assumes significance as the Election Commission of India (ECI) had, in a press release issued on September 26, indicated that the new declaration annexed to the online Form 6 being used during the SIR exercise in certain States had been approved by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Had Not Examined New Declaration

The controversy concerns changes introduced in the declaration accompanying the new Form 6. The issue arose after it was reported that two Election Commissioners had raised objections to the changes, reportedly on the ground that such modifications could not be introduced without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The controversy intensified following reports that the modified declaration was implemented despite those objections.

The ECI subsequently stated that the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court in its May 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR.

However, the new declaration was introduced after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Bihar SIR matter. Consequently, the modified Form 6 declaration had not been before the Court for consideration in that case.

The CJI’s observation on Monday appeared to put the issue beyond ambiguity, making it clear that the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6.

Concern Raised Over Delhi SIR

The issue of the modified Form 6 was raised before the Bench in the context of the ongoing SIR exercise in Delhi.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in the matter, drew the Court’s attention to the use of the new declaration and raised concerns regarding the manner in which the changes had been introduced.

Under the modified declaration, a person seeking registration as a new voter is required to state whether the person or his or her parents had been mapped in the previous SIR exercise.

Such a requirement was not contained in the earlier Form 6 used during the SIR exercises in other States.

Notice Issued on Plea Challenging ECI Decisions

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, challenging 14 decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by the Election Commission and its officials.

The petitioner has sought the quashing of the decisions and has also sought the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission/Special Investigation Team, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by cybersecurity and information-technology experts.

The petition further seeks directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and other officials who may be found responsible for the alleged breach of official duties.

Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act provides for punishment in respect of specified breaches of official duty relating to the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls.

Court Questions Scope of Prayers

During the hearing, the CJI also observed that the prayers contained in the petition appeared to be “omnibus” and “jumbled up.”

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, however, maintained that she stood by the prayers made in the petition.

After hearing the submissions, the Bench issued notice on the petition and directed that the matter be tagged with a similar pending case challenging the decisions of the Election Commission.

The Supreme Court’s clarification regarding the modified Form 6 is likely to assume importance in the ongoing debate over the legal authority and procedural basis for changes introduced during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The post Modified Form 6 Not Approved by Supreme Court, CJI Surya Kant Clarifies! first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

Saiyami first took on the challenge in 2024 at the Ironman 70.3 in Erkner-Brandenburg, Germany, where she successfully completed the race. She followed it up with her second Ironman 70.3 in Jönköping, Sweden, in July 2025, becoming the first Indian actress to successfully complete the endurance race twice.

A year later, Saiyami completed her third outing in Cervia, Italy. Having already experienced the demands of the race twice, she approached this edition with greater understanding, experience and confidence. From cycling and running to swimming and strength training, her preparation continued alongside her professional commitments.

Speaking about taking on the challenge for the third time, Saiyami Kher said, “The first Ironman was about discovering whether I could actually do it, and the second one was about understanding what it really takes. This time, I felt much more experienced and aware of my body, my training and the demands of the race. I knew it was going to be challenging, but I also knew how much preparation went into it. Every Ironman taught me something different, and I was looking forward to taking everything I had learnt into Cervia. It felt special to be doing this for the third time, and I was excited to see how far I could push myself this time.”

Saiyami later shared her experience on social media, writing, “3 x Ironman 70.3. Hattrick done. Probably the toughest one yet. Two rough months leading up to the race. Then there’s never any shortage of drama when it comes to me and races. @klm refused us from boarding because of an error from their end, our bike bags hadn’t been updated in their system. Hours of calls, uncertainty and stress, just days before the race. We finally made it to Italy, only to be welcomed by 30°C heat. A brutally hot race day, an ocean full of jellyfish, and a body that had already been through a lot. But somewhere between the chaos, the heat and the jellyfish, ! found a little more fight. 20 minutes faster than my previous 70.3. That’s what I love about this sport. You can’t control everything that happens around you. You can only control how you respond. Three 70.3s. Three very different stories. And a whole lot of lessons in between. Couldn’t have done this without the best company by my side @sharduldonde @taras84 @eugeniya.belousova yearly routine must continue. @coachdeepakraj for finding time guide me in between so many things. @sportsscientistsonzal for making sure the nutrition was on point through training and then the hot race day. @mirandabrinston for making me stronger. @prachishah11 for fixing my ankle for the on ground Physio help in Italy! @dpakbmx for making my bike ready. @neurogumindia @scottsportsindia @pellasportswear @adidasindia for always having my back. Hattrick done. Now I’m trading gels for pizza and electrolytes for tiramisu. mumbaigirl14”

By Keerti Kadam

The post Saiyami Kher Secures Ironman Hat-Trick in Italy, Making History Once Again first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

Mumbai: India’s recent T20 defeats against , coming soon after a disappointing loss to Ireland, have reignited a serious debate about the direction of Indian cricket. While isolated defeats are part of sport, repeated failures on overseas tours point towards structural issues that require urgent attention rather than temporary fixes.

One of the most debated concerns is the nature of pitches in the India. Over recent seasons, several venues have consistently produced flat batting surfaces with short boundaries, making totals of 220, 250 and even 300 increasingly common. Such high-scoring contests undoubtedly entertain fans, but they often reduce bowling to mere survival instead of allowing an even contest between bat and ball.

Cricket legends #SachinTendulkar and #SunilGavaskar have repeatedly emphasized that the game is at its best when pitches provide equal opportunities for both batters and bowlers. A healthy balance not only enhances the quality of cricket but also prepares players for the varied conditions encountered in international competitions.

The consequences become evident whenever India tours countries where pitches offer seam movement, bounce and assistance to fast bowlers. Batters accustomed to dominating flat IPL tracks suddenly struggle against disciplined bowling attacks. Rather than adapting to changing conditions, many continue with the same aggressive approach that succeeds in franchise cricket, often resulting in dramatic batting collapses.

India’s batting has increasingly relied on explosive starts instead of constructing partnerships and adapting to match situations. Young talents such as #VaibhavSooryavanshi possess exceptional potential, but expecting teenagers to shoulder the responsibility of winning international matches consistently may be unrealistic. Also he should adapt to the conditions and should not bang-bang only batting. Similarly, experienced campaigners like #ShreyasIyer, #TilakVerma, etc have occasionally failed to convert promising starts into match-winning innings, raising questions about consistency, technique and temperament rather than ability.

Selection policies have also become a subject of public debate. Many cricket followers believe that #SanjuSamson has not received the sustained backing that several other players have enjoyed. Frequent omissions after one or two failures, while others continue despite repeated poor performances, create uncertainty and can affect a player’s confidence at the highest level.

The team management must also accept its share of responsibility. Constant experimentation with batting positions, frequent player rotation and the absence of a settled playing combination have prevented India from building stability. The world’s most successful international teams identify their core group, support them through difficult phases and allow combinations to develop over time.

India’s bowling has also faced challenges. Bowling on batting-friendly IPL pitches often forces bowlers into defensive strategies focused on limiting damage rather than taking wickets. As a result, many bowlers receive limited exposure to conditions that reward discipline, movement and sustained attacking spells—skills that become essential in overseas cricket.

The defeats against Ireland and England should be viewed not as reasons for panic but as an opportunity for introspection. India continues to possess one of the deepest talent pools in world cricket. However, talent alone cannot guarantee sustained international success. Better pitch preparation in domestic tournaments, balanced player selection, stronger backing for deserving performers, and greater emphasis on adaptability rather than power-hitting are essential for long-term success.

Franchise cricket is built on entertainment, and there is nothing wrong with thrilling crowds through big hitting. Yet international cricket demands a wider range of skills—technical excellence, patience, adaptability and resilience. Unless Indian cricket restores the balance between entertainment and preparation, IPL success may continue to conceal weaknesses that are exposed whenever India faces strong overseas opposition.

The time has come to ask a difficult but necessary question: Is Indian cricket preparing players to dominate the IPL, or preparing them to dominate the world?

By Ronnie Rodrigues

The post Are Batting-Friendly IPL Pitches Costing India International Glory? first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

By Ronnie Rodrigues

New Delhi: In a significant observation highlighting the growing menace of cyber crime in India, the Supreme Court has described cyber fraudsters as “parasites” who prey upon innocent citizens and siphon off crores of rupees through phishing links, fake banking portals, and other online scams.

Refusing to grant bail to an accused allegedly involved in a cyber fraud racket exceeding ₹3 crore, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice Sandeep Mehta underscored the need for a stringent approach towards cyber criminals whose activities affect victims across the country.

While dismissing the bail plea, the Bench observed that cyber frauds are not confined to a single State or region but have nationwide repercussions.
Addressing the accused’s counsel during the hearing, #ChiefJusticeSuryaKant remarked:

“You guys (cyber fraudsters) are parasites”
who dupe investors of crores of rupees.

“With cybercriminals, we have to be very harsh”.
Your victims are always pan-Indians.

You cheat someone in Tamil Nadu,
and then you go to Jammu.

Society’s interest is only that you should be inside jail.

The Court observed that the accused allegedly exploited technological platforms and digital banking systems to commit offences that undermine public trust in online financial transactions and digital payment ecosystems.

According to the prosecution, the fraud involved the use of fake banking portals, phishing links, mule bank accounts, and SIM cards allegedly procured using forged documents. Investigators further claimed that the operation was part of a structured interstate network engaged in systematic laundering of fraudulently obtained funds.

The petitioner sought bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and parity with a co-accused who had previously been granted bail by the High Court. However, the Delhi Police strongly opposed the application, contending that the accused was the mastermind behind the racket and had allegedly remained absconding for several months before his arrest.

Taking note of the investigation findings, the Bench observed that the allegations disclose a well-organised criminal enterprise involving multiple layers of deception and financial manipulation.

The Court further remarked:

“Economic offences like these are premeditated
and cause deep harm to society.

They stand on a different footing from other crimes.”

Rejecting the contention that delay in trial should justify release on bail, the Supreme Court held that the gravity of the allegations and the wider societal impact of cyber fraud outweighed such considerations. At the same time, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial within one year.

The ruling sends a strong message against cyber crime and reinforces the judiciary’s growing concern over the rise of sophisticated online frauds that target unsuspecting citizens across India.

The post Cyber Fraudsters Are Parasites to Society: CJI Surya Kant’s Strong Warning to Cyber Criminals! first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

The post Madam Ashwini Bhide: “The Mumbai’s Growing Urban Conflict Citizens Penalised, Violations Ignored” first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

Shehzad, who is suspected of residing illegally in India, has sparked debate following the swift arrival of legal counsel. Questions have arisen regarding the identity of these lawyers and the circumstances under which they were engaged. Who sent them to defend Shehzad? How were they able to act so quickly? Could this point to a larger international conspiracy?

Legal experts and authorities are urging a comprehensive investigation to uncover any underlying networks or connections that may have facilitated the attack or the accused’s representation. The involvement of a foreign national raises concerns of organized elements, potentially extending this case beyond an individual crime to a matter of broader security implications.

This case continues to unfold, with investigators seeking answers to the questions surrounding Shehzad’s legal defense and his actions leading to the attack.

By Ronnie Rodrigues

The post How 2 Lawyers Promptly Step In for Bangladeshi Accused in Saif Ali Khan Attack Case? Sparks Controversy first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

The accused was apprehended on January 18th while attempting to flee to his hometown in Rajabaria, Jhalokathi, Bangladesh. Police officials confirmed that Shehzad had entered India illegally and was employed at a housekeeping staff in a hotel under a false identity.

According to the complaint filed by Eliyama Philip, a 56-year-old staff nurse employed at Saif Ali Khan’s residence, the incident occurred around 2-3 AM on January 16th. Philip, who was sleeping in a room with Saif and Kareena Kapoor Khan’s four-year-old son, Jehangir, and another housemaid, Junu, noticed an intruder in the room. The intruder was armed with a wooden object and a hexa blade, and he demanded money.

When the staff screamed for help, Saif Ali Khan intervened but was stabbed multiple times by the attacker, who then fled the scene. The actor, who was bleeding profusely, was rushed to a nearby hospital and is reportedly recovering.

The Bandra Police registered the case under complaint number 85/2025. Multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been invoked, including Sections 311, 312, 331(4), 331(6), and 331(7). Additionally, charges under the Foreigners Act, 1946, including Sections 3(A) and 6(A), and the Prohibition Act, 1948, have been added, given the accused’s illegal entry into India.

The case was solved under the leadership of senior police officials, including Commissioner of Police Shri Vivek Phansalkar, Special Hon. Commissioner of Police Shri Deven Bharti, and Joint Commissioner of Police Shri Satyanarayan Chaudhary. The investigation involved multiple teams from various enforcement departments, including Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone 9 Dixit Gedam and ACP Paramjit Singh Dahiya.

The accused is now in police custody, and further investigation is underway to determine the motive behind the attack and to verify if there were accomplices involved. The Bandra Police have assured the public of a thorough inquiry into the case. The court has sent the accused in a 5 day police custody till January 24th.

By Ronnie Rodrigues

The post Saif Ali Khan Attacked; Accused Arrested first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.

Mumbai: In the realm of customer service, one principle has long stood the test of time: “The customer is always right.” Unfortunately, it seems that some companies have lost sight of this key value—British Airways being a glaring example. With international travel from India on the rise, airlines are expected to place the comfort and well-being of passengers at the forefront. After all, these passengers are the lifeblood of the industry, funding operations and salaries. However, recent events involving #BritishAirways suggest that such priorities may be slipping, as evidenced by the distressing experience of Mr. Ronnie Rodrigues on flight BA 138 from Mumbai to London on September 16, 2024.

Mr. Rodrigues, a frequent flyer who often travels with large groups of family, friends, and office staff embarked on what was supposed to be a celebratory trip, a tradition he has maintained since 2020. On this occasion, he was accompanied by 28 individuals, including his four young children, a couple highly placed bankers, a lawyer, a travel agent and a couple of reputed journalists from the print and digital media. Unfortunately, the flight quickly turned into a troubling ordeal, marked by rude and unprofessional conduct from British Airways staff.

As Mr. Rodrigues assisted in seating his group, a flight attendant—conspicuously without a name badge—abruptly instructed him to take his seat, completely ignoring his polite attempt to clarify the situation. When Mr. Rodrigues responded in kind to the attendant’s rude tone, the situation escalated, with the captain of the flight, Captain Kelly, being summoned to intervene.

Rather than de-escalating the situation, Captain Kelly took an aggressive stance. He threatened to deboard Mr. Rodrigues. He was told that he’ll have to deboard Mr Rodrigues’ entire group which included the 28 people who Mr. Rodrigues had generously sponsored. Despite this threat, it appears Captain Kelly quickly reconsidered, likely weighing the financial implications of such an action for British Airways. However, instead of resolving the issue amicably, he imposed a highly unprofessional penalty—denying Mr. Rodrigues food and drink for the entire flight. As a result, Mr. Rodrigues endured the lengthy journey without any sustenance, an unacceptable treatment by any standard.

The post Flying with British Airways? Be Prepared for Compromise first appeared on Latest News, Breaking News, National News, World News, India News, Bollywood News, Business News, Politics News, Sports News, Entertainment News - CineBuster.