INTERESTING: The Delhi High Court judge seemed more interested in the age of Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka than their personal liberty . By the way, Judge Saheb, Saurav is born in Jan 2000 so is very much Gen Z. And Ashutosh is 31. By the way, what difference does age make here is beyond me. 🙏

#India “We call on the authorities to immediately cease the use of excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans, and refrain from the misuse of digital surveillance, including through biometrics, and internet disruptions.” - @UN_SPExperts buff.ly/GxuUI2e

Shri @HardeepSPuri caught on camera in a private one on one with convicted child rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Clearly the minister’s proximity to a sexual offender convict can no longer be denied. Yet another @narendramodi mantri caught out. A government is judged by the company it keeps. Across the world Epstein associates are being asked to quit; in the Modi regime, Epstein associates enjoy VIP high office while idealistic youth who carry the national flag are jailed.

The finale of THE DIPLOMAT says a great deal about putting country over party.

जब जयप्रकाश नारायण ने कहा था कि सेना और पुलिस सरकार के आदेश को न मानें तो जनसंघ और आरएसएस उनसे सहमत थे या नहीं ? क्या जेपी का आह्वान अराजकता का आह्वान था या नहीं ? आज Regime change के नाम पर पूरा सिस्टम शीर्षासन क्यों कर रहा है ? जेपी का बयान भूल गये ?

Gentle reminder: "Very low listernship of PM's Mann ki Baat" Figures from 2022 - it has only tanked further since. (Hence all other voices are being stifeld and jailed)

INTERESTING And DEPRESSING: Dassehra is the season for ‘gifting’: in politics, the best gift is a WASHING MACHINE! You would have thought a World Cup winner like @iamyusufpathan would not need much more than the love, affection (and prize money) from millions of fans. (Hate to say I told you so but had revealed this ‘deal’ 4 months ago on Neta Nagri on @TheLallantop )🙏

Election Commission's own software contains a lock written for one state, and only one - West Bengal. An independent audit of the Commission's portal ECINET, reported by @htTweets has found a feature that can bar Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant EROs, only in West Bengal, from two critical functions: 🔹Reviewing voters' enumeration forms 🔹Viewing the notice and hearing dashboard Officers in every other state have access to both. The audit found no such exclusion anywhere else in India. The audit was carried out by the civic-tech initiative Charchagram. Its data scientist Saurav Rajput examined ECINET's publicly served code on October 2, 6, 7 and 9. The feature was still there in code fetched as recently as October 19. In his words: West Bengal is separately hard-coded in the codebase & excluded from it (for ERO and AERO). Understand what is at stake. The enumeration form page holds each voter's details - name, voter ID, who submitted the form, the documents uploaded & the booth level officer's recommendation. It holds the ERO/AERO-Document & Hearing-Order files, along with the buttons to send a form back to the BLO or flag it. The notice & hearing dashboard is where notices are tracked and hearings processed. It is where the decision is made about who stays on the roll and who is removed. Under the law, the ERO is the officer responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll. If ECINET can shut Bengal's EROs out of the forms & the hearings, the country has a right to know who would be reviewing them instead. On September 24, the Election Commission told the country that ECINET is a decentralised platform and that nobody else can perform their statutory function on ECINet, including any other officer of ECI. If only EROs and AEROs can perform these functions, and the code can bar Bengal's EROs and AEROs from the forms and the hearings, then the Commission's two claims cannot both stand. Now look at the timeline - 🔹September 26: After two Election Commissioners raised objections, the Commission set up a committee to examine whether ECINET complies with the law, following complaints that control of electoral rolls had been centralised. 🔹September 28: Bengal exception has existed in the code at least since this date. 🔹October 16: A new build of the app is introduced. Bengal exception is still in it. 🔹October 19: The exception is still present in the live code. While the Commission said it was examining whether its system had been centralised, the code continued to treat one state differently from every other. When Hindustan Times sent the Election Commission a questionnaire, it did not respond. Nation demands- 🔹Explain why ECINET's code contains a West Bengal-only exclusion for EROs and AEROs. 🔹Name who ordered this code to be written & when. 🔹Disclose whether this restriction has ever been switched on, in which constituencies, and for how long. 🔹Reveal who reviewed Bengal's enumeration forms and hearings during any period the restriction was active. 🔹Publish ECINET's access rules and access logs, and place the portal before an independent technical audit with the findings made public. Code does not write itself. A hard coded exception for one state is a deliberate choice & someone made it. The Election Commission must tell nation who made that choice & why. From Karnataka's "dead" voters to Delhi's "untraceable" citizens & now a Bengal only exception in the Commission's own software, the same question keeps coming up: who is really in control of India's voter rolls? The vote belongs to the people, not to whoever controls the code. hindustantimes.com/india-new…

Reup from 2020. Sadly the term "judicial barbarism" does not seem to be any less relevant with the times

IMPORTANT: the judicial custody of Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das extended by two days. Delhi Police wanted 5 days because of fear of protest call during festive season. Beyond ABSURD. This is designed only to instil fear in young hearts and minds but may have just the opposite effect. Vinaash Kaal Viprit Budhi. 🙏

ये खबर पढ़ कर आपके नज़रों में ज्ञानेश कुमार के लिए सम्मान और भी बढ़ जाएगा। 1. कम से कम 37 लोगों ने Form 7 भरकर खुद को "मृत" बताते हुए अपना ही नाम मतदाता सूची से हटवाने की मांग की; फॉर्म भरने वाला और जिसका नाम हटाना था, दोनों बिल्कुल एक ही थे। 2. 668 लोगों (334 जोड़ों) ने एक-दूसरे को मृत घोषित किया: एक ने दूसरे का नाम हटाने का फॉर्म भरा, और "मृत" घोषित व्यक्ति ने भी पलटकर वैसा ही फॉर्म भर दिया। ये मामले 25 से ज़्यादा जिलों में फैले थे, सबसे ज़्यादा बेलगावी में (160), फिर कलबुर्गी में (80)। 3. ज़्यादातर फॉर्म 30 जून को SIR शुरू होने से पहले भरे गए थे, लेकिन कम से कम तीन फॉर्म ड्राफ्ट मतदाता सूची छपने के बाद भी भरे गए। 4. बायतरायनपुरा में सुधा के.एन. फॉर्म भरने वाली और हटाए जाने वाली, दोनों के रूप में दर्ज थीं; जबकि असल में उनकी पत्नी ने उनके पति श्रीकांत का नाम हटाने का फॉर्म भरा था। सांदूर में हनुमंत ने अपना ही नाम "मृत" बताकर हटाने का फॉर्म भरा। 5. अधिकारियों ने कुछ मामलों को "सॉफ्टवेयर गड़बड़ी" बताया, जबकि BLO इसकी वजह स्पष्ट नहीं कर सकीं कि यह गड़बड़ी गणना के दौरान हुई या पुरानी मतदाता सूचियों में पहले से थी।