Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday described Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 25 years at the helm of government as a landmark phase in India’s democratic journey. He said the occasion was being marked through the ‘Seva Jyoti Yatra’, organised across districts nationwide to commemorate Modi’s 25 years in public service.

Speaking at the ‘Viksit Bharat Sankalp Sabha – Seva Jyoti Yatra’ in Gurugram, Shah said October 7 represented an important day in the history of Indian democracy. He highlighted Modi’s journey from becoming Gujarat Chief Minister in 2001 to serving as the country’s Prime Minister since 2014, noting that he had completed 25 continuous years in public office as the head of a government.

Shah said the nationwide ‘Seva Jyoti Yatra’ was organised to mark the milestone. As part of the programme, groups of young participants carried the yatra’s torch through different locations, with one such procession scheduled to reach a point near the Gurugram venue. Shah also appealed to people to participate in the programme in large numbers.

Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini and several other leaders were present at the Gurugram event. Prime Minister Modi paid tribute to grassroots workers and swayamsevaks for their contribution to public service. Speaking at a ‘Seva Jyoti’ programme at the Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium in New Delhi, he said the spirit of service remained central to the work of countless party workers and volunteers.

Modi said he had never considered himself alone in his journey, crediting the dedication of swayamsevaks and karyakartas who, according to him, have worked to preserve the country’s cultural traditions while serving society. He expressed respect for those who continue to contribute to the nation with dedication. Modi completed 25 years as head of a government on Wednesday. His political journey at the helm of government began on October 7, 2001, when he assumed office as Gujarat Chief Minister. He later became Prime Minister in 2014 and has since served three consecutive terms.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from ANI.

A Delhi court has granted bail to 17 students and freelance journalists arrested during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, observing that while the allegations against them were serious, they were young and did not appear to be habitual offenders. The bail orders were passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Animesh Kumar at the Patiala House Courts. The accused had been arrested by Delhi Police in connection with the protest and were produced before the court in separate proceedings.

Police had sought judicial custody of the accused for two weeks, citing allegations of violence and disruption during the demonstration. The prosecution also referred to injuries allegedly suffered by a police officer during the incident. The court, while considering the bail pleas, noted that the allegations could not be treated lightly. It observed that the right to protest does not give anyone the freedom to assault or use criminal force against police personnel performing their duties.

The court considered the age and background of the accused and the nature of the offences invoked against them. It noted that the accused were young and that the alleged offences carried comparatively limited maximum punishments. The court ultimately decided that continued detention was not necessary at this stage and granted bail to the 17 accused. Each was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹15,000 along with one surety of the same amount.

During the proceedings, two of the accused also raised allegations of custodial torture. The court directed the police to submit a report on the claims and ordered preservation of CCTV footage from the Parliament Street Police Station. The bail order does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The criminal case will continue, and the allegations made by the police will be examined during the course of the proceedings.

The case comes against the backdrop of protests linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and criticism surrounding the Election Commission. The court's observations underline that while peaceful protest is a recognised democratic right, alleged violence or obstruction during such demonstrations can still attract criminal proceedings.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from 

Pratap Bhanu Mehta has raised fresh concerns about the credibility of India’s constitutional institutions, arguing that recent actions by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court have made it more difficult for citizens to maintain confidence in institutions that are expected to operate independently. Writing in The Indian Express, Mehta focused particularly on the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the way the Election Commission and Supreme Court have dealt with questions surrounding the exercise.

At the centre of Mehta’s argument is the question of how electoral institutions should balance their responsibility to maintain accurate voter lists with the need to protect citizens’ voting rights. He argues that while an exercise to verify electoral rolls can have a legitimate purpose, the way the SIR process has been handled has created concerns about transparency, documentation and the burden placed on voters.

Mehta points to questions raised about the procedures used during the revision process, including concerns over how voters were expected to establish their eligibility. He also refers to reporting on the Election Commission’s handling of appeals involving voters in West Bengal. According to his analysis, these developments have contributed to wider concerns about whether citizens have sufficient safeguards when their names or eligibility to vote are challenged.

The role of the Supreme Court is another major part of his argument. Mehta contends that the Court had an important opportunity to insist on stronger safeguards while allowing the Election Commission to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. Instead, he believes some judicial observations and decisions have left critics questioning whether adequate importance has been given to the practical consequences for voters.

The broader issue, in Mehta’s view, goes beyond the immediate dispute over electoral rolls. He argues that independent institutions depend not only on constitutional powers and formal procedures but also on public confidence in how those powers are exercised. If citizens begin to believe that institutions responsible for protecting their rights are inaccessible or insufficiently accountable, rebuilding that trust can become considerably harder.

Mehta also connects the controversy to the larger debate over the independence of constitutional bodies in India. The Election Commission has a central role in maintaining electoral rolls and conducting elections, while the judiciary is expected to provide constitutional oversight. Both institutions therefore operate in areas where public confidence is particularly important.

His argument also raises a question about institutional design. Mehta notes that changing appointment procedures or creating additional formal safeguards does not automatically guarantee that an institution will function independently. In an earlier 2022 article, he similarly argued that institutional performance cannot be determined solely by appointment mechanisms and that accountability structures are equally important.

The current debate comes at a time when the Election Commission's handling of electoral-roll revisions has attracted competing political and legal arguments. Supporters of the revision process have emphasised the importance of maintaining accurate voter lists, while critics have raised concerns about the possibility of eligible voters being excluded. These competing considerations make transparency, accessible procedures and effective avenues for correction particularly significant.

Mehta's latest commentary therefore frames the issue as one of institutional trust rather than simply a dispute between political parties and constitutional authorities. His central concern is that when citizens lose confidence in bodies designed to operate independently, the damage can extend beyond a single election or administrative exercise.

The discussion also highlights the importance of making institutional decisions understandable to ordinary voters. Clear explanations, transparent procedures and accessible mechanisms for correcting errors can help citizens understand how decisions affecting their electoral rights are made. Whether the ongoing legal and administrative processes address the concerns raised will remain an important part of the wider debate over electoral institutions in India.

For Mehta, restoring confidence requires more than changing rules on paper. It requires constitutional institutions to demonstrate through their conduct that citizens' rights, accountability and procedural fairness remain central to the way those institutions exercise their authority.
Disclaimer : This image is taken from Indian Express.

Concerns over caste discrimination, student welfare and institutional accountability have returned to the spotlight following the death of an IIT Bombay student, with allegations by his family prompting an investigation and renewed debate over the campus environment at India’s premier educational institutions. Sahil Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay, died by suicide on September 18. His family has alleged that he faced caste-based remarks and harassment on campus. Following their complaint, police registered a case and invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Mumbai Crime Branch is investigating the circumstances surrounding his death.

Wakode's family has said that he had spoken about caste-related comments and mental pressure. His father, Ravindra Wakode, has alleged that his son had experienced difficulties on campus and that the family had initially encouraged him to focus on his studies. The family has called for an investigation and action based on the findings.

IIT Bombay, however, has said that Wakode had not submitted a complaint concerning caste discrimination to the institute or its SC-ST cell. The institute has also maintained that the circumstances surrounding the student's death should be established through the ongoing investigation. The case has also drawn attention to IIT Bombay's earlier efforts to address caste-related discrimination. In 2024, an email circulated among students advised them against asking classmates about their admission category, JEE ranks or GATE scores. The institute had said that such questions could reveal a student's caste or reservation status and potentially contribute to discriminatory attitudes. Similar anti-discrimination guidelines had also been circulated previously.

The controversy has now expanded into a broader discussion about the experience of students from historically disadvantaged communities at India's most competitive educational institutions. While admission to institutions such as the IITs is widely regarded as a major achievement, questions remain about whether students from different social backgrounds experience campus life in the same way after entering these institutions.

The issue is particularly sensitive because academic pressure is already a significant feature of life at elite engineering institutions. Students face demanding coursework, examinations and intense competition. In individual cases, academic stress may exist alongside social or personal difficulties, making it important for investigations to examine the circumstances surrounding a student's death rather than attributing it to a single factor without evidence.

The Wakode case has also raised questions about the credibility of grievance mechanisms available to students. Institutions have systems through which students can report discrimination and other concerns, but their effectiveness depends on whether students know how to use them and have confidence that complaints will be handled fairly.

The debate comes amid wider efforts by Indian higher-education authorities to address discrimination and student welfare. The University Grants Commission has issued directions to higher educational institutions regarding measures to prevent caste-based discrimination and has called for mechanisms to receive and address complaints.

The Supreme Court has also raised concerns about student distress and the need for higher educational institutions to strengthen systems addressing discrimination, mental health and other factors affecting students. These developments have placed greater attention on how premier institutions respond when allegations of discrimination or harassment arise.

The Wakode case remains under investigation, and the allegations made by his family have yet to be conclusively established. The Crime Branch is examining the circumstances surrounding his death and gathering information from people connected with the case. The incident has nevertheless renewed questions about the relationship between academic excellence, social inclusion and student welfare at India's premier institutions. As investigations continue, attention is likely to remain focused on whether existing safeguards are sufficient and whether students from all backgrounds feel equally secure in approaching institutional authorities when they face difficulties.

For India's leading educational institutions, the discussion extends beyond admissions, examination results and placement figures. It also concerns whether students can pursue their education in an environment where concerns about discrimination are taken seriously and where grievance mechanisms are trusted by the students they are intended to protect.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has announced a broad set of initiatives covering family support, housing, technology and Singapore’s national resilience. Hairianto Diman and Justine Moss speak to SMU School of Law Associate Professor Eugene Tan about the major measures, their significance for Singaporeans and what they reveal about the Government’s priorities for the country’s next stage of growth.
Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.

Myanmar's military government has released rare images of detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi meeting a Red Cross official, marking her first known contact with the outside world since the 2021 coup. The photos were released just ahead of junta chief Min Aung Hlaing's first official visit to Thailand, prompting speculation about their political significance.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.

In a conversation with political editor Tom McIlroy and chief political correspondent Dan Jervis-Bardy during the 50th Labor conference in Adelaide, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas discussed his state’s political battle with One Nation. He said progressive groups should avoid dismissing or talking down to Pauline Hanson’s supporters, arguing that their concerns need to be understood rather than ignored. Addressing the ongoing debate over the AUKUS submarine deal, Malinauskas acknowledged concerns after the US revealed that Virginia-class submarine production rates had not improved. However, he maintained that walking away from the agreement would create greater strategic risks than the challenges surrounding the controversial defence partnership.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from The Guardian.

On Made in SG, Melanie Oliveiro chats with Singaporean singer-songwriter Frances Tan, who recently competed in the Commonwealth Song Contest — an international music competition featuring participants from all 56 Commonwealth countries. Tan shares her experience of being chosen as a Grand Finalist, representing Singapore alongside six other finalist nations. She also discusses her original track, Just Me, which she submitted as her contest entry.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.