#nrc_caa_npr

Speed, Violence and Exclusion: the Legitimation Crisis of India’s Electoral System by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/11/speed-exclusion-and-the... The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India represents a sharp departure from the deliberative, time-intensive de novo revision of 2002–03. Instead of thorough, ground-up verification, the current process is a high-speed, deadline-driven exercise that relies heavily on legacy databases and places the burden of proof on citizens. Emerging data shows massive deletions: over 90 lakh in West Bengal, more than 2 crore in Uttar Pradesh, and over 65 lakh in Bihar. The article highlights documented cases of worker distress and deaths, with disproportionate impacts on migrants, minorities, and economically vulnerable groups. It argues that the SIR is not a neutral administrative cleanup but a mechanism of structured electoral filtration and accelerated exclusion. The Supreme Court’s limited, non-disruptive interventions have effectively allowed the compressed timeline to continue, reinforcing rather than checking the process. Situated within broader trends of “accelerationist governance” and “speed capitalism,” the SIR illustrates how rapid administrative velocity—detached from deliberation, accountability, and human-scale verification—risks turning electoral governance into a tool of systemic disenfranchisement, undermining the epistemic integrity, ethical foundations, and participatory nature of Indian democracy.

Speed, Violence and Exclusion: the Legitimation Crisis of India’s Electoral System by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/11/speed-exclusion-and-the... The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India represents a sharp departure from the deliberative, time-intensive de novo revision of 2002–03. Instead of thorough, ground-up verification, the current process is a high-speed, deadline-driven exercise that relies heavily on legacy databases and places the burden of proof on citizens. Emerging data shows massive deletions: over 90 lakh in West Bengal, more than 2 crore in Uttar Pradesh, and over 65 lakh in Bihar. The article highlights documented cases of worker distress and deaths, with disproportionate impacts on migrants, minorities, and economically vulnerable groups. It argues that the SIR is not a neutral administrative cleanup but a mechanism of structured electoral filtration and accelerated exclusion. The Supreme Court’s limited, non-disruptive interventions have effectively allowed the compressed timeline to continue, reinforcing rather than checking the process. Situated within broader trends of “accelerationist governance” and “speed capitalism,” the SIR illustrates how rapid administrative velocity—detached from deliberation, accountability, and human-scale verification—risks turning electoral governance into a tool of systemic disenfranchisement, undermining the epistemic integrity, ethical foundations, and participatory nature of Indian democracy.

The 23.08% Illusion? DHFL Scam and the IBC’s Presumed Finality by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/10/the-23-08-illusion-dhfl... This article examines a senior DHFL fixed deposit holder’s grievance against the 23.08% recovery under the Piramal resolution plan. In Purvapaksha, Mr. Ravindra Mahidhar, the senior citizen FD Holder in question, argues that using the December 2019 cut-off instead of the 29 September 2021 payment date shortchanged him, recalculating his claim at ₹3,28,117 (versus the admitted ₹2,79,137) and receiving only 19.64% instead of 23.08%. Uttarpaksha rebuts that under IBC rules, claims are fixed at the Insolvency Commencement Date, the payment matches the approved plan, and the Supreme Court (2025) upheld it as binding and final. Apoha then probes the deeper paradox: while the individual claim fails if IBC is accepted as legitimate, questioning the IBC’s core as an ill-conceived and incoherent law reveals structural contradictions — particularly between Section 32A’s clean slate immunity and Section 66’s fraud recovery provisions — raising concerns of systemic unfairness, moral hazard, and crony sanitisation for retail victims.

The 23.08% Illusion? DHFL Scam and the IBC’s Presumed Finality by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/10/the-23-08-illusion-dhfl... This article examines a senior DHFL fixed deposit holder’s grievance against the 23.08% recovery under the Piramal resolution plan. In Purvapaksha, Mr. Ravindra Mahidhar, the senior citizen FD Holder in question, argues that using the December 2019 cut-off instead of the 29 September 2021 payment date shortchanged him, recalculating his claim at ₹3,28,117 (versus the admitted ₹2,79,137) and receiving only 19.64% instead of 23.08%. Uttarpaksha rebuts that under IBC rules, claims are fixed at the Insolvency Commencement Date, the payment matches the approved plan, and the Supreme Court (2025) upheld it as binding and final. Apoha then probes the deeper paradox: while the individual claim fails if IBC is accepted as legitimate, questioning the IBC’s core as an ill-conceived and incoherent law reveals structural contradictions — particularly between Section 32A’s clean slate immunity and Section 66’s fraud recovery provisions — raising concerns of systemic unfairness, moral hazard, and crony sanitisation for retail victims.

The 23.08% Illusion? DHFL Scam and the IBC’s Presumed Finality by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/10/the-23-08-illusion-dhfl... This article examines a senior DHFL fixed deposit holder’s grievance against the 23.08% recovery under the Piramal resolution plan. In Purvapaksha, Mr. Ravindra Mahidhar, the senior citizen FD Holder in question, argues that using the December 2019 cut-off instead of the 29 September 2021 payment date shortchanged him, recalculating his claim at ₹3,28,117 (versus the admitted ₹2,79,137) and receiving only 19.64% instead of 23.08%. Uttarpaksha rebuts that under IBC rules, claims are fixed at the Insolvency Commencement Date, the payment matches the approved plan, and the Supreme Court (2025) upheld it as binding and final. Apoha then probes the deeper paradox: while the individual claim fails if IBC is accepted as legitimate, questioning the IBC’s core as an ill-conceived and incoherent law reveals structural contradictions — particularly between Section 32A’s clean slate immunity and Section 66’s fraud recovery provisions — raising concerns of systemic unfairness, moral hazard, and crony sanitisation for retail victims.

Speed, Violence and Exclusion: the Legitimation Crisis of India’s Electoral System by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/11/speed-exclusion-and-the... The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India represents a sharp departure from the deliberative, time-intensive de novo revision of 2002–03. Instead of thorough, ground-up verification, the current process is a high-speed, deadline-driven exercise that relies heavily on legacy databases and places the burden of proof on citizens. Emerging data shows massive deletions: over 90 lakh in West Bengal, more than 2 crore in Uttar Pradesh, and over 65 lakh in Bihar. The article highlights documented cases of worker distress and deaths, with disproportionate impacts on migrants, minorities, and economically vulnerable groups. It argues that the SIR is not a neutral administrative cleanup but a mechanism of structured electoral filtration and accelerated exclusion. The Supreme Court’s limited, non-disruptive interventions have effectively allowed the compressed timeline to continue, reinforcing rather than checking the process. Situated within broader trends of “accelerationist governance” and “speed capitalism,” the SIR illustrates how rapid administrative velocity—detached from deliberation, accountability, and human-scale verification—risks turning electoral governance into a tool of systemic disenfranchisement, undermining the epistemic integrity, ethical foundations, and participatory nature of Indian democracy.

Speed, Violence and Exclusion: the Legitimation Crisis of India’s Electoral System by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/11/speed-exclusion-and-the... The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India represents a sharp departure from the deliberative, time-intensive de novo revision of 2002–03. Instead of thorough, ground-up verification, the current process is a high-speed, deadline-driven exercise that relies heavily on legacy databases and places the burden of proof on citizens. Emerging data shows massive deletions: over 90 lakh in West Bengal, more than 2 crore in Uttar Pradesh, and over 65 lakh in Bihar. The article highlights documented cases of worker distress and deaths, with disproportionate impacts on migrants, minorities, and economically vulnerable groups. It argues that the SIR is not a neutral administrative cleanup but a mechanism of structured electoral filtration and accelerated exclusion. The Supreme Court’s limited, non-disruptive interventions have effectively allowed the compressed timeline to continue, reinforcing rather than checking the process. Situated within broader trends of “accelerationist governance” and “speed capitalism,” the SIR illustrates how rapid administrative velocity—detached from deliberation, accountability, and human-scale verification—risks turning electoral governance into a tool of systemic disenfranchisement, undermining the epistemic integrity, ethical foundations, and participatory nature of Indian democracy.

The 23.08% Illusion? DHFL Scam and the IBC’s Presumed Finality by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/04/10/the-23-08-illusion-dhfl... This article examines a senior DHFL fixed deposit holder’s grievance against the 23.08% recovery under the Piramal resolution plan. In Purvapaksha, Mr. Ravindra Mahidhar, the senior citizen FD Holder in question, argues that using the December 2019 cut-off instead of the 29 September 2021 payment date shortchanged him, recalculating his claim at ₹3,28,117 (versus the admitted ₹2,79,137) and receiving only 19.64% instead of 23.08%. Uttarpaksha rebuts that under IBC rules, claims are fixed at the Insolvency Commencement Date, the payment matches the approved plan, and the Supreme Court (2025) upheld it as binding and final. Apoha then probes the deeper paradox: while the individual claim fails if IBC is accepted as legitimate, questioning the IBC’s core as an ill-conceived and incoherent law reveals structural contradictions — particularly between Section 32A’s clean slate immunity and Section 66’s fraud recovery provisions — raising concerns of systemic unfairness, moral hazard, and crony sanitisation for retail victims.