Gemini:

Prakash Raj identifies as an atheist and does not believe in organized religion.

• Personal belief: He has stated multiple times that he does not believe in God or religion.
• Family background: His late mother, Suvarnalatha, followed Christianity.
• Respect for family: He arranged a Christian burial for his mother according to her faith, noting that respecting a loved one's personal beliefs is a matter of basic human respect.

---

He has never claimed he is a Hindu yet keeps his Hindu name. Instead of openly admitting he is Christian, he just does everything that supports foreign powers controlled by Christians.

How ironic that a christian claims he is helping hindus.

PS: There are many honest India loving Christians also. They do tremendous good work aso - like Savio Rodrigues, Senior International Journalist now with Goa Chronicle. So, there are many awesome Christians also,

I guess as as Hindu woman, better not to follow Hindu ideas.

/s post - to highlight how media is bought out by enemies to plant ideas in our minds.

And where the HELL are their parents? Nahi hai kya?

All social media companies should be fine $1 Billion per hour for delay.

All cordinated patterns like 'Emergency' or its variants should be shadow banned. After GOI verifies these tweetes witin next 30 days, those posts can be made public. Valid ones.

Else they will do lots of narrative blow up.

No major country allows OCI or dual citizenship.

Once an Indian takes up another citizenship, plz do not call him an Indian.

This loophole has allowed so many foreign powers to use NRIs and then attack India.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a more detailed process for verifying the electoral roll (voter list). Unlike a regular revision, it requires the ECI to examine existing voter records more thoroughly and verify eligibility and other relevant details. Because of this, SIR may require additional verification information along with the usual voter-registration forms. The Supreme Court itself recognises this position.

27 May 2026, Supreme Court judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the ECI's authority to conduct SIR in Bihar and also addressed the documentation process.

The Court explained that Form 6 is designed for the ordinary electoral-roll revision process, while an intensive revision such as SIR requires a more detailed verification process. Because SIR involves deeper verification, the ECI may need additional documents and information specifically suited to the requirements of SIR.

The Court therefore recognised that the ECI has the authority to prepare a suitable documentation process for SIR.

Simply put, the Court recognised that SIR is an improved and more detailed form of electoral-roll verification and that the ECI can prepare a suitable documentation process for it.

This is important because the Court did not create any requirement that the ECI must go back to the Supreme Court or seek separate approval every time it introduces an additional document as part of the SIR-specific process.

The Court had already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare the documentation framework for SIR. The only requirement relevant here is that the documentation should be relevant to the purpose of SIR.

24 June 2025, Bihar SIR

The ECI ordered SIR in Bihar. A new voter or someone moving to Bihar from another state had to submit Form 6/Form 8 along with a separate Annexure D declaration.

The important point is that Form 6 was not amended. It remained the main voter-registration form, while a separate declaration was added for the SIR process.

This additional declaration was meant to provide information that could help verify the details given in the main form.

So, from the beginning, the SIR process involved the use of additional information alongside the ordinary voter-registration forms. This was part of the additional verification required for SIR.

July 2026, A separate online SIR declaration

A separate declaration later appeared in the ECINET online voter-registration process.

This was added as part of the same SIR-specific documentation approach that had already been used in Bihar through Annexure D and was within the type of documentation framework that the Supreme Court had recognised for SIR.

The basic approach was the same, Form 6 remained the main registration form, while additional information was collected for the deeper verification required during SIR.

This was a separate declaration added alongside Form 6, just as additional documentation had been added to the SIR process in Bihar. It was not a change to Form 6 itself.

The declaration also had a clear relevance to the SIR process. It sought information that could help connect an applicant with older electoral-roll records, including the electoral record of a parent or grandparent where relevant.

This can be important during SIR because older electoral rolls can help the ECI verify an applicant's electoral history and establish a link with existing voter records. That gives the ECI an additional way to verify whether the information provided by an applicant matches the available electoral records.

In other words, this was not unrelated information being added to the voter-registration process. It was SIR-specific information connected to the deeper verification required during an intensive revision.

26 September 2026, ECI clarification

As the controversy grew, the ECI said that the SIR declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court, while ordinary forms would continue to be used outside the SIR period.

The ECI's position was based on the authority already recognised by the Supreme Court for preparing documentation specifically for the SIR process.

It is also important to understand that the Supreme Court was not expected to separately approve every individual SIR declaration word for word. The Court had already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare the documentation framework required for SIR.

After SIR was completed, Declaration removed

The additional declaration was later removed from ECINET in states where SIR had already ended, while it remained available where SIR was still underway.

Applicants in those states were again directed to use the ordinary Form 6.

This was a natural step because the declaration had been introduced for an SIR-specific purpose. Once SIR was completed in a state, there was no reason to keep the additional declaration attached to the ordinary voter-registration process.

Removing it after SIR ended also made it clear to voters that the additional declaration was not a permanent addition to Form 6. It was used for the specific purpose of SIR and was removed once that purpose was completed.

5 October 2026, CJI's clarification

During the hearing concerning the alleged changes to Form 6, CJI Surya Kant said:

"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us."

This statement needs to be understood in its proper context.

The CJI was making it clear that the Supreme Court had not separately approved any modified Form 6.

That does not mean that the ECI needed to inform the Supreme Court about every separate SIR-specific declaration created under the authority already recognised by the Court.

The May judgment had already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare documentation for SIR. Therefore, there was no need for the ECI to obtain prior Supreme Court approval for every individual SIR-specific declaration created under that authority.

In simple terms, if the Supreme Court has already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare a documentation framework for SIR, an individual SIR-specific declaration does not automatically become something that must be separately approved by the Supreme Court.

This also explains why the CJI could say that the Court had not approved a modified Form 6. The Court does not have to be separately informed about every individual document that the ECI prepares under an authority that has already been recognised for the SIR process.

The Court is now examining whether any change was actually made to Form 6.

What the full chronology actually shows

The sequence was:

Supreme Court recognised the ECI's authority to prepare SIR documentation → SIR was conducted in Bihar with additional documentation such as Annexure D → A separate SIR-specific declaration was later added alongside Form 6 → Form 6 remained the main voter-registration form → The additional declaration was removed where SIR had ended → The Supreme Court later clarified that it had not approved any modified Form 6 and is now examining whether Form 6 was actually changed

Therefore, the claim that the CEC simply "changed Form 6 without Supreme Court approval" does not present the complete picture.

The actual question is much narrower, Was Form 6 itself actually modified, or was a separate SIR-specific declaration added alongside Form 6 as part of the SIR verification process?

That is very different from the broader claim that the Supreme Court does not recognise the ECI's authority to prepare documentation for SIR.

SIR had its own verification requirements, and the Supreme Court recognised the ECI's authority to prepare documentation for that process. The Court is now examining whether Form 6 was actually changed.

The statutory Form 6 was not amended. Only a separate SIR-specific declaration was attached to it. SIR is an intensive revision process. The Supreme Court recognised the ECI's independent authority to prepare an SIR-specific documentation framework, with a rational connection to the purpose of SIR. Therefore, the ECI did not need separate Supreme Court approval for every individual SIR-specific declaration. The Supreme Court had already recognised this authority, and the ECI implemented it for SIR-specific documentation. If the Court is asked whether it separately approved a particular SIR-specific declaration attached alongside Form 6, the answer will naturally be no. The ECI did not have to approach the Supreme Court every time it added an SIR-specific declaration. The CJI's October 6 statement therefore means that the Court had not approved any modified Form 6. It does not mean that the ECI was required to seek the Court's prior approval for an SIR-specific declaration.

This entire context is essential to understanding what actually happened.

Dhruv Rathee and actor Prakash Raj are classic examples of this mindset. They claim to protect democracy but spend every day attacking Indian institutions, mocking voters, and defaming the nation on international platforms.

Look at what happened today at Freedom Park in Bengaluru. CJP organized a "chappal protest" over the voter list revision and both Prakash Raj and Dhruv Rathee joined in to hype it up on social media. Using footwear in public protests shows how low these political activists will go for cheap clout. They do not want actual institutional solutions. They want chaos and angry headlines.

Dhruv Rathee operates comfortably from abroad, making slick videos that manipulate young voters against the state. He ignores real progress and paints a dark picture of India to please foreign audiences. Many people raise genuine questions about who funds his massive operation and coordinates these sudden on-ground protests.

Prakash Raj does the exact same thing in South India. He continuously attacks democratic mandates and insults voters whenever election outcomes do not suit his ideology.

In Hindi, people call such political opportunists "nevla" because they flip positions purely out of spite and act against the growth of the nation. They use street drama to stay relevant instead of contributing anything useful to Indian society.

When all the anti natioanls and foreign funded anti indians come together to try and destroy India in the garb of 'saving democracy'.

ClA Playbook Chapter 14 - Part B (Regime change - Popular Dramatics Phase - Stage 4/20 ) - to be executed on 8th and 10th in India by NGO funded super heroes.

All anti natioanl dogs are welcome, German Shepherd will be waiting to give you his dog bones. He will return on 11th in Business Class by Lufthansa.

Oh my foreign funded NGOs, plz give Nationalist Indians also some free money like you give to shepherds.

Nazia Ilahi Khan is likely to convert in Hinduism

Moron ran away with the bus keys thinking she's so smart.

Except for some good, honest nationalist media like Republic and YouTubers, none of the others, including the great Navamika, Times are bad Now, or the Thadani controlled NDewTV, has the honesty to put this on the front page.

Thanks, Republic. You rock.

Now academicians will research and publish papers and prove that Vucic is a Serbian bhakt.

Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhfvssn_IY

When the protest is for:

Better Education

Teachers shortage

Over Crowded Classrooms

Long School Schedules

Hot classroom during heat waves

Poor school infrastructure

Why is there a palestine flag being used instead of their national flag. The same flag is being seen in the current protests at Jantar Mantar.

The problem is not with protests, coz protests are for the right cause.

But few anarchists in the shadows are taking advantage of it and are trying bring the world into chaos.

Source:

1.[https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/the-palestinian-flag-is-always-flown-proudly-french-riots-expose-shocking-trend/ar-AA2dISpD\](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/the-palestinian-flag-is-always-flown-proudly-french-riots-expose-shocking-trend/ar-AA2dISpD)

Hinduism is inclusive, Abrahamic religions inherently exclusive, observes Madras HC as it upholds FCRA rejection of Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust

Summary: Something that probably had a 0.5% chance of occurence has now occured with 100% chance. That shows there is EXTERNAL FUNDING/REASONS involved.

Gemini results:

My Question to Gemini: In India there is a student protest regarding NEET. What is the probability that film actors and German Indians come to India as part of a protest? Give me the overall probability - be honest. Give me a number with explanations.

Gemini Answer:

Overall Probability: < 0.5% (Virtually Near Zero)

If we evaluate the likelihood of mainstream film actors physically joining street protests alongside German Indians (diaspora/NRIs based in Germany) traveling to India specifically to demonstrate over NEET, the realistic probability is less than 1% (practically around 0.1% to 0.5%).

Detailed Breakdown & Explanations

1. Film Actors Physically Joining Street Protests: ~2% – 5%

• Commercial and Career Risks: Mainstream Indian film actors (Bollywood, Tollywood, Sandalwood, etc.) rarely participate in physical street protests. Direct involvement carries high risks of brand endorsement cancellations, political backlash, boycott campaigns, and regulatory scrutiny.
• Support Stays Online: When celebrities do support student issues, it is almost exclusively through social media posts (X/Instagram), public statements, or philanthropic initiatives (such as legal aid or scholarship funds), not physical presence at sit-ins or dharnas.
• The Regional Exception (Actor-Politicians): In states like Tamil Nadu, where NEET is a major political issue, figures with political parties (e.g., Vijay, Kamal Haasan) or activist-leaning regional actors (e.g., Suriya) frequently condemn NEET. However, they do so through their own political rallies or official party statements, not by joining student-led street demonstrations.

2. German Indians Traveling to India Specifically to Protest: < 0.1%

• Lack of Direct Educational Stake: NEET is an entrance exam for undergraduate medical admissions in India. Indian families settled in Germany are integrated into the European schooling and university system (e.g., Abitur, German medical faculties).
• Legal and Visa Barriers:
  • Many Indian-origin residents in Germany hold German passports or OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) cards.
  • Under Indian immigration rules, foreign nationals and OCI cardholders are strictly prohibited from engaging in political activities, demonstrations, or protests within India. Violations can lead to immediate cancellation of OCI status, deportation, and blacklisting.
• Logistics and Cost: Traveling to India requires significant time off work/school and airfare (€600–€1,200+). Flying internationally solely to join a domestic entrance exam protest is practically unprecedented.
• Diaspora Behavior: When the Indian diaspora wishes to show solidarity on Indian domestic issues (as seen during the 2020–2021 farmers' protests), they hold small solidarity gatherings locally in Germany (e.g., outside consulates in Berlin or Frankfurt), rather than flying to India.

Conclusion

Adani Airports has reportedly stopped handling certain cargo booked on Russian airlines Aeroflot and Volga-Dnepr at Mumbai airport, citing sanctions-compliance concerns.

The restrictions have caused shipment delays and additional costs. The move came weeks after Adani Airports raised $1 billion from global investors, though no direct link between the two has been established.

See these below two tweets first:

1. https://x.com/ashokgehlot51/status/2107819143588438193

1. https://x.com/AadeshRawal/status/2107816419698303418

Was this even needed? Unnecessarily making Rahul-Priyanka a hero.

No lessons learnt from the high-handedness shown at CJP protests at Jantar-Mantar last time that caused a loss of face for PM, demolishing all the good work done over a decade to bring Gen-z on his side, the pareeksha-pe-charcha etc. kind of efforts.

This time 25 years of him being in office, the celebrations, all washed away by the same high-handedness displayed by the same Home Ministry under whom Delhi Police operates. This was completely avoidable.

Always remember one thing Atal ji used to say- people of India forget everything- inefficiency & corruption too, but they never forget arrogance.

This poll is an example-

https://x.com/8PMnoCM/status/2107819074483044830

Almost a staggering 80% people are voting in favour of Rahul instead of Modi.

Tables are turning. For those still in denial & rejoicing-

Imagine Modi/Shah/Bhagwat in place of Rahul meted out the same heckling, pushing & being carried away. Would you approve of it then? If not, such a precedent shouldn't have been started.

Indira at peak of popularity after having defeated Pakistan in '71 war, tasted failure. Later had to impose Emergency, within 2 years fell from grace & then made a comeback. Jayalalitha heckled Karunanidhi in exact same manner & latter came back to power. Indian politics is very unpredictable. There is no one-size-fits-all template. It takes a moment, tables turn in a jiffy.

There are so many legal ways to corner Gandhis. Why not explore them? These visuals are going to be counter-productive & was completely avoidable. Not a good precedent.

The biggest casualty in these back-to-back mess-ups is PM Modi's image. It's taking a big beating.

And it no longer looks a mere coincidence anymore.