Congress' demand for digital electoral rolls
New Delhi [India], June 26 (ANI): Sources within the Election Commission of India (ECI) have clarified that the Indian National Congress' (INC) ongoing demand for machine-readable, digital copies of electoral rolls is 'not legally tenable' and has already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
Officials pointed out that this issue was earlier raised by former Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee President Kamal Nath in 2018 through written petition (C) No. 935 of 2018. The Supreme Court had definitively ruled in favour of the Election Commission's position in that case.
While acknowledging that the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has been demanding digital electoral rolls for the past seven months, ECI sources said that this is part of a Congress strategy spanning over eight years. They added that this fact 'appears to have been selectively obscured in the present representation.'
The sources said that although Rahul Gandhi's demand is consistent with the Congress party's historical position, it cannot be accommodated within the current legal framework. The matter has already been legally settled through a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kamal Nath vs. Election Commission of India.
Rahul Gandhi 'may not have been appropriately apprised of the finality with which the matter stands concluded in judicial record,' they said.
In its 2019 judgment, the Supreme Court specifically addressed whether voter lists should be supplied to political parties in searchable text mode rather than PDF format.
'The draft electoral roll in that mode i.e. text mode, has been supplied to the petitioner,' the Supreme Court noted, adding that the Election Manual's Clause 11.2.2.2 uses the expression 'text mode' but 'nowhere says that the draft electoral roll has to be put up on the Chief Electoral Officer's website in a 'searchable PDF'.'
The apex court upheld the ECI's decision to provide electoral rolls only in 'Image PDF' format in the public domain. The judgment stated that the current format 'fulfils the requirement contained in the Election Manual.'
The court also noted that if political parties require searchable formats, 'he can always convert it into searchable mode, which of course, would require him to put his own efforts.'
ECI sources further emphasised that the Commission's instructions dated January 4, 2018, directing field functionaries to provide only 'Image PDF' versions of electoral rolls, remain valid and have been judicially endorsed.
The clarification comes amid renewed political debate over electoral transparency and access to voter data, with the Congress party continuing to press for enhanced digital access despite the settled legal position.' (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Review if 'socialist' & 'secular' should be in statute: RSS national general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale
NEW DELHI: RSS national general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on Thursday demanded that the current generation of Congress , which claims to vouch for the Constitution, must apologise for imposition of Emergency by Indira Gandhi govt 50 years ago. Hosabale made a strong pitch for considering whether two words - socialist and secular - which were added to the Preamble of the Constitution by the Congress govt during Emergency by the 42nd amendment, should remain. Recalling the days of Emergency, Hosabale said while thousands of people were put in jail and tortured during that period, freedom of the judiciary and media was also curtailed. He said the words - socialist and secular - were inserted later and there has been no discussion on whether they should be retained. "The original Constitution had no mention of them. They should reviewe it," he added. tnn
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Colombia's dire president gets desperate
IT has been a frustrating few years for Gustavo Petro, Colombia's first avowedly left-wing president. He was elected in 2022 on a promise to overhaul pensions, the health-care system and labour laws, and to dramatically reduce inequality. He also vowed to establish 'Total Peace' by negotiating with all armed groups in the conflict-riven country. Yet Mr Petro's pugilistic governing style has made it hard to get support in Congress, while the courts have held up some of his reforms. Exasperated, Mr Petro is now flirting with changing the constitution. PREMIUM Colombian President Gustavo Petro attends the Climate Ambition Summit at the United Nations Headquarters on September 20, 2023.(AFP) Colombia needs reform. It is among the world's most unequal countries. It is painfully hard for a poor child to ascend into the middle class. In a study by the World Bank from 2018, Colombia had the lowest intergenerational income mobility among a group of 75 countries. Yet Mr Petro's plans have been flawed. Take health-care reform. Colombia's system is administered by 27 private insurers. Only seven of these have enough financial liquidity to meet demands by regulators. Yet rather than tweak the system, which provides cheaper health care than in most countries in Latin America, Mr Petro threatened to tear it up. Last year he proposed a bill that would nationalise all private insurers. When Congress shelved this proposal, regulators took over the two largest insurers. In March the lower house passed a watered-down version of the bill. The Senate will probably reject it. A pension-reform bill is also in limbo. Under it, workers who earn up to 2.3 times the minimum wage—or around $750 per month—would have been obliged to pay their contributions into the state system. Higher earners would have been able to put the balance in a private fund. The bill was meant to come into force on July 1st. But on June 18th the constitutional court sent it back to Congress after opposition lawmakers said that the government had rammed it through Congress without adequate time for debate. Mr Petro's biggest success came on June 20th, when lawmakers approved a modified version of his labour reform. Senators had previously rejected it twice, but were cowed after Mr Petro decreed—and then withdrew—a referendum on it. The reform will increase the overtime premium on Sundays and holidays to 100% of a worker's salary, up from 75% today. It forces firms to contribute more to gig workers' pensions and health care, and to fully cover their insurance. This 'restores rights to Colombian workers,' says Juan Pablo Lopez, a left-wing activist who describes current labour laws as 'feudal'. Fedesarrollo, a think-tank in Bogotá, the capital, reckons that the reform will raise the cost of hiring by up to 15%. Small businesses and firms in security and retail that rely heavily on night shifts will be hardest hit. They could fire employees, pushing even more Colombians into the black market, where about 60% of workers already toil. 'You can't talk about improving conditions for workers if at the same time you discourage entrepreneurs,' says Gabriel Jaime Vallejo of the Democratic Centre, a right-wing party. Making matters worse, the government is running out of fiscal space to implement its agenda. On June 13th Germán Ávila, the finance minister, froze a legal limit on state spending and borrowing for three years. That will tip the deficit over 7% of GDP this year, up from 6.7% last year. 'Total Peace' looks battered. On June 7th Miguel Uribe, a right-wing senator who had announced that he would run in next year's presidential election, was shot in the head in Bogotá and remains in critical condition. Days later armed groups killed at least seven people in and around Cali, the third-largest city. 'We made a lot of sacrifices so that Petro could become president,' says a local leader from Catatumbo, a violent region. Now he fears his efforts were in vain. In January he was forced to leave his home due to conflict. All this would be enough trouble for any administration. But Mr Petro's unstable character compounds problems. He often rants on X, formerly Twitter, and has compared his critics to slave owners and Nazis. Since coming to power he has shaken up his cabinet four times, nominating over 50 ministers. In April his former foreign minister accused him of taking drugs (Mr Petro denies the allegations and says he is being slandered). These setbacks have led Mr Petro to embrace a dangerous idea. On June 20th he announced that he would include a vote on whether to call a constituent assembly in next year's general elections. Past presidents have amended the constitution from 1991, which enshrines many social rights. Yet Mr Petro's proposal to call an assembly to rewrite the charter is radical, and his intentions are worryingly vague. Critics fear that the president is trying to enshrine in the constitution what he has been unable to pass in Congress. Mr Petro's approval ratings, at around a third, are low, though not unusual by Colombian standards. He is ineligible for re-election and has no clear heir. Instead, he believes that the pueblo will save his legacy. Sign up to El Boletín, our subscriber-only newsletter on Latin America, to understand the forces shaping a fascinating and complex region.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund Planned Parenthood
Washington: The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Thursday for South Carolina to strip Planned Parenthood of funding under the Medicaid health insurance program in a ruling that bolsters efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of public money. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court's decision barring Republican-governed South Carolina from terminating regional affiliate Planned Parenthood South Atlantic 's participation in the state's Medicaid program because the organization provides abortions. The court's three liberal justices dissented from the decision. The case centered on whether recipients of Medicaid, a joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, may sue to enforce a requirement under U.S. law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans or, like South Carolina, prohibitions after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. The Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican Governor Henry McMaster ordered South Carolina officials to end the organization's participation in the state Medicaid program by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 U.S. law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a "deeply personal right" to choose one's doctor. The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the "high bar for recognizing private rights." A federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favor, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organization violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also sided with the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2. The dispute has reached the Supreme Court three times. The court in 2020 rejected South Carolina's appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, it ordered a lower court to reconsider South Carolina's arguments in light of a ruling the justices had issued involving the rights of nursing home residents that explained that laws like Medicaid must unambiguously give individuals the right to sue.
