SC to hear pleas challenging Bihar electoral roll revision on August 12, 13; says ‘will step in if there is mass exclusion'
Hearing the matter on Monday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, while refusing to stop the ECI from publishing the draft revised list, had asked the parties to inform it on Tuesday how much time they will take to make their submissions so that the court can fix a date.
As the court took up the matter on Tuesday, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the draft has been advertised and given to political parties.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, said those who have been left out must have a chance to submit objections. 'They will have the right. Who said they won't?' Justice Kant said, adding, 'The moment they deviate from the notification, we will interfere.'
To this, Sibal said, 'We don't know who has been left,' and asked if the ECI had given the names of those excluded. Dwivedi replied, 'It won't be given to you. Take from the website.'
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), submitted that according to the ECI, 65 lakh people have not submitted the enumeration forms as they are either dead or have permanently shifted elsewhere. Contending that those excluded will have to apply afresh, he wondered how they will come to know whether they are in the draft.
Justice Kant said that the ECI is a constitutional body and 'we would deem their action will be in accordance with the law.' He assured that the court is there to take care of any concern. 'We are here, we will hear you,' he stated.
Justice Bagchi said, 'January 2025 list is the starting point if there was no SIR. Draft list will be published by ECI. Your apprehension is 65 lakh-odd voters will not feature… They (ECI) are seeking correction vis-a-vis 2025 entry. We are overviewing the thing as a judicial authority. If there is mass exclusion, we will step in. Bring 15 people saying they are alive but left out.'
The ECI counsel, however, said there is a 30-day window for filing objections and that the petitioners should help with adding names.
Justice Kant stated that political parties should operate like NGOs during the process.
Sibal said the petitioners will have no problem if the ECI mentions who were excluded. Justice Kant then said, 'If the draft list is conspicuously silent, you will bring (it) to our attention.'
Dwivedi said the final number would be made public only after the objections are considered. 'Once objections are considered, a real picture would come as to who has been excluded. At least by September 15, we are expecting (the final list),' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka HC lifts media gag in Dharmasthala mass burials case, calls it unconstitutional
The Karnataka High Court on Friday struck down a media gag order imposed by a lower court in the ongoing Dharmasthala mass burials case, calling it an unconstitutional restraint on free speech. SIT during examination at a site in the Dharmasthala mass burial case.(PTI) Justice M Nagaprasanna, who delivered the ruling, held that the public's right to know cannot be curtailed, especially in a matter involving allegations of serious institutional failure and the possibility of criminal wrongdoing, India Today reported. The High Court's order came in response to a petition filed by the YouTube channel Kudle Rampage, which was one of 338 respondents barred from publishing any content related to the case. (Also Read: Prajwal Revanna convicted: A look back at the high-profile rape case that shook Karnataka) According to the publication, the lower court had earlier issued an ex-parte injunction prohibiting all reporting or commentary on the ongoing investigation, drawing criticism from press freedom advocates. In his judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna ruled that the trial court's order had the effect of creating a 'chilling effect' on journalism and public accountability. Advocate A Velan, who represented the petitioners, welcomed the verdict and issued a statement soon after the ruling. Velan emphasised that the verdict restored media freedom in a case that had raised disturbing questions about illegal mass burials, long-term institutional lapses, and the role of law enforcement. While the matter has been remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration, the High Court has laid down a clear framework that upholds the principles of natural justice and freedom of expression. Dharmasthala mass burial case: Updates Meanwhile, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged mass graves in Dharmasthala has intensified security and forensic protocols at a newly identified burial site, after the recovery of skeletal remains suspected to be part of a larger ossuary. The remains were discovered during an excavation at 'Point Number 6', the sixth site identified so far in the ongoing investigation. The location was flagged by the primary complainant in the case, which centres on allegations of hundreds of undocumented burials in and around the temple town. Officials said the latest discovery marked a significant development, lending further weight to claims of widespread irregularities in burials across the region. (With agency inputs) (Also Read: RPF intercepts trafficking operation, saves 56 girls bound for Bengaluru: Report)
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change opens the window for a new, restorative vision of environmental law in India
By Elsa Mustafa After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its historic advisory opinion on climate change on July 23, much of the focus has been on what the court said on emissions, human rights, and financial reparations. But a profound thread runs through the judgment, which has been brought into sharper focus in the separate opinion by Judge Hilary Charlesworth. It is the idea that biodiversity is not merely a passive victim of climate change but a legal and ecological actor in its own right. Seen through this lens, the ICJ's opinion becomes more than just a warning to polluters — it is a call to re-enchant our relationship with the living world, to see ecosystems not just as 'resources' but as climate allies, the carriers of rights, and the subjects of legal care. For India, a country with rich biodiversity and spiritual nature ethics, as well as climate vulnerability, this idea opens the window to a new, restorative vision of environmental law. The ICJ has explicitly recognised the biosphere as a component of the climate system, encompassing 'all ecosystems and living organisms'. This makes the protection of nature a core climate duty, not just a secondary concern. This would make mitigation and adaptation about more than just wind turbines or emissions trading, but also about reviving forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and sacred groves. Judge Charlesworth has reinforced this view. She has drawn attention to the intersubjectivity between climate change and environmental degradation, noting that obligations under international law must be interpreted with an 'ecologically literate understanding'. This ecological literacy requires us to break from siloed legal thinking, and to see ecosystems as part of a complex web of duties and relationships. India is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth, home to more than 7% of global fauna and 12% of flora. It is also among the most vulnerable to climate change – with the Himalayan glaciers retreating, the Sundarbans mangroves drowning, and the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot facing deforestation and fragmentation. All these are not just ecological losses, they are climate failures in legal terms. The ICJ's opinion has given India a strong platform for the integration of biodiversity protection directly into its climate obligations. * Forests as legal carbon sinks: Paragraphs 446 and 457 of the opinion recognise the obligation of states to 'preserve and enhance' greenhouse gas sinks, forests, wetlands, and oceans. For India, this affirms that protecting biodiversity is not just a constitutional obligation (Article 48A), but also an international climate duty. * Sundarbans and the right to life: India's Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (right to life) to include the right to a healthy environment. The ICJ has now internationalised this idea. If the destruction of mangroves worsens the climate risks for local communities, India is bound both legally and morally to protect those ecosystems. * Sacred ecosystems as climate assets: Many Indian ecosystems such as riverine forests, sacred groves, and highland meadows are protected by not just law, but also by culture. The ICJ's emphasis on local knowledge and inclusive governance (Charlesworth, paras 10-13) creates space for India to recognise community-led biodiversity as part of its national climate strategy. * Biodiversity as justice: Judge Charlesworth's opinion includes a critique of the ways in which historical power dynamics have shaped environmental laws. She reminds us that legal systems formed at a time of colonial expansion often led to ignorance of the worldviews of indigenous and colonised peoples. This insight matters deeply for India, whose forest and wildlife laws emerged from colonial control, not community stewardship. Since the ICJ has now recognised that the obligation to prevent environmental harm is global and ongoing (para 134), India has a basis to argue not just for aid or transition support, but for restorative environmental justice. Reparations must go beyond money – they must include returning agency to indigenous forest dwellers, regenerating lost biodiversity, and protecting community ecosystems. Policy horizons: the way forward for India This legal moment offers India the opportunity to reimagine its environmental governance in line with the ICJ's vision. Some concrete steps could include: * Integrating climate-biodiversity into India's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement: This requires amendments to include ecosystem restoration targets. Afforestation is already a part of India's mitigation plan; ecological restoration – including restoring native species, protecting seed banks, and preventing monoculture – must become a central focus. * Recognising legal rights of ecosystems within: Indian courts have already declared the Ganga and Yamuna as legal persons. The ICJ's opinion strengthens the legal basis for extending personhood to biodiversity-rich landscapes, especially those that are threatened by development. * Community-based climate restoration: Tribal and forest-dependent communities must become frontline climate protectors. The ICJ's stress on 'inclusive participation' (Charlesworth, para 13) supports expanding programs like Joint Forest Management (JFM) and recognising community conservation areas as being climate-critical. * Legal reform to end silos: Environmental law in India is fragmented, with all its various aspects being governed separately. The ICJ's judgment invites India to develop integrated environmental legislation, perhaps through a Biodiversity-Climate Protection Act, which would reflect the living interdependence of ecological systems. A soulful challenge: will and wisdom The ICJ's final lines state that a 'lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom' (para 456). It is a poetic end to a legal document, and a call that resonates deeply with India's civilisational ethos. India has always revered nature as sacred, sentient, and cyclical – from the Chipko movement of the 1970s to the tribal belief that cutting a tree without prayer brings misfortune. India's climate future may depend less on courtroom litigation and more on awakening this spiritual-ecological consciousness into legal and political will. Judge Charlesworth warns against technocratic minimalism. She writes that focusing solely on quantifiable targets runs the risk of erasing the lived experiences of ecological collapse (Charlesworth, para 18). For India, this would mean not just measuring emissions but also listening to the river-worshippers, the honey collectors, the forest women, and the fisherfolk, whose lives lie the hidden costs of climate injustice. Conclusion: planting justice, growing climate peace The ICJ's opinion, along with Judge Charlesworth's lens, has offered us a chance to advance our restorative vision of climate law that centres ecosystems and communities. For India, it has provided a path forward that passes not only through courtroom advocacy, but also seeks to align legal frameworks with rich ancient ecological wisdom and constitutional values. If this shift takes place, India will transform itself from a climate-vulnerable nation to a global leader in climate-biodiversity justice – one that is rooted not just in emissions metrics, but in the soil, the grove, and the spirit of its land. (The author, a Masters in Law from Tilburg University in The Netherlands, teaches at Alliance University, Bengaluru.)
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court dismisses petition claiming errors in NEET-UG 2025 questions
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea which claimed there were 'serious errors' in three questions asked in the NEET-UG 2025 examination. The plea came up for hearing before a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, which asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner to approach the concerned high court. 'These (three) questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views,' the counsel of the petitioner argued. He argued these three questions were making a difference of 13 marks for the petitioner. The bench observed that the exam was already over. 'You withdraw this and go to the high court,' the bench said. 'We don't want to close your remedy.' The counsel urged that the apex court may appoint a panel of experts who can give an opinion on these three questions within three days. He said the bench may take a view after hearing the opinions oThe National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) examination is conducted by the National Testing Agency for admissions to MBBS, BDS and AYUSH and other related courses in government and private institutions across the country.f a panel of experts. After the bench showed its disinclination to entertain the plea, the petitioner's counsel withdrew it. On July 4, the apex court declined to entertain a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results due to an alleged error in one of the questions.
