2 days after dates given: High Court stays panchayat polls in Uttarakhand
Two days after the panchayat elections dates were announced in the state, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday stayed all proceedings concerning the polls.
This came after a petition was filed by Bageshwar-resident Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, saying the government's decision to nullify the existing reservation rotation for the panchayat polls and bring about a new rotation from this year has prevented him from being able to contest the election.
Under the reservation rotation system, constituencies are reserved for various categories for three terms, after which the quota goes to other seats. With the existing rotation being nullified and a new rotation starting this year, Kandpal, represented by Advocate Shobhit Saharia, said a seat that had been reserved for the last three terms will again be reserved this year.
This, Kandpal argued, has prevented him from contesting the election. The petitioner argued that the High Court had already issued guidelines on this matter in the past.
The petition was filed on Thursday and the Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra heard the matter on Friday. On Monday, the court stayed the election proceedings until the state furnishes the notification for the new rules for panchayat polls. The state has also been asked to present its policy on reservation.
Following the stay order, Panchayati Raj Secretary Chandresh Kumar said, 'The High Court has currently stayed the panchayat elections as there is no gazette notification issued for Reservation Rules 2025 yet. In this connection, I have spoken to the Government Press, Roorkee, to make a copy of the gazette notification available to the state government, which can be submitted in the High Court to lift the stay.'
He said the state is 'committed to upholding the full dignity and directions of the court and to operating the Panchayati Raj system in accordance with the Constitution and the law'.
On Saturday, the state Election Commission announced the dates for elections to the three-tier panchayats in 12 districts of Uttarakhand, excluding Haridwar. Elections were supposed to be conducted in two phases, with the nomination process beginning on June 25. Polling was to take place on July 10 in the first phase and on July 15 in the second phase, and counting on July 19. The Model Code of Conduct had been enforced in all areas of the state except urban areas and Haridwar district.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Aftershocks of 1975 Emergency: When Referendum almost made it to Constitution
NEW DELHI: Founding fathers of the Constitution of India fought hard to keep 'Referendum' out of it, but it almost made it to the statute in 1978 in the aftermath of Emergency. The then Janata government proposed 'referendum' being part of the Constitution as an additional 'safeguard' to thwart any repeat of Emergency-like situation and even got it passed in the Lok Sabha, but the idea had to be dropped as it could not cut the mustard in the Rajya Sabha. Several Janata Party leaders and their allies were also not very comfortable with the idea of going back to the public despite having their own government being in power. The Constitution Amendment Bill of 1978, proposed by the then Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, cited the Emergency as an example when fundamental rights, including those of life and liberty, granted to citizens by the Constitution can be taken away by a transient majority. It said that it was necessary to provide adequate safeguards against the recurrence of such a contingency in future and to ensure to people themselves an effective voice in determining the form of government under which they are to live. The bill sought that "certain changes" in the Constitution can be made only if they are approved by the people of India by a majority of votes at a referendum in which at least 51 percent of the electorate participate. It would have been applicable for Constitutional amendments that were capable of impairing its secular or democratic character, abridging or taking away fundamental rights prejudicing or impeding free and fair elections on the basis of adult suffrage and compromising the independence of judiciary. Bhushan faced strong opposition in Parliament, including from some of his own colleagues, and many asked was it not akin to not trusting the mandate already given by people while electing the government. Some MPs also raised question of huge expenses that could be incurred by going to the public again and again, while some suspected a "referendum" could be used by the government in power to push majority agenda like imposition of Hindi etc. A few supported the idea but said the referendum should be for 75 percent of voters, while a few others went out to demand that the Constitution also mostly provide for a referendum provision giving people the power to recall an MP or a government if they were not satisfied with their work. While the long-winding debates in the two houses saw several interesting friendly and not-so-friendly exchanges among the MPs, the idea had to be dropped with the minister himself admitting on several occasions that he could probably not project the idea properly. This was also the first time in the country's parliamentary history that a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by the Lok Sabha was returned by the Rajya Sabha and the bill had to be changed according to the portions rejected by the house of elders. During one such exchange, he asked AR Antulay, then Congress Rajya Sabha MP, if he would accept if it is passed by two-third majority of two houses of Parliament that he was a "small girl" and should there not be a provision to get it corrected. Antulay responded jokingly what the minister will do if it is passed by Parliament that Bhushan is "an old girl." Bhushan replied that he would not challenge it, to which Antulay replied still he was not convinced that the Supreme Court should get into it. Bhupesh Gupta, a Left MP, joined the banter and said that he was quite sure Antulay will welcome it if the Supreme Court says he is a small girl. In the Lok Sabha also, Bhushan's referendum proposal triggered an intense debate and some of the most interesting nuggets came from socialist MP HV Kamath, who was also a member of the Constituent Assembly when the Constitution was being framed. Kamath, known for joining almost all discussions in the Lok Sabha and in the Constituent Assembly before that, suggested to Bhushan that the referendum should be successful only with 75 percent of votes though he could also agree to one-third support of electors. In the Constituent Assembly, where he was among the few members to strongly oppose any Emergency provision being added, he had also suggested that voters of a constituency should be given power to recall their MP or for failure to properly discharge his or her duties. Kamath's proposal was rejected. The original draft of the Constitution did not provide for direct voting by people on law-making matters through a referendum, but several members in the Constituent Assembly called for it on issues like national language, national script, national anthem, international numerals and cow slaughter. Some members said that a referendum could empower sovereignty of people and address adverse issues arising from absolute power, while others proposed it as a tool to handle situations when legislature and executive are not on the same page. Mahavir Tyagi, elected to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces on a Congress Party ticket, advocated for the Constitution empowering people with the right to overthrow a government which acts destructively against the rights of people. Several members cited examples from other countries, including Switzerland, US, Canada and Ireland to call for a referendum provision, but others opposed it vehemently as unpractical, expensive and restrictive. President Rajendra Prasad rejected all those demands citing lack of any provision for referendum in the Constitution. BR Ambedkar was very categorical: "The Draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate and difficult procedures such as a decision by a convention or a referendum." He said the powers of amendment are left with the central and provincial legislatures. Almost similar logics came up in Parliament nearly 30 years later in 1978 in favour of referendum, but they met similar opposition with one additional point made by most anti-referendum voices -- even general elections hardly see more than 50 percent voting and expecting more than 50 percent electors voting in a referendum was unthinkable.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Rahul Gandhi condemns torture of two dalit youths in Odisha, demands arrest of culprits
Bhubaneswar, June 24 (UNI) Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has strongly condemned the inhuman torture inflicted on two Dalit youths in Singipur village under Dharakot block of Ganjam district in Odisha. Terming the incident a stark reminder that caste discrimination still persists, Rahul stated on social media, "This incident is a mirror for those who say caste is no longer an issue." He demanded the immediate arrest and strict punishment of the culprits involved. "The country is governed by the Constitution, not by the selective memory of individuals," Rahul Gandhi remarked. Describing the brutality, the Congress leader said the Dalit youths were forced to kneel, eat grass, drink dirty water, and were paraded through the streets on their knees. He called the act not just inhuman but a barbaric assault on the ideals of humanity. "Every incident that violates the dignity of Dalits is an attack on Baba Saheb Ambedkar's Constitution," he emphasized. Rahul alleged that such incidents are becoming increasingly common in BJP-ruled states due to politics rooted in hatred and discrimination. He further stated that atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women have risen alarmingly in Odisha. The horrifying incident, which occurred in Dharakote block of Ganjam district, went viral on social media. The video shows the two Dalit youths being publicly humiliated and tortured over mere suspicion of cattle smuggling. The victims, residents of Haripur village, were reportedly transporting three cows to Singipur as dowry for a wedding when they were stopped by a mob. On suspicion of illegal cow smuggling, the mob tied them with ropes, paraded them through the village on their knees, and forced them to drink dirty drain water. UNI DP PRS
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana Congress delimitation panel to consult legal experts, review past reports; leaders ask for representation
HYDERABAD: The first meeting of the delimitation committee of the Telangana Congress on Monday decided to consult legal and constitutional experts. They will also study the reports of previous delimitation commissions, based on which a report will be prepared to ensure that injustice is not done to Telangana and other southern states. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The present delimitation of parliamentary constituencies within states was done on the basis of the 2001 Census, under the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002. However, the Constitution was specifically amended in 2002 not to have interstate delimitation of constituencies till the "first census conducted after the year 2026". Thus, the present constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 Census would continue to be in operation till then. The TPCC delimitation committee meeting was attended by its chairman and CWC special invitee Ch Vamshi Chand Reddy and its members, AICC in charge Meenakshi Natarajan and Telangana Congress president B Mahesh Kumar Goud. They discussed the formulae adopted by the previous delimitation commissions and decided to study them in detail. After this meeting, a delegation of the Yadav community leaders met Meenakshi and Mahesh Goud and urged them to provide adequate representation to Yadav and Kurma communities in the ensuing panchayat, MPTC, and ZPTC elections, and also a berth to one of the communities in the cabinet, where three vacancies still exist. The TPCC chief spoke to the concerned minister and assured them that their request for a cabinet berth would be sent to the AICC leadership. He also assured them that Yadava and Kurma community members would be given opportunities to contest in the forthcoming rural local body polls, but based on the winning prospects of the candidates and their contribution to strengthening the party at the grassroots levels. Later, Meenakshi addressed a meeting of party leaders on 'Jai Bapu, Jai Bheem, and Samvidhan Bachao' programmes to be taken up in the state.
