'Abhi picture baki hai': Rahul Gandhi doubles down on his 'vote chori' allegations
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
DMK allies to boycott guv's tea party
Chennai: TNCC, VCK, CPM, CPI and MMK have said that they are boycotting TN Governor R N Ravi's 'At Home' tea party on Independence Day. In a statement on Wednesday, TNCC president K Selvaperunthagai accused Ravi of acting against the interests of the people and rights of TN. He condemned the governor for not giving assent to the Kalaignar University Bill. VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan, however, did not attribute any reason for boycotting the event. Thanking the governor for extending invitation to the party, Thirumavalavan said VCK will not participate in the event 'as usual'. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai | Gold Rates Today in Chennai | Silver Rates Today in Chennai CPM state secretary P Shanmugam alleged that Ravi has been acting against the principles of federalism, the state's interests and the Constitution. Despite Supreme Court's directions, Ravi had forwarded the Kalaignar University Bill to the President, Shanmugam said. "Condemning the governor for his activities, we have decided to boycott his tea party," Shanmugam added. CPI state secretary R Mutharasan too attributed the same reasons for the boycott. MMK president M H Jawahirullah alleged that the governor was creating unnecessary conflicts with the democratically elected state govt and hence the decision to skip the team party. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Expanded list of docs to prove citizenship voter-friendly: SC
Synopsis The Supreme Court deemed the Election Commission's expansion of acceptable voter ID documents in Bihar as 'voter-friendly,' emphasizing increased choice. Justices highlighted that more options benefit voters, dismissing concerns about the document list's length. The court also questioned the challenge to the special intensive revision's legality, citing the Representation of the Peoples Act and the Constitution. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the Election Commission's decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for establishing a voter's identity in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was "actually voter-friendly."A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally remarked that the expansion of documents leads to "expansion of choice" giving the voters "more options".Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi told one of the counsels for the petitioners that "we can understand your argument on exclusion of Aadhaar card but increasing the number of (acceptable) documents gives the voters more options". The Bench said this in light of contention raised by the petitioners that in the past the list of documents under a revision of rolls was not more than seven as compared to eleven in Bihar's in, Justice Kant orally remarked "things would have been different if you (voter) had to submit all the eleven documents. Then it would have been against the voters. But (in the instant case) ECI has given eleven options". The Bench also questioned the contention raised by another counsel for the petitioners that ECI did not have the power to conduct the special intensive revision (SIR). The Bench referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit."Justice Bagchi added that the residuary power of the Election Commission flows from Article 324 of the Constitution as well. The Representation of the Peoples Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the Commission has only added the word "intensive".Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the Election Commission should publish the list of the 65 lakh voters who were omitted from the list and also the reasons for the urged the Bench to issue an interim direction to the Commission to publish the names of persons excluded from the draft, to make the draft list on the website searchable, give names of persons recommended/not recommended by the BLO, and the reasons for case will come up for resumed hearing on Thursday when the Election Commission will present its counter. At the last hearing, on Tuesday, the Bench had verbally remarked that "largely it appears to be a case of trust deficiency".The Bench had also told the counsels for petitioners that they should "agree" with the claim of Election Commission that a "detailed inquiry is not required" for the purpose of preparing draft Bench had questioned the petitioners if it was their argument that Aadhar card is a proof of citizenship. "Do we presume that it is your argument that Aadhar is proof of citizenship?", the Bench had questioned one of the counsels for the petitioners. Referring to the Aadhar act, the Bench had said that the Election Commission of India was right in submitting that an Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of citizenship. The argument by petitioners that electors in Bihar do not have a majority of documents sought by the ECI as proof did not find favour with the Bench. "Largely, it appears to be a case of trust is an integral part of India. If people in Bihar do not have (the documents) then people in other states won't also have", Justice Kant had orally observed on Tuesday.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Aid and advice: on Jammu and Kashmir, LG's Assembly member nominations
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs' assertion to the J&K High Court that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) can nominate five Assembly members without the 'aid and advice' of the elected government overrides democratic accountability. Consequential decisions such as nominating members who have voting rights in an elected assembly must flow from democratic mandate, not administrative discretion. The High Court's constitutional question could not be more direct: do the 2023 amendments to the J&K Reorganisation Act, allowing the LG to nominate five Assembly members 'which have the potential of converting the minority government into a majority government and vice-versa,' violate the Constitution's basic structure? Rather than addressing this, the Ministry delves into legal technicalities. Its submission argues that nominations fall outside the elected government's remit, seemingly invoking the K. Lakshminarayanan vs The Union of India precedent from Puducherry while claiming the 'sanctioned strength' includes elected and nominated members. It even references Section 12 of the 1963 Union Territories Act (voting procedures) as justification for bypassing democratic consultation. When five nominated members could determine government stability in a 119-member Assembly, the issue transcends statutory definitions of 'sanctioned strength'. The real question is whether any legal framework allowing appointed officials to potentially overturn the people's electoral verdict violates the democratic essence of the Constitution. The amendments inserted Sections 15A and 15B into the 2019 Act, allowing the LG to nominate two Kashmiri migrants (including one woman) and one from the Pakistan-occupied J&K community, besides the existing power to nominate two women, if inadequately represented in the elected Assembly. This effectively creates five nominated seats. The High Court's framing of this issue acknowledges the stakes involved: this could 'convert minority government into majority government and vice-versa', potentially subverting the electoral process. This concern is not unsubstantiated — in 2021, three years after Lakshminarayanan, Puducherry saw nominated members and defecting elected MLAs contributing to the collapse of the Congress-led government. Also, J&K's trajectory to Union Territory, without consultation with elected representatives, makes democratic accountability even more crucial. The unfulfilled promise of Statehood restoration, acknowledged by the Supreme Court and despite overwhelming support in J&K, reinforces that current arrangements should strengthen democratic governance. The Ministry's argument that nominations exist 'outside the realm of the business of the elected government' also contradicts evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the Delhi services cases of 2018 and 2023, it ruled that the LG should act on elected governments' aid and advice, with discretionary powers treated as exceptions. Seen in this light, the Ministry's arguments do not hold water.
