Viral: NYC Drowns As Subways Overflow, Streets Turn Rivers, Planes Grounded Amid 'Flood Emergency'
RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav sparked a political row by alleging his name was missing from Bihar's voter list, suggesting a conspiracy by the Election Commission. However, the ECI confirmed his name exists in the draft electoral roll with EPIC number RAB0456228, used in both 2015 and 2020. Meanwhile, a probe is underway into a second EPIC number, RAB2916120, which the ECI says is non-existent and likely never issued through official channels. The Commission rejected claims of EPIC manipulation and released documents to counter Tejashwi's allegations.#tejashwiyadav #epicnumber #biharelections #rjd #electioncommission #voterid #biharpolitics #electoralrolls #laluprasad #toi #toibharat
23.1K views | 17 hours ago
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Top court seeks ECI response on Bihar voter deletion allegations
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file a reply by August 9 in response to allegations that over 6.5 million names were deleted from Bihar's draft electoral rolls without transparency during the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directive while hearing an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). (ANI) A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directive while hearing an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which claimed that ECI failed to disclose who the deleted voters were and whether they were deceased or had migrated. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO ADR, submitted that the draft list released on August 1 lacked crucial information. 'They have not specified who the 6.5 million omitted voters are. There is no clarity on whether these are deceased persons, those who have migrated, or others. Moreover, political parties were not given access to the lists at the block level,' Bhushan argued. He further submitted that in many cases, names were either included or excluded from the rolls without the recommendation of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). 'More than 75% of those included have not submitted the required 11 documents. BLOs themselves filled the forms without verifying any documents,' said the lawyer, citing instances from two constituencies where nearly 12% of entries lacked BLO endorsement. The bench observed that as per standard operating procedure, draft electoral rolls must be shared with representatives of political parties at the block level. 'This must be ensured,' remarked the court, asking ECI to clarify if and when the draft rolls were circulated to political parties prior to publication. But the ECI counsel refuted the allegations, asserting that the draft roll was indeed shared with political parties and made publicly available. 'We are obligated to make the draft roll available. We can show that it was shared with political party representatives.' To this, the bench responded: 'Then say so in your reply. Submit a list of the political parties to whom you provided the draft roll, so that the petitioner can verify this through the respective representatives.' The bench then asked ECI to file a 'comprehensive reply' by Saturday. 'We will ensure that every voter likely to be affected is informed and given an opportunity to comply with requirements. Political parties as well as the local administration must be in possession of the requisite information,' the court added. The matter is now scheduled for hearing on August 12. On July 28, the top court refused to stay the publication of the draft rolls but reminded ECI that the SIR must promote inclusion, not mass exclusion. 'Any document on this earth can be forged. Instead of en masse exclusion, you should be going for en masse inclusion,' the bench had remarked, urging ECI to treat Aadhaar and Election Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) as carrying a 'presumption of genuineness.' The court also emphasised at the time that ECI must act cautiously while dropping names from the voters' list and noted that forgery, if any, could be tackled on a case-by-case basis. The petitions by ADR and others challenge ECI's June 24 notification initiating SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners argue that ECI's demand for only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, passport, domicile certificate, etc, as proof of citizenship lacks statutory basis. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement could disenfranchise a large number of legitimate voters, especially those from marginalised communities. The petitioners have further questioned whether ECI is even empowered to conduct such a revision and verify citizenship, pointing out that this function constitutionally rests with the Union government. During an earlier hearing on July 10, a different bench of the apex court framed three key legal questions for examination: whether ECI has the authority to undertake a special revision exercise like SIR; whether the manner in which SIR is being conducted is legally valid; and whether the timing of the exercise, months ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections, is appropriate. The court had at the time noted that the issues 'go to the root of the functioning of a democratic republic' and involve the citizens' fundamental right to vote. The SIR exercise has also snowballed into a major political flashpoint. The INDIA bloc of Opposition parties has intensified protests inside Parliament, with eight parties, including Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK, Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), writing to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to demand a special discussion on the issue. In their joint letter last week, the parties expressed 'deep concern' over the timing and transparency of the revision in Bihar, calling it 'unprecedented' so close to state assembly elections, and warned that ECI's plans to replicate such revisions nationwide warrant urgent scrutiny. The government, however, has accused the Opposition of attempting to 'politicise the issue of electoral reforms.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Calls for boycotting Bihar polls: You can't win if you don't play
In the festival of democracy that elections represent, participation is both a right and a responsibility. Yet, from time to time, political actors withdraw from this arena, hoping that their absence will make a louder statement than their presence. The tactic of boycotting elections — either by political parties or segments of the electorate — has become a recurring feature across democracies, old and new. But history offers a sobering lesson: Election boycotts rarely succeed. Instead, they often backfire, weakening opposition forces and strengthening incumbents. Calls for boycotting the upcoming elections in Bihar have gained ground in recent weeks, driven by serious apprehensions about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) ordered by the Election Commission (EC). Critics allege that the SIR is being used as a tool for mass deletion of voter names, disproportionately affecting the poor, minorities and migrants. Reports of a lack of transparency in verification processes have fuelled public distrust. While concerns about electoral integrity must be addressed seriously — and urgently — by the EC, the call for a boycott as a political response deserves deeper scrutiny. History offers a cautionary tale from our own region: Bangladesh, 2014. That year, the country's largest opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), boycotted the general elections, demanding that the ruling Awami League hand over power to a neutral caretaker government for the conduct of polls. Their fears were not unfounded — there were legitimate concerns about state capture and political persecution. But in choosing to boycott, the BNP ended up vacating the entire field. As a result, 153 of the 300 parliamentary seats were won uncontested, mostly by the ruling party and its allies. I was in Dhaka soon after. Ironically, many observers told me that had the BNP not boycotted, they were actually winning. Their boycott gifted the ruling party a walkover and left them politically marginalised for years. India, too, has witnessed its share of election boycotts — Punjab's 1992 assembly elections, for example. With the Shiromani Akali Dal boycotting, turnout plunged to as low as 13 per cent in some districts, and Beant Singh won on the votes of a tiny fraction of the electorate. The boycott handed Congress an easy victory and left democracy poorer for the lack of real competition. There have been many other boycotts, though often from non-mainstream or separatist quarters. In Jammu and Kashmir, separatist groups have historically called for poll boycotts, arguing that participation would lend legitimacy to Indian governance. Yet, elections were conducted regardless of turnout, and governments formed. In some instances, low turnout allowed particular parties to win with wafer-thin mandates, undermining broader representation. In central India, Left-wing extremist groups have regularly used violence and intimidation to enforce poll boycotts. But the EC, committed to protecting the democratic right to vote, has pushed back — with security deployments, special polling booths, and remarkable logistical efforts. The message has been consistent: Democracy will not be held hostage to boycott threats. Globally, too, boycotts have fared poorly. Venezuela offers a textbook warning: In 2005, the opposition boycotted and the ruling alliance took every National Assembly seat; in 2018, a partial boycott helped Nicolas Maduro secure reelection amid ~46 per cent turnout; and in 2020, another opposition boycott saw ~31 per cent turnout and delivered the government a supermajority. In Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai's withdrawal from the 2008 runoff allowed Robert Mugabe to claim victory unopposed. International criticism followed, but in vain. Serbia in 2000 proved the opposite. By contesting and then mobilising against fraud, the opposition toppled Slobodan Miloševic. Had they boycotted, he would have claimed victory uncontested, as in Venezuela 2005. But such outcomes are exceptions, not the rule. More often, a boycott becomes a symbolic gesture — loud in rhetoric but empty in consequence. In India, the Constitution does not provide for invalidation of elections due to boycotts or low voter turnout. The EC is duty-bound to conduct polls as per schedule and to declare winners based on the votes polled. A boycott, therefore, does not halt the process — it simply ensures a walkover. This is why the call to boycott elections in Bihar, in response to the SIR controversy, must be reconsidered. Yes, the SIR process must be subjected to robust scrutiny. The EC must remove all doubts of every party and civil society to ensure transparency in deletions and provide effective grievance redress mechanisms. Civil society, media, and courts must remain vigilant. But the electoral arena should not be abandoned. To vacate the field is to forfeit the fight. Let us not forget that in a democracy, absence is not protest — it is abdication. Equally self-defeating is the Opposition's habit of boycotting Parliament. While walkouts and prolonged disruptions are sometimes intended as symbolic protest, their practical effect is to gift the ruling party a free hand to pass crucial legislation without scrutiny or debate. In India, several landmark laws — from the farm bills in 2020 to key constitutional amendments in earlier years — were pushed through in near-empty Houses as Opposition MPs staged walkouts. In Bangladesh, the opposition's long parliamentary boycotts in the 1990s and 2000s allowed the government to legislate virtually unopposed. Pakistan offers similar lessons: Opposition boycotts of the National Assembly, most recently in 2022 after the change in government, enabled the Treasury benches to pass finance bills and controversial amendments with minimal challenge. Such tactics may momentarily grab headlines, but they deprive citizens of robust debate, weaken legislative oversight, and ultimately erode the very democracy the opposition claims to defend. Democracy thrives on participation, vigilance, and constructive engagement. Whether in elections or in Parliament, the opposition's role is to challenge, question, and hold the government to account. Boycotts may offer an outlet for anger and frustration, but they also abandon the very platforms where battles for accountability are meant to be fought. History shows that the most effective Opposition leaders have been those who stayed in the arena, however hostile, and used the tools of democracy to expose wrongs, build public opinion, and win people's trust. By walking away, the Opposition concedes both the space and the narrative to its adversaries — a political blunder from which recovery can take years, if not decades. Remember, an empty Opposition bench is the ruling party's dream and democracy's nightmare. The writer is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and author of An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Bihar SIR Row: Supreme Court Asks For Election Commission's Response On 'Removal' Of 65 L Voters
The SC instructed the ECI to submit its reply by August 9, specifying the reasons for each deletion, such as death, permanent migration, or duplication The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a comprehensive response to a petition seeking detailed reasons for the removal of over 65 lakh voters from Bihar's draft electoral rolls. This petition was filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has expressed concerns about the transparency and integrity of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) process preceding the upcoming assembly elections. A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant instructed the ECI to submit its reply by August 9, specifying the reasons for each deletion, such as death, permanent migration, or duplication. The ECI had previously released a draft roll comprising 7.24 crore voters but excluded more than 65 lakh names, citing various reasons, including 22.34 lakh deletions due to death and 36.28 lakh due to permanent absence or migration. In a prior hearing, the Supreme Court advised the ECI to focus on 'en masse inclusion" rather than 'en masse exclusion", underscoring the significance of every citizen's right to vote. The court's order to disclose detailed, booth-wise information aims to facilitate thorough cross-verification by political parties and the public during the claims and objections period, which lasts until September 1. Opposition parties have raised concerns that the revision process might result in the wrongful disenfranchisement of numerous eligible voters, especially those from marginalised communities. The case is set for further hearing on August 12. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
