An insincere attempt at hollow reforms
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
NGO, ADR move Supreme Court challenging revision of electoral rolls in Bihar
"The SIR order if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of basic structure of the Constitution," said the NGO ADR, in its plea filed in the top court. It added that the documentation process requirements of the directive, lack of due process, as well as the unreasonably short timeline for the said SIR of Electoral Roll in Bihar, further make this exercise bound to result in the removal of names of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls, leading to their disenfranchisement. Seeking to quash the direction of ECI's SIR order of 24, June 2025, the ADR said, the ECI, by doing so, has shifted the onus of being on the voters' list from the State to citizens. It has excluded identification documents such as Aadhar or ration cards which further make marginalised communities and the poor more vulnerable to exclusion from voting. "The Declaration as required under the SIR process is violative of Article 326 in so far as it requires a voter to provide documents to prove his/her citizenship and also citizenships of his/her mother or father, failing which his/her name would not be added to the draft electoral roll and can be deleted from the same," the ADR said. Terming the ECI's order as unreasonable and impractical timeline to conduct SIR in Bihar, the petitioner, ADR said that with close proximity to state elections which are due in November 2025, there are lakhs of citizens (whose names did not appear in 2003 ER) who do not possess the documents as required under the SIR order.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Register FIR in Parbhani custodial death with a week: HC to state
MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court on Friday directed the police to register a first information report (FIR) in the custodial death of law student Somnath Suryawanshi, who was arrested in Parbhani in December 2024 following violence in the city over the desecration of a glass-encased replica of the Constitution. 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi died in judicial custody on December 15, 2024. (Hindustan Times) The division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh observed that prima facie evidence in the case indicated that Suryavanshi had been tortured in custody and directed the Mondha police station in Parbhani to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by his mother Vijayabai within one week. The bench also asked the superintendent of police (SP) of Parbhani to hand over the investigation to an officer of deputy superintendent of police rank. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Vijayabai Suryawanshi in April 2025, alleging police brutality had caused her son's death and seeking an independent, court-monitored probe into the incident. The petition – filed through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi – sought registration of a first information report (FIR) against police officers and their associates responsible for Somnath Suryawanshi's custodial death, grievous injuries to other victims and outraging the modesty of women in police custody. On December 10, 2024, a replica of the Constitution kept near a statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar outside the railway station in Parbhani was vandalised following a public meeting organised by Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha, a far right group. The incident led to a spate of reactionary protests and strikes and prompted the imposition of prohibitory orders and combing operations. The police arrested over 50 young men and women in connection with the protests, including Somnath Suryavanshi, who was visiting Parbhani to appear for his final-year law examination. The arrested accused – mostly from marginalised social groups – were slapped with stringent charges and allegedly assaulted, abused and threatened in police custody, prompting at least 23 separate complaints. Vijayabai Suryawanshi's petition referred to the chain of events, saying, 'The assault on Somnath Suryavanshi was so brutal that he died within hours of being admitted to the state-run hospital in Parbhani after being sent to judicial custody.' Somnath's postmortem report too said his death was caused primarily from 'shock due to multiple injuries', the petition said. A police officer named Ashok Ghorband subsequently offered ₹50 lakh to Vijayabai Suryawanshi for not filing a police complaint, she mentioned in her plea. 'Given the events and the behaviour of certain police officers and staff, their deep-rooted caste-based hatred was openly visible,' the petition said, urging the court to suspend the concerned police officers, order an independent court-monitored probe and disclose the magisterial inquiry report on the incident. Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, representing Vijayabai, submitted that Suryawanshi was unnecessarily roped by the police, with material on record to manifest 'gross violation of human rights'. 'In clear terms, Somnath died due to the police authorities,' Ambedkar remarked. Public prosecutor AB Girase denied the possibility of any illegality in the case and submitted that the inquiry was still ongoing. Therefore, the court could direct the registration of an FIR based on contrary documents or incomplete inquiry, he said. The bench of justices Kankanwadi and Deshmukh took serious note of the delay in registration of the FIR, considering the presence of evidence, the magisterial inquiry and postmortem reports, and inquest noting visible injuries. 'The postmortem report shows that there were 24 visible injuries. Of course, there are internal injuries also', the court observed. The court criticised the state criminal investigation department (CID) for seeking independent opinion from medical experts at JJ Hospital in Mumbai, instead of approaching the seven-member medical team that had conducted the autopsy. The next hearing is scheduled on July 30.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
No external interference in judge appointments, says CJI Gavai
MUMBAI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai on Friday assured that judicial appointments will remain free from external interference, affirming the Supreme Court's commitment to transparency and merit in the collegium system. Reflecting on his role, he concluded, 'It is the duty of a judge to uphold the Constitution and to do justice. That has always been my guiding principle.' (PTI) Speaking at a felicitation event hosted by the Bombay Bar Association to mark his elevation as the 52nd CJI, Justice Gavai responded to recent concerns raised by Supreme Court judge Dipankar Datta about attempts to influence the collegium's decisions. 'I must assure you that we will ensure a completely transparent process while giving due representation to all sections of society,' Justice Gavai said. 'Merit will never be compromised.' Justice Datta, while delivering a speech in Pune on June 28, had flagged the need to insulate the judiciary from 'external forces' that delay or obstruct collegium recommendations. 'Such forces must be dealt with sternly. Whatever proceedings are pending must be given top priority to ensure that merit, and only merit, is considered — not extraneous considerations,' he had said. Justice Gavai, addressing the issue directly, highlighted ongoing efforts to reform the selection process. 'From the time of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, we have tried to bring in greater transparency in appointments. Just yesterday, we interviewed 54 candidates and recommended 34 names,' he said. The CJI also congratulated advocates Gautam Ankad and Mahendra Nerlikar, whose appointments as additional judges of the Bombay High Court were notified by the Union Law Ministry on Friday. 'We are making every effort to ensure vacancies are filled at the earliest so that courts function at full strength,' he added. Justice Gavai acknowledged pendency as a major challenge facing the judiciary, attributing part of the problem to delays in filling judicial vacancies. 'I can assure you that the names recommended for appointments will be followed up. We will ensure that the Bombay High Court functions at its full sanctioned strength so that the backlog is reduced — at least to some extent,' he said. Reflecting on his role, he concluded, 'It is the duty of a judge to uphold the Constitution and to do justice. That has always been my guiding principle.'
