Opposition Vs Government Likely In Parliament; 3 Bills On Lok Sabhas Agenda
According to media reports, floor leaders of the alliance are also expected to meet with the Election Commissioners to formally raise their objections. The march is scheduled to begin around 11:30 am from Parliament.
This protest follows Rahul Gandhi's recent allegations accusing the Election Commission of colluding with the BJP. Citing a Congress analysis of the Mahadevapura assembly constituency in Karnataka, he claimed that nearly one lakh votes were 'stolen'.
Meanwhile, the Lok Sabha is also set for a packed agenda on Monday, as multiple committee reports, ministerial statements, and significant legislative business are scheduled for discussion. On the legislative front, the House will take up three significant bills for consideration and passing: the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Indian Ports Bill, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
How inclusive is the Election Commission of India's special revision exercise?
The ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has led to a discussion that goes beyond a mere update to the voter list. As part of this initiative, discussions have been held on requiring certain proof of identity and citizenship — most notably, the birth certificate — for voter list verification. As the Election Commission continues to insist that its demand for documents is reasonable, and that most voters do have at least one of these documents, the issue has assumed critical importance, especially in light of the proposal to expand the SIR exercise to other States. Opponents of the SIR have been arguing that such an exercise will only lead to the exclusion of a large number of voters. In a democracy, the broadest possible inclusion of all eligible persons on the electoral rolls is the most basic requirement of a free and fair election system. Therefore, finding out which documents voters actually possess, who are the ones less likely to possess such documents, and what might be the proportion of citizens likely to face exclusion from electoral rolls, are critical matters in assessing the feasibility and inclusivity of measures such as the SIR. In a country as socio-economically and geographically diverse as India, documentation access varies widely due to differences in administrative infrastructure, historical record-keeping, literacy levels, and public awareness. Above all, the State-level capacity and practice of record-keeping and the process of making documents easily available to citizens are variables that may result in exclusion in some States more than in others. Lokniti-CSDS conducted a study across the States of Assam, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal and the National Capital Territory of Delhi to understand the types of documents people possess and their views on making the birth certificate and similar other documents compulsory for voter verification. The larger picture In spite of the ongoing debate in the media, only a little over one-third (36%) of respondents from our entire sample were aware of the SIR exercise or the documents that are required. More than half of the respondents said that they do not have a birth certificate. At least two in five did not have a domicile certificate or a caste certificate. As required by the SIR, those born after 1987 have an additional responsibility of having citizenship proof of at least one of their parents (and for both parents if born after 2003). Data from the survey show that this is a far more difficult condition to fulfil for the vast majority of the respondents. While at least two-thirds said they did not have their parents' birth certificates, a similar proportion said they had neither an Secondary School Certificate (SSC) certificate nor a caste certificate. How does this lack of necessary documents pan out across the States? Clearly, it will exclude some citizens and more importantly, citizens from weaker sections in particular will have to keep running from pillar to post to obtain the documents or face exclusion. India's no-document citizens Roughly 5% of respondents did not have any of the 11 documents mandated by the EC. While there are slightly more women than men in this category of 'No Document Citizens', three-fourths of them are from the lower half of the economic order, while more than one-fourth are SC, and over 40% are OBC. EC's demand for birth certificate The proportion of respondents having a birth certificate issued by a local or government authority varies widely, as highlighted in Table 4. At the lower end, Madhya Pradesh records only 11%, indicating large documentation gaps. Assam (36%) and Kerala (38%) fall in the mid-range, while Delhi (44%) and West Bengal (49%) areslightly better. Even in these States, at the higher end, at least half of the respondents do not have the document. Within households, as shown in Table 5, the coverage of birth certificates among members aged above 18 remains low. Only Kerala and West Bengal report that three in 10 households have all adult members with a certificate, while in Madhya Pradesh, just 2% reported the same, and close to four in 10 say none of the adults have it. Assam and Uttar Pradesh also show low full-coverage rates — 14% and 12%, respectively. Is it really easy to obtain a birth certificate? If the requirements were made mandatory, exclusion risks would be high in some States, as highlighted in Table 6. In Kerala, four in 10 believe they would not be able to obtain the certificate, and in Madhya Pradesh, over one-third say the same. Even in States with somewhat higher current possession rates, such as Delhi and Assam, around one-fifth foresee being unable to comply. Difficulty in obtaining such certificates is most pronounced in Delhi (46% 'very difficult'), followed by Kerala (41%), Madhya Pradesh (40%), and West Bengal (41%). Very few in any State report already having all necessary documents (Table 7). Availability of documents asked by EC When looking at other forms of identification, possession of educational and domicile-related documents varies sharply across States. The Class 10 certificate is most common in Kerala (85%), followed by Delhi (68%), West Bengal (66%), and Assam (61%). Uttar Pradesh is slightly lower at 56%, while Madhya Pradesh records the lowest share (40%). Domicile certificates show a similar disparity. The highest reporting is in Kerala (65%) and the lowest in West Bengal (35%), with Delhi at 57%, Uttar Pradesh (55%), Madhya Pradesh (51%), and Assam slightly lower at 49%. Caste certificates range from 65% in Kerala and 60% in Assam to just 19% in West Bengal, with about half of respondents in Madhya Pradesh (51%), Delhi (51%), and Uttar Pradesh (48%). National Register of Citizens documents are only relevant in Assam, where possession is near-universal (96%) (Table 8). Special-category documents such as forest rights certificates, land allotment certificates, or family registration certificates are unevenly distributed. Assam and Kerala show higher possession of some of these, while Delhi and States such as Uttar Pradesh have minimal coverage, implying that these cannot serve as universal substitutes (Table 9). Government-issued identity cards or pension orders are most common in Kerala (74%) and West Bengal (50%), while it is 43% in Assam and 37% in Madhya Pradesh. Its possession is extremely low in Uttar Pradesh (10%) and Delhi (4%). Pre-1987 government or Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) identity documents are scarce in all States, with West Bengal recording the highest at 27%. followed by Assam (19%), Kerala (18%), Madhya Pradesh (13%), Delhi (3%) and Uttar Pradesh (1%) (Table 10). Overall, the possession of most documents varies sharply by State. Aadhaar is the only exception, being near-universal and consistent across regions, yet it was excluded by the EC from use in the SIR exercise in Bihar. This exclusion could create a significant barrier for voters, particularly in States where alternative documents are rare, region-specific, or unevenly distributed, making a fixed, nationally applied SIR-eligible list risk disproportionately disenfranchising certain populations. More difficult if born after 1987 The absence of parental birth certificates is especially high in Madhya Pradesh (87% for both parents) and significant in Uttar Pradesh (72% mothers, 64% fathers) and West Bengal (68% mothers, 70% fathers). Assam and Kerala have comparatively lower absence rates, around 56% to 60% for mothers and 52% to 57% for fathers, but still represent more than half of the respondents. SSC certificate possession shows a similar pattern: Madhya Pradesh again records the highest absence (87% mothers, 78% fathers), with substantial gaps in Uttar Pradesh (68% mothers, 55% fathers) and Assam (64% mothers, 59% fathers). Kerala stands out with far lower absence for mothers (31%) and fathers (37%). For caste certificates, the highest absence is in West Bengal (76% mothers, 74% fathers) and Madhya Pradesh (72% mothers, 63% fathers). Assam and Kerala again record relatively lower absence rates (around 37% to 43%). (Table 11). Overall, the data show that in many States, large numbers of people lack these parental documents, particularly in Madhya Pradesh and parts of Uttar Pradesh, posing a serious obstacle in the SIR exercise, where such documents may be required to establish eligibility. Challenge of inclusivity The above findings point to some important issues. As part of updating the electoral rolls and ensuring that errors of commission and omission are avoided, it is crucial that the review process offers a solution to the challenges faced rather than adding to the complications. Firstly, it is clear from the survey undertaken that there is significant variation across States on individuals having the documents required under the current SIR process. Taking forward the exercise within the current framework of requirements could pose a serious challenge for many of those who have a legitimate right to be part of the voters' list. The challenges in this regard are on account of multiple factors — the capacity of the Indian state (government authorities in general) to make available such documents and the inherent limitations in the record-keeping function, multiple barriers faced by individuals to secure the required documents and the inability to produce documents that needed to have been collected by the previous generation. While cleansing of the electoral rolls is important, the exercise, as it is currently being undertaken, is likely to lead to the deletion of many legitimate names on the grounds that they are unable to provide the necessary documents. Above all, the data here draw attention to the most critical dimension — citizens' access to and possession of many documents being very limited. It then becomes about the willingness of and special efforts by government authorities to include all citizens in its record-keeping function. Suhas Palshikar taught political science and is chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics; Krishangi Sinha is a researcher with Lokniti-CSDS; Sandeep Shastri is director-Academics, NITTE Education Trust and national coordinator of the Lokniti Network; and Sanjay Kumar is professor and co-director, Lokniti-CSDS
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Rahul, Kharge skip Red Fort event, draw BJP fire
NEW DELHI: Absence of and , leaders of opposition in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively, from the Independence Day event at Red Fort on Friday drew a sharp reaction from BJP which alleged that the main opposition party, Congress, has hit a "new low" with its top functionaries "insulting" the country by "boycotting" the event. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Rahul had attended the programme last year but was absent this time. Kharge was absent last year as well. The Congress leadership steered clear of making a statement on the issue but sources said party heads have chosen to distance themselves from such events as they feel the governing dispensation discriminates against opposition members in terms of seating arrangements and protocol. "Even those holding constitutional positions are not shown due respect - instead of being seated in the front row, they are placed in the third row," a source said. BJP sources refuted the charge as a "lame alibi". "We are following the same protocol that they had put in place," a source said. "From opposing a party to insulting the nation - every time you think Congress can't fall further, they hit a new low," BJP said. "Only a handful of chairs were empty at Red Fort, and no points for guessing who missed the event again," BJP said, posting a media report on X about Rahul and Kharge skipping the official event. The stalemate over seats and protocol is not new and has seen BJP and Congress engage in a war of words with BJP members alleging in the past that during UPA era, its members were not given seats in VIP areas.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Veto power for parents, accountability: Education Minister allays concerns over Bill to regulate school fee in Delhi
Days after the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, was passed in the Delhi Assembly, Education Minister Ashish Sood on Friday allayed concerns among parents while maintaining that the Bill will put an 'end to arbitrary practices' of private schools. Addressing a Town Hall event in Janakpuri, he said, 'This Bill will put an end to arbitrary practices of private schools and ensure transparency in fee fixation, active participation of parents, and give them the veto power on hikes.' Calling it a 'historic Bill', Sood said the reform will safeguard 18 lakh parents, 'restoring their trust, transparency and giving them greater control'. He also assured parents that their queries would be answered and that they would have a fair say in matters concerning their children's education. According to a statement issued by Sood's office, around 200 parents from Janakpuri participated in the event and 'shared several important suggestions with the Minister and requested him to address their concern'. Ever since the Bill was proposed earlier this year, several protests have been held by groups of parents who have said that they were not included in discussions on the matter. The Bill, which has now been sent to Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena for his nod, seeks to bring both recognised and unrecognised private schools under a uniform oversight mechanism for regulating fees. The change, Sood said, is meant to correct a 'loophole in the 1973 law', under which only 300 of Delhi's 1,700 private schools were covered. He told parents, 'If any school increases fees without the government approval, it will face a fine ranging from `1 lakh to `10 lakh, and in case of failure to refund excess charges, double the penalty will be imposed.' The statement underlined that the Directorate of Education will be given 'powers similar to that of an SDM to ensure uniform action against all schools'. At the event, plain sheets of paper were passed around to collect feedback. 'One of the main concerns is the election of Parent Teacher Association members at the school level… to make sure that matters like fee hike will be taken up after giving due importance to the opinion of parents,' said Divya Mattey, a parent. The Bill lays out a three-tier fee regulation framework — the School Level Fee Regulation Committee, the District Fee Appellate Committee, and a Review Committee. At the school level, the committee will be chaired by a nominee of the management, including the principal as secretary, five parents drawn by lots from the PTA, three teachers, and a nominee from the Directorate of Education as an observer. At least two members must be women and one from a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or socially backward class. The committee must meet before August 15 each year to unanimously approve the school's proposed fee for the upcoming academic year, with revisions allowed only once every three years. The official statement noted that the new process sets specific timelines 'committee decision by 15 July, district-level decision by 30 July, and final decision by September.' If no decision is made within 45 days, the matter will be referred to the appellate committee. A challenge to the proposed fee can be initiated by at least 15% of parents from the affected school.
