GBA ploy to take control of city admin: Karnataka HC plea
Stating that the Act is arbitrary and ultra vires the scope and ambit of the Constitution, the petitioners also sought directions to conduct the election to the BBMP.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi issued notice after hearing the petition which sought a stay on the operation of the GBA, notified on May 14, 2025, and also direction to the SEC to conduct the BBMP elections within three months.
The petitioners urged the court to declare Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 316 as unconstitutional and consequently declare the GBA as unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires the scope and ambit of the Constitution.
Hashtags
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
Supreme Court to hear case against Bihar SIR today: What is the case about?
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the pleas challenging the revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar on Monday, July 29. The plea before the top court challenges the Election Commission's decision to undertake a special intensive revision ahead of the assembly elections in the state. The plea before the top court challenges the Election Commission's decision to undertake a special intensive revision ahead of the assembly elections in the state. (Vipin Kumar/ Hindustan Times) The matter is expected to be heard by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The plea before the apex court argues that the SIR in Bihar could result in the disenfranchisement of a certain segment of Bihar's population. Also Read | Supreme Court to review Delhi's old vehicle ban today: What's the policy and why was it paused? "The petition submits that the SIR order dated June 24, 2025, if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of citizens from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution," states Association for Democratic Reforms, the NGO challenging the revision. The NGO has also questioned the exclusion of Aadhar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents during the electoral roll revision. The Election Commission of India, however, has defended the exercise. In its affidavit before the court, the poll body has justified the revision and stated that the exercise will add to the "purity of the election by weeding out ineligible persons." Also Read | Bihar electors' number may dip for 1st time since 2005 "The entitlement to vote flows from Article 326 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950 and Section 62 of the RP Act 1951, which contains certain qualifications with respect to citizenship, age, and ordinary residency. An ineligible person has no right to vote, and thus, cannot claim a violation of Articles 19 and 21 in this regard," said the polling body. What is Bihar SIR? The Election Commission of India launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar on June 24. This decision comes ahead of the highly anticipated assembly elections in the state. As per ECI, the objective of the exercise is to update and clean up the electoral booths through house-to-house verification by Booth-Level Officers across Bihar. The exercise has been criticised by the opposition governments at the state and central levels. In the monsoon session of the Parliament, INDIA bloc MPS have challenged the exercise, stating that the SIR is removing "genuine voters" from the electoral rolls. A month after the exercise started, the Election Commission has stated that around 35 lakh voters in the Bihar electoral rolls have been flagged as missing. As per the press release issued on Sunday, many have moved to other states, some are deceased, some have not submitted the forms, and few have refused to register.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Their info leaked online, Dehradun interfaith couple say marriage application on hold amid threats and pressure
After being in a relationship for over a decade, a couple from Dehradun decided to get married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. However, on Saturday, their application was put on hold after two witnesses pulled out, citing threats from right-wing groups and objections from the woman's father, who was threatened with a boycott by his community. According to the couple, their wedding plans unravelled because the man is a Muslim and the woman a Hindu. The details of the couple — both 28 years old — along with their photographs, were uploaded online by a Facebook user, leading to a flurry of threats, abuses, and visits to the family of the woman. The woman, who works at a clinic, said her relatives and others turned up at their door on Saturday, disparaging the family for 'letting her marry' the Muslim man. 'My parents are neither happy nor upset about my decision. They respect my choice. However, after the entire system came against us, my father was forced to raise objections with the SDM (Sub-Divisional Magistrate). The page that has gone viral on social media is not the notice put up on the board of the office of the SDM, but from our file with the officer,' she said. She alleges that some lawyers who work with the man she is set to marry, as well as some government officials, 'are facilitating this hounding and delaying our second motion'. The SDM has denied allegations that the documents were leaked from his office. The man who sought to marry her works as an advocate in Dehradun, but has not gone to work since their details went up online. Threats, allegedly from the Hindu Raksha Dal, Bajrang Dal, and other outfits, have been pouring in ever since, he claimed. 'We have known each other since class 6 and attended the same college. We are exercising our fundamental rights and getting married under the Special Marriage Act. How can their law prevail over the Constitution?' he said. The woman said she fears her job is on the line after her employer came across the social media posts. 'Though I have not been terminated, the doctor called to tell me to stay put until things blow over. I'm not sure if they will lay me off if this persists,' she said. The couple had sought protection from the High Court on Friday. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to comply with the Supreme Court verdict in the Lata Singh vs State of UP and Another (2006) case. The apex court had directed the administration and police across the country to ensure that when any man or woman, who is a major, undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is also a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence. They were also directed to ensure that anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence, either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons, and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. The woman claimed that police did not lodge an FIR on her complaint and told her they can only protect her in case of a 'real threat'. The couple's lawyer said that she has been ostracised for helping them get married. Meanwhile, SDM, Sadar, Har Giri, said that he was looking into the objections raised by the woman's family. Asked about the delay, he said, 'We have to look into the cause for the withdrawal by the witnesses. My responsibility is to enquire about the matter; threats to the couple do not figure in my responsibilities.' He denied allegations that the documents with details of the couple were leaked from his office. Earlier this year, another couple from Udham Singh Nagar faced a similar ordeal after their details were made public by right-wing outfits despite a High Court order directing protection from threats.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
'Did you take chance…?': SC to Justice Yashwant Varma on his plea against probe into cash at his home
'Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take chance of favourable order there first?' the Supreme Court asked Justice Yashwant Varma on Monday, as he sought quashing of an adverse report of the SC in-house committee. Justice Yashwant Varma(PTI File) The committee found him guilty of misconduct over the unaccounted-for cash found at his Delhi residence in March. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that there is a process to be followed under Article 124 of the Constitution, and that a judge can't be a subject of public debate, PTI reported. At this point, the bench asked, "Why did you (Justice Varma) appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" Justice Varma's plea challenges the probe report and the committee's very remit. It also seeks quashing of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. For now posted at the Allahabad high court, Justice Varma is staring at action via Parliament. Also read | Lok Sabha will initiate proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma: Kiren Rijiju When cash was allegedly found by firefighters in a blaze at his residence on March 14, he was a judge of the Delhi HC. He was not present there, and has strongly denied any involvement, asserting that neither he nor his family members placed the cash in the storeroom. He has also alleged that the probe committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and merely drew inferences. He wants that the recommendation by the CJI — asking the President and Prime Minister to start his removal process — be declared unconstitutional, ANI reported. Also read | BJP orchestrated VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's exit over Justice Varma: Cong He has further argued that the in-house procedure extended beyond its role of self-regulation and fact-finding: 'By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism." The committee constituted on March 22 was comprised of Justices Sheel Nagu (then CJ of Punjab and Haryana high court), GS Sandhawalia (then CJ of Himachal Pradesh HC), and Anu Sivaraman (judge of Karnataka HC. (with agency inputs)
