Uttarakhand High Court vacates stay on panchayat elections
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday (June 27, 2025) vacated the stay on rural body elections in the State. It ordered the State government to respond to petitions alleging irregularities in the reservation roster for the polls.
A Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahara vacated the stay on panchayat elections while hearing the petitions challenging the reservation roster.
The stay was announced on June 23, just two days after the State had announced the schedule for the polls, which were earlier slated for July 10 and 15. The results of the elections were scheduled to be announced on July 19.
Over a dozen pleas filed by residents of different districts alleged mismanagement in the allocation of reservation in block pramukh and district panchayat president seats. The petitioners claimed that several seats in the reservation roster, issued by the State, were under representation of the same class for a long time in violation of Article 243 and Supreme Court orders passed from time to time.
Responding to the petitioners, the State had informed the court that after the report of the National Commission for Backward Classes, it was necessary to declare the previous reservation roster as void and issue a fresh one for the current panchayat elections.
The Bench observed that the number of repetitions in the reservation roster, as pointed out by the petitioners, in comparison with the total seats is miniscule. It is also pointed out that after the delimitation exercise, certain new panchayats have been carved out.
The court directed the State Election Commission to release a fresh poll schedule.
The State government was asked to respond to the issues raised by the petitioners within three weeks. The case will now be heard on July 28.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
31 minutes ago
- First Post
‘Is my baby going to be a citizen?': US Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship triggers fear among immigrants
The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. read more The US Supreme Court's decision on Friday has sown confusion and anxiety among immigrant families particularly those with expectant mothers over the future of birthright citizenship in the country. The ruling, delivered by the court's conservative majority on Friday allows an executive order by President Donald Trump to partially move forward. The order, issued on his first day back in office this January seeks to end the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Though three lower court judges had blocked the measure nationwide, citing constitutional concerns, the Supreme Court did not directly rule on the order's legality. Instead, it curbed the ability of judges to issue broad, nationwide injunctions, opening the door for the policy to take effect in some states while legal battles continue in others. That partial green light has created uncertainty about how the ruling will be applied and who it will affect, particularly in the 28 states that did not challenge the executive order. Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups have since reported a surge in calls from worried parents and expectant immigrants trying to understand what the decision means for their children's citizenship. One of them is Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker living in Houston and due to give birth in September. After scanning news reports, she told AP she was left more confused than reassured. 'There are not many specifics. I don't understand it well,' she said. Her main concern: what if her baby is born without any nationality? 'I don't know if I can pass on my citizenship. I also don't know if I can add her to my asylum claim. I just don't want her to be stateless.' Trump has framed his crackdown on birthright citizenship as part of a broader immigration reform agenda, arguing that current policies serve as a 'magnet' for migrants seeking to give birth in the U.S. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said at a White House briefing. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Legal experts, however, warn that the current situation risks creating a fragmented and chaotic system. Kathleen Bush-Joseph of the Migration Policy Institute cautioned that different states could now interpret and apply the order differently. 'Would individual hospitals have to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents? It's an extremely confusing patchwork,' she said. In response to the ruling, advocacy groups filed an amended lawsuit in Maryland federal court on Friday afternoon seeking class-action protection for individuals who may be denied citizenship under the new policy. The fear is already palpable on the ground. Lynn Tramonte of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance recounted receiving a call from a man on a temporary visa whose pregnant wife was due soon. Worried that Ohio wasn't among the states challenging the policy, he wanted to know how he could safeguard his child's citizenship. Some groups—such as CASA in Maryland and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, remain shielded from the policy under prior court rulings, but it remains unclear whether people in other states could join these organizations to gain the same protection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For US-born Betsy, a recent high school graduate from Virginia and a CASA member, the policy feels deeply personal. Her Salvadoran parents were undocumented when she was born. 'It targets innocent kids who haven't even been born yet,' she said, asking to withhold her full name for safety. Others are also grappling with the implications. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana and a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, recently gave birth. On Friday, she got a call from a pregnant friend—also undocumented—terrified about what might happen under Louisiana's Republican administration. 'She asked, 'If my baby is born here, will she still be a citizen?' As the legal process unfolds and enforcement details remain murky, expectant immigrant parents are left in limbo unsure whether their US-born children will be granted the very citizenship once considered a constitutional birthright. With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Telangana to form committee to review fee structure of engineering colleges
The Telangana State Government is set to revise the fee structure for engineering colleges across the state, with an emphasis on enhancing educational standards and aligning with national and global benchmarks. A comprehensive review process is underway and the final decision will take into account infrastructure, faculty quality, laboratory facilities and adherence to regulatory Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has ordered officials to formulate a fair and future-ready fee structure that promotes academic excellence, particularly in high-demand fields like Artificial Intelligence (AI).advertisementThe government aims to ensure that Telangana's engineering institutions can compete at the international level by mandating improved facilities and compliance with AICTE guidelines. A committee will be formed to study various parameters of educational quality and infrastructure in engineering colleges. Additionally, the state will adopt a data-driven and equitable approach, ensuring that no institution gains undue advantage. The government has also affirmed that the engineering admission counseling process will be completed within the stipulated timeline to avoid delays in the academic government will also factor in key Supreme Court judgments, including the Islamic Academy of Education vs. Karnataka and P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, which emphasise the need for transparency and objectivity in fee Vigilance and Enforcement Department's earlier inspection reports, ignored by the previous administration, will now be reviewed. The current government accuses the earlier regime of selectively allowing fee hikes and ignoring quality issues in several institutions.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Telangana
