Congress warns sports bill will ‘centralise power', shield BCCI from scrutiny
Yesterday, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth, and Sports… pic.twitter.com/DLjbQpt73L
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Behind EC's use of ‘notional' house numbers: Inclusion in roll, lack of standardised addresses
Citing the findings of the Congress's internal investigation, Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, had alleged last week that over one lakh votes were 'stolen' in Karnataka's Mahadevapura Assembly segment — part of the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha seat — during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Of these, he said, nearly half involved irregularities in electors' addresses. While the Election Commission (EC) is yet to respond to the charge, the claim spotlights a long-standing challenge for the poll body — the absence of standardised addresses for many voters, and the continued practice of assigning 'notional' house numbers. Gandhi said the Congress analysed the Mahadevapura electoral rolls over six months and found that of 1,00,250 alleged bogus voters, 40,009 had 'fake and invalid addresses' and 10,452 were 'bulk voters' registered at common addresses. Examples included entries with '0' in the address field, non-existent locations and addresses that could not be verified. For much of India's electoral history, the electoral rolls were simple lists with only the elector's name, age, a relative's (father, mother or husband) name, constituency and serial number. While the 'house number' column was there, it was often left blank. Some pages of the rolls from 1980, 1983 and 1988 examined by The Indian Express list only the serial number, name, gender and age in most cases, with house numbers given for some electors. However, some of these house numbers were notional, they were known as 'temporary house number', an official said. The EC began computerising the rolls in 1998 and introduced photo electoral rolls in 2005, according to its 2023 Manual on Electoral Rolls. It was during this shift to digital records that the practice of assigning 'notional' addresses became standard across the board, ensuring that electors without a permanent or well-defined address — or those who left the field blank — were not excluded from the database. The problem of inconsistent or informal addresses goes beyond the drafting or revision of electoral rolls. The Centre has repeatedly acknowledged it as a long-standing challenge – most recently in May, when the Department of Posts, in a policy document, proposed creating a digital public infrastructure to standardise addresses. 'Despite the centrality of address information in everyday life, frictions exist in how such data is managed, shared and used across India,' it noted, citing linguistic diversity, inconsistent formats and fragmented address data. Current and former Election Commission (EC) officials told The Indian Express that over time, when electors either lacked a proper address or left the field blank, they were assigned 'notional' addresses to ensure their inclusion in the rolls. EC instructions dating back to at least 2011 – and reiterated as recently as June 24 for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar — direct that such numbers be allotted and clearly marked as 'notional' in the roll. Identical wording appeared in instructions to Chief Electoral Officers of poll-bound states, including Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Rajasthan and Telangana, in May 2023. Officials said the practice exists nationwide, but tends to draw greater attention in urban constituencies with high migrant populations and unplanned settlements. It stems from the Commission's stated philosophy of inclusion, not exclusion, from the electoral roll. For example, in the case of homeless persons, EC guidelines instruct Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to verify the address given in Form 6 at night — checking on more than one occasion — to confirm that the person actually sleeps there. No documentary proof of residence is required if this is established. A 2011 EC training module for BLOs stated that where a municipality has assigned house numbers, those should be used, as they also appear on Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) that double as address proof for other government schemes. Where no official number exists, or the sequence is irregular, BLOs are to assign notional numbers starting from 1 in each section. These numbers, the manual noted, are 'computer generated' and 'not necessarily in consonance with the number allowed by the municipality'. In illegal colonies, municipalities sometimes allot '0' as a house number to avoid conferring legal status, an official said. It is unclear whether this was the case in the addresses Gandhi cited. A former Chief Election Commissioner, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the quality of electoral rolls has improved over the years and a notional address was not an irregularity. Similar objections have surfaced earlier — during the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, for instance, the BJP flagged voters listed with '0' as their house number. In the most recent draft roll published in Bihar on August 1, the use of notional numbers has continued.
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Casualties Of Parliament Disruptions: MPs Losing Out On Opportunities In Question Hour, Zero Hour
Last Updated: Out of 210 Zero Hour submissions made by MPs in the Rajya Sabha this monsoon session, only 5 could be taken up For young MPs and old, Question Hour and Zero Hour are critical to raise questions that concern the people of their constituency or state. While Question Hour from 11 am to noon in both houses gives them a chance to get a minister to respond to their questions, the Zero Hour immediately thereafter gives them a chance to raise 'Issues of Urgent Public Importance". Many MPs even have to wait a year or more to get a chance in the Zero Hour. But when Parliament does not function normally, as has been the case in the monsoon session so far, Question Hour and Zero Hour are the first casualties of disruptions. Out of 210 Zero Hour submissions made by MPs in the Rajya Sabha this session, only five could be taken up. Out of 210 starred questions listed in Question Hour, just 14 could be taken up. Many MPs, both from the ruling NDA and the opposition, that CNN-News18 spoke with over the last few days, rued how they had lost out on a chance to raise critical questions in Parliament, which remained in limbo except for the 32-hour discussion on Operation Sindoor. A 'matter of time' But, due to continued disruptions, the Rajya Sabha was able to take up only 14 starred questions, 5 Zero Hour submissions and 17 special mentions. 'Because of the disruptions, we have lost 62 hours and 25 minutes of this session," the Chair noted on Monday. Speaker and deputy chairman's pleas On August 8, as soon as Question Hour began in Lok Sabha, it was rocked by disruptions from the opposition on the special intensive revision (SIR) issue. Speaker Om Birla pleaded to the house: 'Honourable members, I am requesting you again that Question Hour is an important time. Please let the house sit. Your sloganeering is not in accordance with parliamentary traditions. The people of the country are watching this. I am requesting you again, this Question Hour is important." On August 11, the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Harivansh Narayan Singh, also appealed to the members to let the Zero Hour function. 'I would request you to let Zero Hour run…allow honourable members to avail Zero Hour and Question Hour. You know that both of these are very important instruments for honourable members. These are very important instruments. You don't want these to be discussed?" he said, before adjourning the house. 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.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
As Houses pass Sports Governance Bill, recalling BCCI opposition to RTI
Rajya Sabha cleared the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, on Tuesday, a day after its passage in Lok Sabha. Congress general secretary in charge of communications and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh posted on X that the proposed law would 'result in the extreme centralisation of sports administration', and that 'BCCI will get most favoured treatment, not subject to any laws of the land like the RTI'. Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government. The world's richest cricket board has over the years resisted being labelled as a public authority, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India, and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it in the ambit of India's transparency law. The proposed law will provide for the recognition of national sports bodies and regulate their functioning, and will align sports governance in India with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and with international best practices. The aim is to bring transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up hosting, collaboration, and funding opportunities. Since cricket will soon be an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. Clause 15(2) of the Bill that was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 said that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers'. This broad definition would include the BCCI — and make its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. A subsequent amendment to the draft, however, said that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change, making government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively put the BCCI out of the ambit of the RTI Act. The BCCI has for long argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry; legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. However, the BCCI's position that its financial and organisational independence of the state places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies, has been contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. In its 275th Report (2018) titled 'Legal Framework: BCCI vis-à-vis Right to Information Act, 2005', the Law Commission of India recommended that BCCI should be classified as a public authority, pointing to the significant indirect financial assistance it had received from the government over the years. The Report noted that between 1997 and 2007, the board had received tax exemptions to the tune of more than Rs 2,100 crore due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The foregoing of this revenue amounted to indirect funding for the board, the Commission argued. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates; for example, in Himachal Pradesh, the land for a stadium was reportedly leased for Re 1 per month. The Supreme Court has noted that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. In a 2015 judgment, the court noted that it selects the teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols, and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government. A committee led by Justice R M Lodha, which was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms in cricket, described the functioning of the BCCI as a 'closed door and back-room affair', and said that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act'. In 2016, the top court referred the matter to the Law Commission, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission submitted its report in 2018 (mentioned above), and that same year, the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed a landmark order declaring the BCCI as a 'public authority', and directing the board to set up a mechanism to handle queries under the RTI Act. The BCCI challenged the order in the Madras High Court, which stayed its implementation, leaving the matter in legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could seek information covering not just financial matters, but the entire gamut of the board's operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the process of appointment of officials and coaches, and the minutes of BCCI meetings. This would force the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, and not just to its constituent members. In its 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court had held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
