'Can't comment on actions of EC': Centre cites 1988 ruling to reject Opposition demands for Bihar SIR debate
On Tuesday, Harivansh cited Jakhar's December 1988 decision, which barred parliamentary discussion on the functioning or decisions of the Election Commission (EC), stating that the autonomous body's actions cannot be scrutinized in the House.
'You know that I cannot comment upon the actions and decisions of the EC, which is an autonomous body. Never before have I done it, nor will I do it now. Unless you amend the Constitution and bring the EC under parliamentary purview, we cannot discuss its decisions,' Harivansh said, quoting Jakhar's ruling.
The Deputy Chairman's remarks came as he dismissed 34 notices submitted by Opposition MPs, most seeking the suspension of business under Rule 267 to urgently debate the SIR in Bihar and other states. Harivansh cited procedural flaws, including incorrect formatting, the sub judice nature of some matters, and the absence of precedent for such discussions.
He expressed concern over the frequent misuse of Rule 267, meant for 'rarest of rare' cases, noting that most notices lacked proper citations or pertained to issues outside Parliament's jurisdiction. 'Despite clear rules, some members are using Rule 267 casually, disrupting proceedings when their notices are disallowed,' he said. Highlighting historical data, Harivansh pointed out that very few such notices had been accepted—none between 2000–2004, only four from 2004–2009, one out of 491 during 2009–2014, and just six out of 3,152 between 2014 and the 2025 Budget Session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
J&K bans 25 books for promoting ‘false narratives and terrorism', including one by Arundhati Roy
The Jammu and Kashmir government has ordered a ban on 25 books including those for allegedly propagating 'false narrative and secessionism' in the Union Territory. Arundhati Roy's 'Azadi'; constitutional expert AG Noorani's 'The Kashmir Dispute 1947–2012'; political scientist Sumantra Bose's 'Kashmir at the Crossroads' and 'Contested Lands' are among the 25 banned books. The government has ordered the forfeiture of 25 books, along with their copies and related documents.(Representative Image) A notification of the Home Department in Jammu and Kashmir issued on Tuesday (August 5), signed by Principal Secretary Chandraker Bharti, said credible evidence shows that false narratives and secessionist literature often disguised as historical or political commentary have played a key role 'behind youth participation violence and terrorism.' 'This literature would deeply impact the psyche of youth by promoting culture of grievance, victimhood and terrorist heroism. Some of the means by which this literature has contributed to the radicalization of youth in J&K include distortion of historical facts, glorification of terrorists, vilification of security forces, religious radicalization, promotion of alienation, pathway to violence and terrorism,' the notification reads. The government has declared 25 books by various publishing houses including Routledge, Stanford University Press, Oxford University Press as 'forfeited' under Section 98 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. The government said that these books have been 'found to excite secessionism and endangering sovereignty and integrity of India', thereby, attracting the provisions of sections 152, 196 & 197 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. While section 98 of BNSS 2023 gives power to the government to declare certain publications forfeited, Sections 152, 196, and 197 of the BNS 2023 deal with assault without grave provocation, obstruction of public servants, and failure to assist them when legally bound, respectively. The government has ordered the forfeiture of 25 books, along with their copies and related documents. This has come at a time when the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday, August 8, an application seeking directions to the central government to restore the statehood of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Incidentally, on August 5, 2019, the Centre scrapped Jammu and Kashmir's special status and bifurcated the state into two Union territories.
The Print
19 minutes ago
- The Print
Row over BJP ex-spokesperson's nomination as Bombay HC judge reaches Parliament. Who is Aarti Sathe
A day after the collegium's decision, Trinalmool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale posted on X: 'Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP.' On 28 July, the Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of Aarti Arun Sathe, once a Maharashtra BJP spokesperson, as a high court judge, which sparked a row as the Opposition raised concerns over whether she would be impartial as a judge. Mumbai: The controversial nomination of an advocate for judgeship at the Bombay High Court has now reached Parliament, with Congress MP Hibi Eden moving an adjournment motion to discuss the matter in the Lok Sabha. Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP. Legal fraternity – same person or just similar names? — Saket Gokhale MP (@SaketGokhale) July 29, 2025 Earlier this week, others in the Opposition in Maharashtra began voicing their concerns. Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar wrote on X: 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy. The judge is a highly responsible position which should be impartial. When someone is appointed as judge from the ruling party, it raises a serious question mark on neutral position and also democratic process…' The Bharatiya Janata Party, however, clarified that the allegations are unfounded, and that her appointment is based on merit. Keshav Upadhye, chief spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP, said she had resigned from the party a year and half ago. 'She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticising her recommendation, which was made as per the decision of the judges' Collegium,' he posted on X. After resigning from the BJP, Aarti Sathe was recommended as a judge of the High Court after one and a half years. She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticizing her recommendation , which was made as per the decision of the judges'… — Keshav Upadhye (@keshavupadhye) August 5, 2025 Congress's state unit president Harshwardhan Sapkal also questioned Sathe's nomination. 'Democracy and the Constitution have been systematically sidelined in the country since 2014,' he said. 'All autonomous institutions are operating under government directives, even the Election Commission of India. But the most serious and worrying development is within the judiciary itself.' ThePrint attempted to reach Sathe via call, but she declined to comment on the matter. Also Read: Come to Maharashtra & speak—3 women MPs hold Nishikant Dubey to task over 'patak ke marenge' remark Who is Aarti Sathe? Sathe was affiliated with BJP Mumbai, and was appointed as a spokesperson in 2023. She was previously made a panelist for media interactions in 2020. She was also the head of the party's Legal cell. However, she had resigned from the position on 6 January, 2024, and also from the party's primary membership that year. 'I wish to be relieved from the responsibility as the head-legal cell BJP Mumbai for personal and professional reasons,' she had written in a letter addressed to Mumbai BJP chief Ashish Shelar, a copy of which is with ThePrint. Sathe has been a lawyer for the last 20 years, and has mainly dealt with matters linked to direct and indirect taxes, along with issues related to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) before the Bombay High Court. As party spokesperson, she often appeared in media debates on issues related to Mumbai. In debates on television news channels, she regularly spoke about the alleged mismanagement in the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation), the condition of dilapidated buildings in the city, or the condition of roads. Back in 2016, in a conversation with Mirror Now, she had defended demonetisation, saying that it would help clean up the corruption in BMC and MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority). She had also spoken against the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in 2021 when Shah Rukh Khan's son Aryan Khan had been arrested in a drug bust, accusing the then cabinet minister Nawab Malik of the undivided NCP of trying to influence the case. Referring to such statements by Sathe in the past, Rohit Pawar told media persons Wednesday, 'She has in the past taken the side of one party vociferously. So we want to request the Supreme Court Collegium to stop this proposal. We don't have doubt over her merit or capability. But looking at the current political scenario, question arises if common people will get justice? We as Opposition continuously speak against the government, so if our case goes in front of this judge, will we get justice?' Arun Sathe's BJP-RSS link Much like the current row, a similar controversy had erupted back in 2015, when Sathe's father, Arun Sathe, who is also the brother of former Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan, was appointed to the board of market regulator SEBI as a part-time member. Arun Sathe is also a lawyer, and has been a BJP worker with RSS background. He was a national executive member of the partyBJP, and held various positions in the student wing, ABVP. However, he had said at the time that he had been nominated by the finance ministry, and would do his job judiciously. '…I understand the differences between politics and market issues. As a lawyer, I will have views independent of biases,' he had told Business Standard in 2015. He had also said that he had been connected with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since childhood, and had been a part of the party since its Jan Sangh days. In 1989, he had tried to contest Lok Sabha polls from the Mumbai North West constituency against Congress's Sunil Dutt, but had lost. (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: Farmers' crosshairs to 'rummy' row, NCP's Kokate loses agri ministry after string of controversies
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC judges take exception to order against HC judge
NEW DELHI: Top judges of Supreme Court have taken strong exception to the order passed on Tuesday by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan castigating an Allahabad high court judge for lack of knowledge in criminal law and de-rostering him from hearing criminal cases for life, and are mulling steps to remedy an unpleasant situation created in breach of repeated SC rulings. A concerned Chief Justice of India B R Gavai consulted his senior colleagues and is now discussing ways and means to remedy the order that has created difficulties for the chief justice (CJ) of one of the oldest high courts of India, at Allahabad. SC has repeatedly ruled that the CJ of an HC is the master of the roster and he alone can allocate, roster and assign cases to single, division and three-judge benches in HC and that his discretion is not amenable to judicial orders. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan ordered the Allahabad HC CJ to "immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned judge" and "make the judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge". They also said, "We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office". Irrespective of the folly of the HC judge, SC, which gives primacy to principles of natural justice, passed the caustic and damaging order against the judge without giving him an opportunity to explain why he passed the impugned directive. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan called the HC judge's order one of the worst they had come across in their tenures as SC judges, and said, "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of HC." TOI spoke to a number of former CJIs, who too expressed concern over the manner in which the bench led by Justice Pardiwala proceeded to castigate the HC judge, stressing that errors in HC orders are not uncommon and are regularly appealed in SC. A judge's mistake in appreciating legal points or facts in a particular case cannot empower SC, while deciding appeals against an HC judgment, to castigate the judge who authored that judgment and take punitive measures like de-rostering him, which, the ex-CJIs said, was the sole prerogative of the HC CJ. Incidentally, the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had fixed timelines for the President and governors to grant or refuse assent to bills passed by state assemblies, while granting "deemed approval" to bills pending with the TN governor. The President has since sent a reference to SC seeking its opinion on whether the apex court has the power to fix timelines for her and governors when the Constitution does not provide for the same, and whether SC can use powers under Article 142 to grant deemed approval to bills. In the case of Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India (1997), SC had ruled: "Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre. It is best to remember the words of a jurist that 'a judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born'. .." In Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand (1997), another three-judge bench said "that the administrative control of HC vests in the chief justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst equals. The CJ is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. The puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the chief justice or under his directions. No judge or judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the chief justice." This ruling was made applicable to SC by a three-judge bench's judgment in 2018.
