&w=3840&q=100)
EC cannot burden voters to prove citizenship, petitioners tell SC
'Today, in the guise of methodology of revising the roll, they are reversing the burden of proof of citizenship, saying prove your citizenship — that too in two and a half months,' Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the petitioners' arguments on Tuesday. The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, one of the petitioners, argued that the exclusion of about 65 lakh voters from the draft electoral roll published on August 1, without any objection to their inclusion, was 'illegal'.
He further submitted that while people had documents such as Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and EPIC (Electoral Photo Identity Card) cards, the EC was not accepting these as valid proof of residence in that area.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said that persons in the 2003 electoral roll and their children need not submit any form, and about 6.5 crore voters fell into this category.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms, another petitioner, said the EC had not published the names of the 65 lakh persons deleted from the draft roll, nor specified how many were deceased or had migrated.
In earlier hearings, the court had stated that the EC, as a constitutional authority, is deemed to act in accordance with the law, but in the event of mass exclusion of voters, the court would have to intervene.
'The Election Commission of India, being a constitutional authority, is deemed to act in accordance with the law. If any wrongdoing is done, you bring it to the notice of the court. We will hear you,' the court had told the petitioners.
The bench has fixed a timeline for hearing a batch of pleas challenging the EC's SIR exercise in Bihar, setting August 12 and 13 for arguments.
The pleas challenge the EC's June 24 directive ordering a special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls. The directive requires voters not listed in the 2003 roll to submit documents proving their citizenship. Those born after December 2004 must also furnish the citizenship documents of both parents, with additional requirements if a parent is a foreign national. The court observed that the petitions raise 'an important question which goes to the very root of the functioning of democracy in the country — the right to vote.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Russian Forces Destroys Ukraine's Long-Range Missile Facilities Ahead Of Putin-Trump Meeting
Union Minister Anurag Thakur Turns Tables On Opposition In 'Vote Chori' War With 'Fake Voter' Data The BJP has turned the 'vote chori' debate into an all-out political slugfest, directly targeting Congress over alleged fake voters in Opposition strongholds. In a fiery press conference, BJP leader Anurag Thakur accused Sonia Gandhi of being on the voter list before becoming an Indian citizen and presented a detailed dossier exposing voter list anomalies in seats held by Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Abhishek Banerjee, Akhilesh Yadav, Dimple Yadav, and MK Stalin. From duplicate entries to mass voter additions, the BJP claims a 'ghuspaithiya vote bank' fuels Opposition victories. The party says its proposed SIR system will clean voter rolls and expose decades of electoral malpractice. Rahul Gandhi has yet to respond to the BJP's fresh offensive.#bjp #congress #votechori #rahulgandhi #soniagandhi #anuragthakur #abhishekbanerjee #akhileshyadav #mkstalin #tmc #sp #dmk #indiapolitics #evmcontroversy #fakevoters #parliament #breakingnews #trending #trendingnow #toi #bharat #toibharat #indianews 29.8K views | 1 day ago
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The streets are no place for dogs. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation
Written by Harish Tiwari The Supreme Court's recent directive to remove free-roaming dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and place them in shelters within eight weeks is a landmark moment in India's decades-long struggle with stray dog management. It finally recognises what has long been evident — the streets are not the right place for man's best friend. But the real test will lie not in the order itself but in its execution. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation. If it fails through haste or poor planning, other states will hesitate for years, and the issue could slide back into neglect. The CJI has, however, constituted a three-judge bench to hear the matter further and has reserved the order. For years, debate on this issue has been reduced to 'dog lovers versus dog bite victims,' a false binary that tries to portray the issue as compassion against cruelty. This framing ignores the critical expertise of other stakeholders — ecologists, veterinarians, epidemiologists, urban planners, and public health experts — who understand dog population dynamics, rabies epidemiology, and human–animal interactions. Their insights must guide implementation. The Court's directive gives municipalities political cover to act, but how they do so will decide whether this becomes a turning point or a cautionary tale. Large-scale removal of street dogs is not as simple as netting and relocating them. Without proper planning, shelters risk becoming overcrowded warehouses breeding disease, neglect, and public outrage. Quick-fix, unscientific solutions will fail and harm India's credibility internationally. What is needed is a phased, humane approach supported by robust, long-term capacity. Shelters should not be holding pens but well-designed facilities with sustainable capacity, veterinary care, isolation wards, sterilisation units, vaccination clinics, and enrichment spaces. Microchipping, photo identification, or tagging every dog can ensure real enumeration, traceability and prevent them from returning to the streets. Adoption must be central to the plan. Puppies and sociable adults can find homes through public adoption drives, coupled with proper screening and follow-up to prevent repeat abandonment. Beyond rehoming, Indian local dogs should be valued for their resilience and adaptability. They can be trained as guard dogs, search-and-rescue animals, or security partners for police and disaster response teams, changing public perception about them from nuisance to asset. A lasting solution also requires stopping the pipeline of new street dogs. Pet owners must be required to register, sterilise, and vaccinate their dogs, with strict penalties for abandonment. Public campaigns should promote responsible ownership as part of civic duty. Feeding dogs in public without taking responsibility for their health and behaviour is misplaced compassion that sustains the cycle of conflict. Public fear of dogs is real and must be respected, but it should be addressed by tackling the root causes of aggression. Instead of public feeding, contributions can be channelised to the shelter homes to develop a sustainable business model with perennial social benefits and A-class animal welfare. The writer is DBT Wellcome Trust India Alliance Intermediate Fellow, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG), and research affiliate, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
Scroll.in
24 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC criticises ‘completely vague' petitions against Gujarat's Vantara animal rescue centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised two petitions alleging irregularities in animal rescue centre Vantara and the transfer of an ailing elephant from there, describing the pleas as 'completely vague', Live Law reported. However, the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varela allowed the petitioners to amend their submissions, and scheduled the next hearing for August 25. The first petition demanded that a monitoring committee be set up to look into alleged irregularities at the Reliance Foundation-run Vantara, all captive elephants be returned to their owners and all wild animals at the facility be released back to the wild. The petitioner also questioned the transfer of an ailing elephant named Madhuri or Madhavi from the Kolhapur district to Vantara in Gujarat's Jamnagar. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale, however, questioned how the petitioner could make allegations against the animal rescue centre without even making it a party to the plea. 'You implead them [as respondents] and then come back to us we will see,' the court said, according to PTI. In the second petition, the counsel for the petitioners said that Vantara had already been impleaded in the matter. Mithal, however, asked whether the petitioner had approached the Central Zoo Authority before approaching the Supreme Court. 'Don't file such vague petitions,' the court said, according to Live Law. 'We can't even understand the relief you are seeking.' For over 30 years, the elephant Madhuri had been at a Jain monastery, named the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, in Kolhapur's Nandani village. In July, the Bombay High Court ordered Madhuri's rehabilitation to Vantara, and the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the order. The elephant was moved to the Reliance Foundation-run centre in Gujarat on July 30, sparking protests in Kolhapur. On August 5, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said that the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking Madhuri's return to Kolhapur.
